Round 7—Aff vs Georgetown KK
1AC
PLAN TEXT
The United States should make legal nearly all prohibited cannabis sativa L. in the
United States
1AC 1
Contention one is Mexico The war on drugs fails – legalization creates a regulated domestic industry to
displace cartels
Beckley Foundation, 11 [The Beckley Foundation policy programme is dedicated to
improving national and global drug policies, through research that increases understanding of
the health, social and fiscal implications of drug policy, “Legalizing Marijuana: An Exit Strategy
from the War on Drugs,” http://www.beckleyfoundation.org/2011/04/legalizing-marijuana-anexit-strategy-from-the-war-on-drugs/]
There are a few “unknowns” when it comes to the marijuana industry—its effects on productivity and drug-related violence, for example. Experts need to examine these effects, and policymakers must open their
ears to these experts. A government-sponsored marijuana commission is not a new idea; in fact, Nixon established one in 1972 when he formed the National Commission on Marihuana and Drug Abuse. When the
commission opposed Nixon by supporting decriminalization, he ignored their recommendations and instead intensified his efforts on the “War on Drugs” campaign. This tradition of adhering to popular and
personal beliefs instead of scientific facts is still common today. With the U.S. federal debt sky-high and drug-related violence in Mexico mounting, legalization is more relevant than ever and the topic is ripe for
debate. Here we explore the domestic costs and benefits that the legalization of marijuana would incur, how it might affect the marijuana industry in the Americas (particularly in Mexico), and aims to debunk the
multitude of popular falsehoods that surround marijuana. Why Current Policies Are Not Working Despite assurances from the Drug Enforcement Agency (DEA) that the current drug policy is making headway,
there are clear signs that prohibition has not succeeded in diminishing drug supply or demand. Lowering demand for illegal drugs is the most effective way to lower illegal drug production—while vendors may not
respond to the threat of legal repercussions, they certainly respond to market forces. As the largest consumer of Mexican drugs, it is the responsibility of the U.S. to address its own demand for marijuana. But
American demand and accessibility to marijuana are not decreasing. In fact, marijuana use is currently on the rise and, although usage has oscillated in the past decades, the proportion of use among 12th graders
is only a few percentage points below what it was in 1974. Eighty-one percent of American 12th graders said marijuana was “fairly easy or very easy” to acquire in 2010.2 In a 2009 survey, 16.7 million Americans
While the U.S. may be unable to control its own
demand for marijuana, it could stop its contribution to drug cartel revenues by allowing a
domestic marijuana industry to thrive , shifting profits from cartels to U.S. growers. While figures on
over 12 years of age had used marijuana in the past month—that’s 6.6 percent of the total population.3
marijuana smuggling into the U.S. fail to provide conclusive evidence of how much of the drug is entering the country, marijuana seizures have been steady throughout the Americas in the past decade. However,
this says nothing certain about actual production numbers.4 Domestically, the task of restricting U.S. production is becoming more difficult. Indoor crops that use efficient hydroponic systems are becoming more
popular in the U.S. but pose a challenge to law enforcement agencies for a number of reasons. According to the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC), indoor systems: “[have] the benefit of having
lower chances of detection, high yields with several harvests per year with high potency cannabis and elevated selling prices. The equipment, knowledge and seeds for indoor growing have become very accessible…
[and] The costs of building an indoor growing site can be quickly recovered.”5 Cultivating high-quality marijuana is becoming easier, less risky, and more profitable even for the casual grower. The rise of indoor
crops will pose a new obstacle to drug enforcement agencies in stopping marijuana production in the U.S. The UNODC outlines other negative “unintended consequences” that have resulted from the illegality of
when a good is forbidden, a black market inevitably rises. Black markets inherently
lack safety regulations and often finance other criminal activities. A second consequence is that treatment programs are often
underfunded when the bulk of any drug policy budget is spent on law enforcement. Two other consequences have been termed “geographical” and “substance” displacement. Both terms
involve the idea of the “balloon effect”: when an activity is suppressed in one area, it simply
reappears in another area. Geographical displacement can be illustrated by events in Colombia,
the Caribbean, and Mexico: as the U.S. cracked down on Colombian drug trafficking, smuggling
routes were shifted to Mexico and the Caribbean. Drug trafficking was not eliminated, but
simply moved from one site to another. Substance displacement is an even more disturbing repercussion: as availability of one drug is mitigated through
drugs. The first is obvious;
enforcement, consumers and suppliers flock to alternate drugs that are more accessible.6 While marijuana is not a harmless substance, most would agree that it is the least harmful of illicit drugs. Some drug users
may be pushed toward more dangerous substances, or “hard” drugs, because marijuana is too difficult to or dangerous to obtain. Conversely,
marijuana could pull users away from hard drugs.
raising the accessibility of
These ramifications of the current drug control system need to be taken into
account in the debate over legalization. A critical shortcoming of U.S. drug policy is that it treats drug addiction as a crime instead of a health matter. Almost 60 percent of the overall economic cost of drug abuse is
due to expenditures spent on “drug crime”—the sale, manufacture, and possession of drugs.7 There seems to be a wide consensus that at the very least, drug policy must shift its focus to treatment. Tarnishing
someone’s record for drug use makes no sense; it encourages criminal activity by obstructing job opportunities and it does nothing to address the factors that cause drug use. Additionally, treatment is not readily
accessible to those seeking help despite its efficacy in preventing future drug use. In 2009, 20.9 million Americans (8.3 percent of the total population over age 12) who needed treatment for drug or alcohol abuse
did not receive it in a specialty facility—a hospital, a rehab facility, or a mental health facility.8 This is an unacceptably high number. The U.S. overinvests in its prohibition strategy while severely underfunding
treatment options. Marijuana legalization’s potential role in improving treatment options for all drugs will be discussed later in this article; for now, suffice it to say that the status quo is not producing the desired
results and requires modification. Legalization and The Mexican Drug War The issue of legalization has been brought to the forefront in recent years because of numerous calls by Latin American leaders to discuss
the matter as a viable policy option. Presidents Juan Manuel Santos of Colombia and Felipe Calderón of Mexico, while not personally advocating legalization, have publicly called for serious discussion of the
concept. Former Mexican President Vicente Fox, who previously took a hard line against drugs, has altered his public stance and now supports legalization of all drugs, especially marijuana. He argues that
prohibition does not work, that drug production ends up funding criminals, and that it is the responsibility of citizens to decide whether to use drugs or not.9 Former Presidents Fernando Henrique Cardoso of
Brazil, Ernesto Zedillo of Mexico, and César Gaviria of Colombia all supported in a report by The Latin American Commission on Drugs and Democracy that the U.S. decriminalize marijuana use (Colombia and
Mexico have already done so).10 The U.S. has ignored these requests to place drug legalization or decriminalization on the policy agenda. Drug trafficking is not a national problem; it transcends country borders
and needs to be approached from a hemispheric perspective. Therefore, the United States needs to work with its southern neighbors to formulate a comprehensive drug policy. However, it is also telling that every
Latin American leader who has formally supported legalization or decriminalization has done so only after leaving office, indicating that such policies are not politically “safe” stances. The difference between
decriminalization permits drug use while legalization
permits both drug use and production. Those that favor decriminalization maintain that it would enable law enforcement agencies to shift resources from
prosecuting drug users to prosecuting drug suppliers. Decriminalization would also free up resources for effective drug treatment programs. Those that favor legalization go
one step further than decriminalization: in Vicente Fox’s words, “[W]e have to take all the production chain out of the hands of criminals and into
the hands of producers—so there are farmers that produce marijuana and manufacturers that process it and distributors that distribute it, and shops that sell it.”11 Legalization would
include the benefits of decriminalization , while also depriving gangs and cartels of a
lucrative product; if both the supply and demand sides are legitimate, a black market would
become obsolete. Legalizing marijuana in the United States, the largest buyer of Mexican
drugs, could potentially weaken drug cartels by limiting their sources of revenue. The UNODC has acknowledged
that this is a plausible way of reducing gang and cartel profits.12 Mexican and American Marijuana Markets Eliminating the marijuana market share of
Mexican cartels would hit them especially hard because it serves as a steady, reliable source of
decriminalization and legalization is in their degree of leniency towards drugs;
income and carries relatively little risk for them to produce. The percentage of total cartel drug revenues from marijuana is greatly debated—
Mexican and American official figures range from 50-65 percent, but a study by the RAND Corporation suggests closer to 15-26 percent.13 Even the most conservative of
these estimates—roughly a fifth of revenue—would strike a blow to cartel profits if
eliminated. Marijuana is particularly valuable to cartels because they control the entire
production line; they both grow and distribute it themselves, making it more reliable and
less risky . Conversely, cocaine is imported to Mexico mostly from South America, heightening
the risk of smuggling it. More troubling is that cartels are now even growing marijuana on U.S. public lands, mostly throughout national parks and forests, in order to avoid the task of
smuggling drugs across the U.S.-Mexican border.14 If Mexico were to reach the point of legalizing marijuana, the U.S.
could continue to buy the drug legally from south of the border, like many other
consumer goods . But even if Mexico did not implement its own legalization, recent data
indicates that a domestic U.S. industry could fill the role of the supplier and eliminate the need
for Mexican marijuana. The drug is increasingly grown domestically15 and U.S. growers are already posing a threat to Mexican market share. Exact numbers are impossible to assess,
but figures of American domestic marijuana production range from 30-60 percent of the total consumed in the U.S.16 Additionally, a report by the RAND Corporation found that legalizing marijuana in California
alone (and a subsequent rise in state-wide marijuana production) could lower Mexican cartel marijuana revenues by 65-85 percent. This could occur if Californian marijuana were smuggled to the rest of the U.S.
where the drug would still be illegal. The marijuana’s projected high quality and low price would make it an extremely competitive product.17 It seems reasonable to assume that if the drug were legalized in all fifty
states, the domestic market could easily overwhelm the Mexican market share. In terms of tangible effects on Mexican drug violence, the RAND Corporation and UNODC agree that removing U.S. demand for
illegal marijuana would increase violence in the short run because Mexican cartels would be fighting for dominance in a shrinking market.18 But in the long run, once U.S. demand is met by domestic supply,
The U.S. population is by far the largest drug market for
Mexico, making our action necessary for any transnational legalization to be effective. While
cocaine, methamphetamines, and heroin are still funding cartels, drug violence will not be
completely eliminated; but any move to starve their resources is a step forward in
weakening them and, ultimately, saving lives.
cartels would be financially debilitated and, most likely, some of the violence quelled.
Only the plan sufficiently limits cartel power
Carpenter, 11 [Undermining Mexico’s Dangerous Drug Cartels by Ted Galen Carpenter, Ted
Galen Carpenter, a senior fellow at the Cato Institute, is the author of eight books and more than
500 articles and policy studies on international issues. His latest book, The Fire Next Door:
Mexico’s Drug Violence and the Danger to America, is forthcoming in 2012]
unless the production and sale of drugs is also legalized, the black-market premium
will still exist and law-abiding businesses will still stay away from the trade. In other words, drug
commerce will remain in the hands of criminal elements that do not shrink from engaging
in bribery, intimidation, and murder. Wall Street Journal columnist Mary Anastasia O’Grady aptly makes that distinction with respect to the drug-law reform that
Mexico enacted in 2009: Mexican consumers will now have less fear of penalties and, increasingly in the case of marijuana, that’s true in the United States as well. But trafficking will
remain illegal, and to get their product past law enforcement the criminals will still have an
enormous incentive to bribe or to kill. Decriminalization will not take the money out of the
business, and therefore will not reduce corruption, cartel intimidation aimed at democraticgovernment authority or the terror heaped on local populations by drug lords.58 Because of its proximity to the huge
U.S. market, Mexico will continue to be a cockpit for that drug-related violence. By its domestic commitment to prohibition, the United States is
creating the risk that the drug cartels may become powerful enough to destabilize its southern
neighbor. Their impact on Mexico’s government and society has already reached worrisome levels. Worst of all, the
Yet
carnage associated with the black-market trade in drugs does not respect national boundaries. The frightening violence now convulsing Mexico could become a feature of life in American communities, as the
cartels begin to flex their muscles north of the border. When the United States and other countries ponder whether to persist in a strategy of drug prohibition, they need to consider all of the potential societal
costs, both domestic and international. On the domestic front, American’s prisons are bulging with people who have run afoul of the drug laws. Approximately one-third of inmates in state prisons and nearly 60
percent of those in federal prisons are incarcerated for drug trafficking offenses. Most of those inmates are small-time dealers. Prohibition has created or exacerbated a variety of social pathologies, especially in
minority communities where drug use rates are higher than the national average and rates of arrests and imprisonment are dramatically higher. Those are all serious societal costs of prohibition. Conclusion
The most feasible and effective strategy to counter the mounting turmoil in Mexico is to
drastically reduce the potential revenue flows to the trafficking organizations. In other words, the
United States could substantially defund the cartels through the full legalization (including
manufacture and sale) of currently illegal drugs. If Washington abandoned the prohibition model, it is very
likely that other countries in the international community would do the same. The United States
exercises disproportionate influence on the issue of drug policy, as it does on so many other
international issues. If prohibition were rescinded, the profit margins for the drug trade would
be similar to the margins for other legal commodities, and legitimate businesses would become
the principal players. That is precisely what happened when the United States ended its quixotic
crusade against alcohol in 1933. To help reverse the burgeoning tragedy of drug-related violence in Mexico, Washington must seriously consider adopting a similar course today with
Even taking the first step away from prohibition by legalizing marijuana, indisputably the
could cause problems for the Mexican cartels. Experts provide a wide range
of estimates about how important the marijuana trade is to those organizations. The high-end estimate, from a
former DEA official, is that marijuana accounts for approximately 55 percent of total revenues. Other experts dispute that figure.
respect to currently illegal drugs.
mildest and least harmful of the illegal drugs,
Edgardo Buscaglia, who was a research scholar at the conservative Hoover Institution until 2008, provides the low-end estimate, contending that the drug amounts to “less than 10 percent” of total revenues.
the marijuana business is financially
important to the cartels. The Mexican marijuana trade is already under pressure from
competitors in the United States. One study concluded that the annual harvest in California alone equaled or exceeded the entire national production in Mexico, and that output for the
Officials in both the U.S. and Mexican governments contend that it’s more like 20 to 30 percent.59 Whatever the actual percentage,
United States was more than twice that of Mexico.60 As sentiment for hard-line prohibition policies fades in the United States, and the likelihood of prosecution diminishes, one could expect domestic growers,
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
both large and small, to become bolder about starting or expanding their businesses.
Americans, they could just grow their own supply—a cost advantage that the cartels could not hope to match. It is increasingly apparent, in any case, that both the U.S. and Mexican governments need to make
drastic changes in their efforts to combat Mexico’s drug cartels. George Grayson aptly summarizes the fatal flaw in the existing strategy. “It is extremely difficult—probably impossible—to eradicate the cartels.
They or their offshoots will fight to hold on to an enterprise that yields Croesus-like fortunes from illegal substances craved by millions of consumers.”61 Felipe Calderón’s military-led offensive is not just a futile,
The most
effective way is to greatly reduce the “Croesus-like” fortunes available to the cartels. And the
only realistic way to do that is to bite the bullet and end the policy of drug prohibition,
preferably in whole, but at least in part, starting with the legalization of marijuana. A failure to move away
from prohibition in the United States creates the risk that the already nasty corruption and violence
next door in Mexico may get even worse. The danger grows that our southern neighbor could
become, if not a full-blown failed state, at least a de-facto narco-state in which the leading drug
cartels exercise parallel or dual political sovereignty with the government of Mexico. We may eventually encounter a situation—if we haven’t already—
where the cartels are the real power in significant portions of the country. And we must worry that the disorder inside Mexico will
spill over the border into the United States to a much greater extent than it has to this point. The fire of drug-related
violence is flaring to an alarming extent in Mexico. U.S. leaders need to take constructive action now, before that fire consumes our neighbor’s home
and threatens our own. That means recognizing reality and ending the second failed prohibition crusade.
utopian crusade. That would be bad enough, but the reality is much worse. It is a futile, utopian crusade that has produced an array of ugly, bloody side effects. A different approach is needed.
Marijuana is the largest revenue source–it directly contributes to wider cartel
influence
Valdez, 09 [Linda Valdez, Linda Valdez has been writing commentary for The Arizona
Republic since 1993. A graduate of the University of Arizona, she worked at The Arizona Daily
Star in Tucson before coming to the Republic. She has won numerous state and national writing
awards. In 2011, she won the Scripps Howard Walker Stone Award for editorial writing, and she
was a finalist for the Pulitzer Prize in 2003. She is author of a book, "A Doctor's Legacy," which
tells the life story of Merlin K. "Monte" DuVal, the man who founded Arizona's first medical
school at the University of Arizona. She has done commentaries on radio and television in
Tucson. - Mar. 15, 2009 12:00 AM, The Arizona Republic, Stem the violence, make marijuana
legal,
http://www.azcentral.com/arizonarepublic/viewpoints/articles/2009/03/14/20090314Valdez1
5-vip.html]
Mexico's drug cartels would continue to be, in the words of the Justice Department's National Drug Threat Assessment for 2009, "the
greatest drug-trafficking threat to the United States." Now, imagine a different weapon. Consider the impact of eliminating the most profitable
product the cartels sell. All we have to do is legalize marijuana. "Marijuana is the (Mexican cartels') cash crop, the cash
cow," says Brittany Brown of the U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration's Washington office, which does not advocate legalizing pot. Marijuana
is cheap to grow and requires no processing. More than a million pounds of it was seized in Arizona in each of the past two years, according
to figures provided by Ramona Sanchez of the DEA's Phoenix office. But those seizures were just a cost of doing business for multibillion-dollar drug lords. Marijuana continued
buying pot is easier than getting cigarettes or booze, says Bill
Some argue that if you
legalize marijuana there would still be a black market. They say that because the product is so cheap to produce, the black market could
underprice legal pot and sell to kids. But consider what we know about alcohol. ��First, Prohibition didn't work.
to be widely available - and not just to adults. Teens tell researchers that
Piper, director of National Affairs for the Drug Policy Alliance, which does advocate legalizing marijuana. Cannabis vs. alcohol
Second, even though alcohol sales are regulated, back-alley or school-yard sales of moonshine is not a billion-dollar
problem. ��Third, alcohol, like its addictive killer-cousin tobacco, is taxed, which helps cover its costs to society. Not
��
so with marijuana. After decades of anti-pot campaigns, from Reefer Madness to zero tolerance, so many Americans choose to smoke marijuana that the Mexican cartels have
become an international threat to law and order. Instead of paying taxes on their vice, pot smokers are enriching thugs and murderers. "People who smoke pot in the United
drug users help sharpen the knives
that cartel henchmen use to behead their enemies and terrorize Mexican border towns. Even marijuana
States don't think they are connected to the cartels," Brown says. "Actually, they are very connected." American
grown in the United States, increasingly in national parks and on other public lands, is often connected to Mexican cartels, Brown says. According to the Justice Department's
2009 assessment, cartels have "established varied transportation routes, advanced communications capabilities and strong affiliations with gangs in the United States" and
The DEA says cartels are
"poly-drug organizations" that routinely smuggle cocaine, methamphetamine, heroin and precursor
chemicals through our state. "(But) marijuana generates the most profit," Sanchez says. Removing a cash cow Legalizing marijuana
would not stop pushers from selling other, more lethal poisons. But taking away their most profitable product would hurt
criminal organizations that have grown richer, more powerful and better armed during the socalled war on drugs that was first declared by President Richard Nixon. Today's Mexican cartels "are as ruthless and brutal as any terrorist organization," says Sen.
John McCain, R-Ariz., who is opposed to legalizing marijuana. Their brutality is destabilizing Mexico. Several years after Mexican President
Felipe Calder�n bravely decided to take on the cartels, Mexico ranks with Pakistan as "weak and failing states" in a
recent report by the United States Joint Forces Command. Why? Because Mexico's "government,
its politicians, police and judicial infrastructure are all under sustained assault and pressure by criminal gangs and drug
cartels," the report says. While U.S. drug users enrich the cartels, the U.S. government pours huge amounts of money into defeating them. The Bush administration sold
"maintain drug-distribution networks or supply drugs to distributors in at least 230 U.S. cities." Including Phoenix and Tucson.
Congress on the Merida Initiative, a multiyear, $1.4 billion aid package designed to provide training and high-tech assistance to help a besieged Mexican government combat the
cartels. Even in these days of gazillion-dollar bailouts, that's a chunk of change. But consider this: According to a report last fall from the Government Accountability Office, the
United States has provided more than $6 billion to support Plan Colombia since fiscal 2000. The goal of reducing processing and distribution of illicit drugs (mostly cocaine) by
50 percent was not achieved, the GAO found. A GAO report from July 15, 2008, says that since fiscal 2003, the United States has provided more than $950 million to
counternarcotics efforts in the 6 million square-mile "transit zone" that includes Central America, the Caribbean, the Gulf of Mexico and the eastern Pacific Ocean. What did this
buy? "Despite gains in international cooperation, several factors, including resource limitations and lack of political will, have impeded U.S. progress in helping governments
become full and self-sustaining partners in the counternarcotics effort - a goal of U.S. assistance," the report said. Weary of the drug war Our southern neighbors are getting
tired of fighting our drug war. Last month, the Latin American Commission on Drugs and Democracy called for a shift from the "prohibitionist policies based on eradication,
interdiction and criminalization." Former Latin American Presidents Ernesto Zedillo (Mexico), Cesar Gaviria (Colombia) and Fernando Henrique Cardoso (Brazil) said the drug
war has failed. It was a tragically costly failure. In testimony before Congress last June, Peter Reuter of the University of Maryland School of Public Policy and department of
criminology, said, "It is likely that total expenditures for drug control, at all levels of government, totaled close to $40 billion in 2007." He said about 500,000 people are in
prison in the United States for drug offenses on any given day. Piper says 800,000 people a year are arrested on marijuana charges, the vast majority for simple possession.
Now, consider the possibilities of a new approach. In 2005, economist Jeffrey A. Miron put together a report suggesting that if marijuana were taxed at rates similar to alcohol
and tobacco, legal sales would raise $6.2 billion a year. California Assemblyman Tom Ammiano, a Democrat from San Francisco, is trying to get his state to legalize marijuana
for adult use, set up a state licensing system and levy a tax that some say could raise $1 billion a year. Let's be clear: Marijuana can cause dependency. It saps initiative and
energy. It is unhealthful and smelly. I don't use it. But a lot of people do like the effects of this intoxicant, and they believe they can control its addictive properties. This is exactly
why people drink margaritas during happy hour. This is also why a war on drugs is unwinnable. You'd think a country built on capitalism would understand basic laws of supply
and demand. Instead, a failed and irrational national policy blunders forward, costing billions, incarcerating large numbers of people and enriching ruthless crime syndicates.
The cartels are not stagnant. They are growing in power and influence. In Phoenix, Mexican cartels are blamed for a
dramatic rise in kidnapping and other violence. Arizona Attorney General Terry Goddard says it may be only a matter of time before the kind of turf battles that are common in
Mexico erupt along drug-transit corridors in Arizona. Goddard, who does not support legalization, says, "I do support an intelligent dialogue (on legalization)." Brave but
hopeless fight Law enforcement has a smart-bomb approach to eliminating the bad guys. Last month, the DEA announced Operation Xcellerator, a 21-month multi-agency effort
aimed at the Sinaloan cartel. It culminated in more than 750 arrests and the seizure of 23 tons of drugs and $59.1 million in cash. The police work involved was smart and
courageous. After all, cartels torture and kill cops. But while police were putting their lives on the line for the war on drugs, U.S. drug users were helping the cartels make up for
any economic losses.
It's time to hit the bad guys where it really hurts. Take away their cash cow.
Recent evidence confirms violence now
Keller, 11/28/14 [Jared, director of news at Mic. A former associate editor at The Atlantic and
social media director for Bloomberg Digital, he has also written for Aeon, Al Jazeera America,
Outside, Pacific Standard, and The Verge.“Mexico is On the Brink of Disaster — and It's Time
for the U.S. to Pay Attention”, http://mic.com/articles/105324/mexico-is-on-the-brink-ofdisaster-and-it-s-time-for-the-u-s-to-pay-attention]
The crisis in Mexico is getting worse. Eleven mutilated corpses were found
grave in southwest Mexico.
The news:
Thursday
in a mass
The bodies were uncovered in the same state where 43 missing students were abducted and massacred in September, the Guardian reported. The discovery came mere hours before
embattled President Enrique Peña Nieto vowed to reform Mexico's police structure and root out collusion among law enforcement agencies, political officials and drug gangs. "Mexico cannot continue like this," Peña Nieto said. "After Iguala, Mexico has to change.
Our country has been shaken by cruelty and barbarism." If Mexico changes, one thing is clear: It will take more than Peña Nieto alone to put the country's democracy back on track. Source: AP The background: Peña Nieto has been under pressure after mass protests
in the wake of the disappearance of the 43 students in Mexico's Guerrero state. Protesters set fire earlier this month to the wooden door of Peña Nieto's ceremonial palace in Mexico City to demand justice for students and the disappearance of thousands of Mexicans.
More than 100,000 people have been murdered in Mexico since 2006, when
Calderón
launched a
campaign against
narcotics traffickers It's the collusion between
cartels
and public officials that manifests in tens of thousands of missing people, and public tolerance
for the country's ongoing cycle of violence reached a tipping point with the disappearance of
those 43 students.
With each new grisly discovery, Mexico inches closer to the
brink of disaster.
analysts suggest that, under Nieto, Mexico is moving further from
democracy and closer to a failed state
"Even before the tragic
kidnapping of 43 students
Nieto was already teetering on the
then-President Felipe
militarized
the country's
.
Source: AP Why it matters:
Observers or
Peña
, one which can't even protect its citizens from the daily violence of narcoterrorism.
from the Ayotzinapa teachers' college in late September, Mexico's President Enrique Peña
Mexican drug
brink Mexican Law Review editor John Ackerman wrote.
,"
"His neoliberal reform agenda, systematic repression of protests and iron-fisted control over the media
had turned him into the most unpopular president in recent Mexican history. The enormous unrest that has erupted in recent days is, therefore, not only about criminality and violence but also social power and democratic politics." Source: AP This isn't just a
problem for Mexico, but for the U.S. as well. Mexico's vicious cartels pose more of a threat to U.S. national security than more ominous threats like the Islamic State: While an estimated 9,000 civilians were killed and 17,386 were wounded in Iraq in 2014,
members of drug cartels killed more than 16,000 people in Mexico in 2013, with another 60,000
people who were killed between 2006 and 2012, "a rate of more than one killing every half-hour
for the last seven years," according to Al Jazeera
America.
The plan solve—
1. Market share, legal regulation and history
Carlo, 11/25/14 [Juan, Staff Writer at the Prospect Journal, internal citations, including
Robert Dowd, Lieutenant Colonel Robert H. Dowd, USAF-Ret. is eminently qualified by
background, education, and training to do a strategic analysis of the U.S. government's "War on
Drugs." Colonel Dowd's analytical abilities gained him a prized research assignment with Air
Force Cambridge Research Laboratories in Massachusetts, and later served as project officer for
a major research project during the United States' last atmospheric nuclear test in 1962. He was
also a key staff member on the Department of Defense joint staff serving in the NASA Mission
Control Center (Houston) in support of the Apollo lunar missions, including Armstrong's walk
on the moon and the flight of the ill-fated Apollo 13. A graduate of Florida State University and
the USAF's Air War College, “NUKE” THE CARTELS: SHOULD WE UNLEASH OUR
ULTIMATE WEAPON ON MEXICO’S DRUG CARTELS? November 25, 2014,
http://prospectjournal.org/2014/11/25/nuke-the-cartels-should-we-unleash-our-ultimateweapon-on-mexicos-drug-cartels/]
We are currently in year 44 of the War on Drugs
and year eight of the Mexican Campaign but not much progress has been made in defeating the Mexican drug cartels. Since Mexican
President Felipe Calderón’s declaration of war against the Mexican drug cartels in 2006, more than 60,000 people have died in drug related violence with another 26,000 missing
closer to defeat.
. Despite this, the cartels are no
They still control large areas of Mexico, and even more frightening for Americans, the cartels have spread their operations deep into the United States, operating in more than 1,200 American communities. No matter how
maybe it is time to
ask, “Should we nuke the cartels?”
, let me be clear that by saying “nuke the drug
cartels”, I do not mean unleashing 510 megatons of TNT on Tijuana
I mean hitting the
cartels with our ultimate weapon – marijuana legalization. The phrase comes from a
chapter in Lt. Col. Robert Dowd’s book “The Enemy is Us.”
Dowd argues that marijuana
legalization would be the equivalent of a nuclear bomb for the cartels, wiping them out.
Legalization would allow businesses in the U S to sell previously illegal marijuana and
compete with the cartels. This will affect the cartels in one of three ways: the cartels will lose
market share and profits against legal U.S. businesses the price of marijuana will fall to the
point where it is not profitable for the cartels to operate or the cartels will become legal
businesses that no longer need to resort to violence to enforce contracts. Similar
arguments have been made by people on all sides of the political spectrum, reminiscent of
1920’s alcohol prohibition. With no legal competition, crime bosses such as Al Capone took
advantage of the opportunity and created a black market for alcohol. The result was a crime
wave of gangs fighting each other for control of the market Homicide rates rose
many cartel leaders are arrested or killed, the cartels will continue to operate and expand their reach. With the situation dire and Mexican citizens no longer tolerating the corruption that has plagued their country,
drug
Before I am denounced as a warmonger
or Ciudad Juarez.
[1] Lt. Col.
nited
tates
,
,
.
all over the country, especially in
major cities such as Chicago. Corruption of federal, state and local law enforcement officers undermined the public’s trust in the rule of law. While some scholars have tried to downplay the negative effects of alcohol prohibition, from a security standpoint it was a
For 14 years the mob ran the alcohol industry. That is, until the legalization ended the
monopoly, the mob had on the industry and allowed legal competition to compete in a safe,
regulated environment.
It seems possible then that if legalization
was the key to ending the alcohol cartels, drug legalization can end the drug cartels.
there have been very few academic studies rigorously evaluating the effects of
recently passed drug legalization
For example, a Rand
study from 2010 tried to
predict the impact of California potentially legalizing marijuana
the study suggests that
marijuana legalization would not have the large impact on cartels legalization advocates were
hoping for.
disaster.
One cannot help but draw comparisons between 1920s Chicago to 2014 Mexico.
While many
have brought up this point before,
propositions on the cartels.
Corporation
. Despite claims otherwise,
The study disputes the claim from U.S. officials that 60 percent of Mexican cartel profits come from marijuana, estimating it closer to 15 to 26 percent. Legalization in only California would affect 2 to 4 percent of the cartel’s export
A
similar study by the Mexican Institute of Competitiveness that tried to predict the impact of
legalization in Colorado, Oregon and Washington, made a somewhat similar claim
revenues. However, the study also claimed that if California were able to smuggle marijuana to other states, effectively legalizing marijuana nationwide, this would cause cartels to lose approximately 20 percent of their total drug export revenues.
. It predicted that legalization would
cause drug revenues for cartels to drop 22 to 30 percent in each individual state. If the results of both studies hold for each state, the cartels could possibly lose 20 to 30 percent of their revenues from selling to the United States were nationwide legalization fully
While these studies should be viewed with a grain of salt, there is some empirical evidence
from recent legalization efforts to back them up. With just a few states legalizing marijuana,
farmers in the Sinaloa region of Mexico have stopped planting marijuana since the wholesale
price of marijuana has plummeted fitting with predictions that legalization will hurt the
marijuana profits of cartels.
implemented.
,
Drug cartels are finding it difficult to compete in the marijuana market now that it faces competition from the United States. Does this evidence prove drug legalization is the weapon that
can destroy the cartels? Well, not quite.
2. The aff is key to undermine the Sinaloa and Tijuana cartels—that’s key to overall
stability
Chad Murray 11, M.A. student in the Latin American and Hemispheric Studies Program @
George Washington, supervised and sponsored by the OAS and Inter-American Drug Abuse
Control Commission, “Mexican Drug Trafficking Organizations and Marijuana: The Potential
Effects of U.S. Legalization”, 4/26/11,
https://elliott.gwu.edu/sites/elliott.gwu.edu/files/downloads/acad/lahs/mexico-marijuana071111.pdf
While Los Zetas and La Familia have recently dominated the media coverage of the drug war in Mexico, they might not be
objectively termed the strongest cartels in the country. They are the most active in attacking government forces and setting up narco
bloqueos in major cities.59 However, they do not have the financial strength, military prowess, territorial reach, or tactical discipline
of Mexico‟s largest DTO, the Sinaloa cartel. 60 This DTO and the Tijuana cartel are major traffickers of
marijuana, and their territories are the major marijuana production areas in Mexico. They have
near exclusive control of the so called “Golden Triangle” region of Mexico where the mountainous areas
of Sinaloa, Durango and Chihuahua states meet. This makes sense, because according to sources in the Drug Enforcement Agency
these two DTOs likely make a majority their revenue from marijuana.¶ The amount of marijuana
trafficked by the Sinaloa cartel is evident by the scale of recent drug busts. In October of 2010 Mexican
police and military forces seized more than 134 metric tons of marijuana in one Sinaloa facility. This was equal to almost $200
million according to Mexican authorities.63 The very next month 30 tons of marijuana was retrieved by law enforcement on both
sides of the border after a Tijuana drug smuggling tunnel was discovered.64 The DTO behind this operation has not been
determined, but based on the location it is likely to be either the Sinaloa cartel or Arello Felix Organization. These seizures represent
only a proportion of the amount marijuana trafficked into the United States from Mexico through the San Diego-Tijuana corridor in
2 months. There are other drug transport corridors that likely receive more marijuana traffic. ¶ Although the Sinaloa cartel
does not often target civilians, it is the most violent DTO in terms of overall casualties. It has
targeted hundreds of police officers and its leader, “El Chapo” Guzmán, is widely thought to
have caused a recent upsurge in violence after breaking a truce with the other major criminal groups in the
country.66 The feud between the Sinaloa and Juarez organizations is the reason that Juarez is the most violent city in Mexico, and
according to some accounts, the entire world. 67 The Sinaloa cartel’s huge financial resources make it a
major threat to the government , because they are able to corrupt large numbers of local, state, and
federal government officials. This was revealed in several high profile cases in recent years.68The Sinaloa cartel is
constantly trying to expand its territory into that traditionally held by other cartels, particularly in
Juarez, and this is a major cause of much of the violence.¶ The Sinaloa cartel has the greatest capacity
to wage „all-out war‟ because they have far more money than the other DTOs. Guzmán is also more
focused on winning the favor and tacit protection of the populace, and thus is more involved in the drugs trade than
kidnapping, and prefers to bribe rather than confront authorities.69 However, in many ways this makes the Sinaloa cartel
more dangerous to the Government in Mexico. Its use of bribes can make local state and even federal law
enforcement unreliable. Furthermore, the Sinaloa organization’s outreach to the civilian population makes it even harder
for the government to gain information about Guzmán. In addition, the massive strength of the Sinaloa cartel makes an eventual
peace all the more allusive. In the event that the government would try to reduce the violence through talks with cartels, the Sinaloa
organization would be unlikely to take them seriously. The government has little to offer big organizations like Sinaloa, which
already enjoy near uncontested control over the areas in which they operate.¶ The Tijuana cartel is also a powerful, though often
underrated organization. This group was infamous in 2008 and 2009, when it destabilized much of Tijuana with its attacks on the
police and rival cartels. 71As with the Sinaloa cartel, the Tijuana cartel is a very important organization with
networks mainly in the Tijuana and the San Diego area. This DTO is famous for both its violence
and the brutality. Most notoriously, Teodoro García Simental’s war for control of Tijuana led to hundreds being tortured and
killed until his arrest in 2010. ¶ The main areas where the Sinaloa and Tijuana cartels tend to cultivate marijuana include
Sonora, Michoacán, and Sinaloa states. They focus on trafficking in marijuana because it is easy to grow,
profitable for wholesale, and cheap to pay laborers. In 2010 farmers received only 15 to 20 dollars for a pound of
marijuana. 73 This price is just barely above the amount farmers could get for corn and other produce. Therefore, if the price
farmers were to be paid for marijuana were to fall much further, it is not unlikely that many
would turn to more legitimate crops.¶ These cartels represent a huge part of the Mexican
organized criminal structure. Dealing a major blow to these groups could give the Mexican
government a leg up. The Sinaloa cartel currently has the ability, due to its huge monetary reserves, to project its influence
and carry out violence acts across vast swathes of Mexico. The Tijuana cartel holds large parts of its namesakxe city through violence
and coercion. The following chapter will explore what effect, if any, the legalization of marijuana would have on the revenue,
operational capacities, overall strength, and ability to wage violence for these two cartels.
Cartel influence determines the likelihood of state failure
Pedigo, 12 [David, “The Drug War and State Failure in Mexico” The Johns Hopkins University
- Paul H. Nitze School of Advanced International Studies (SAIS) Beloit College Universidad San
Fransisco de Quito Cumbayá The Drug War and State Failure in Mexico David Pedigo Beloit
College]
State failure is an imminent threat in Mexico but it is not inevitable. Even failed cities
are not unavoidable realities.
This goal must be to reduce the power of cartels so that the Mexican state
can gain a monopoly on the use of legitimate force throughout its territory. This monopoly
cannot be fully achieved through policies that aim to stop the flow of drugs or reduce short term
violence
indeed
characterize its border region
,
the
that have begun to
It is necessary, however, for policies to have the appropriate goals in mind, as well as a clear understanding of how those goals can be realistically
accomplished, before the current situation can be reversed.
; these are merely symptoms of cartel power. While statistics such as homicide rates and levels of drug trafficking are certainly indicative of cartel activity, they are not necessarily accurate indicators of cartel power. Indeed, over the short term,
spikes of violence may even signify the desperate attempts of cartels to assert their power when it is being threatened. While it may be more difficult to measure, a more relevant indicator of cartel power may be the frequency with which state actors such as mayors,
police chiefs, governors, etc. are forced out of their post or bribed by cartels. Bribery is never likely to stop outright, but it is not overly ambitious to aim to create a Mexico where cartels can no longer influence high ranking public officials by violence and
intimidation. Higher arrests and conviction rates would also be indicative of the state’s regained monopoly on the use of force. To put this in perspective, while the ar rest rate in the United States is in the 90th percentile and the conviction rate is over 50 percent,102
the arrest rate in Mexico is 22 percent and the conviction rate is 1.5 percent.103 Mexico should by no means be expected to match these rates of its much more developed neighbor to the north, but this comparison shows that a dramatic increase is certainly needed.
This is no small task, and Mexico cannot do it alone; it will require substantial assistance from the United States. This means more than financial assistance; the United States must own up to its role in the drug war through implementing effective policies. U.S.
nothing
would more significantly impact the drug war in Mexico than the full legalization
of
drugs
it would completely change the dynamics of the drug trade and weaken the cartels
in a way that perhaps nothing else could.
cartel power is the principle threat to the
Mexican state,
intelligence networks in the DEA and other law enforcement bodies are much better established than their Mexican counterparts, and these networks will continue to be useful in the pursuit of cartel members in the future. However,
in the United States
at least some
. As mentioned earlier,
It should also be noted that while
reducing this power will not solve all of Mexico’s ills, and crime and violence will most likely persist even after cartels are weakened. In Jamaica, for example, local gang bosses, or “dons” have continued to draw influence from
urban communities and engage in turf battles even after the shift of major drug flows to the Central American corridor. The dons in Jamaica are able to maintain their power networks because of a lack of alternative economic opportunities to crime.104 Undermining
the power of drug cartels in Mexico may help to avoid state failure, but the persistence of crime itself is an economic problem at heart. However, this is an entirely separate issue. Crippling the cartels in Mexico may also cause the drug trade to relocate once more, just
as it did after Plan Colombia. In fact, this has already begun to happen in Central America, which is now seeing increased levels of violence, with Honduras and El Salvador exhibiting the highest national homicide rates in the world (more than 60 murders a year per
every 100,000 people). 105 Unfortunately, given the history of the drug trade, this may simply be an unavoidable consequence. From the U.S. perspective, this at least means relocating the violence away from the border, but once again, this is a separate issue
The cartels of Mexico have created a
system that undermines the rule of law,
robs the Mexican state of its monopoly on the use of force, and threatens to turn Mexico into a
failed state.
doing nothing may create a failed state in Mexico
would have catastrophic results for both the United States and Mexico.
entirely.
n incredibly complex and dangerous
Destroying this power structure will be equally complex. It will take years, cost billions of dollars and thousands of lives, and may ultimately be an incomplete victory. Just as the drug trade will never be completely stopped, drug
traffickers will never completely lose power. Though it may seem to be a thankless struggle,
, which, as Mearsheimer and David
have both observed,
Mexico collapse causes terrorism
Pease 11 (Shadd A. Pease--master of arts in international security and former intelligence
analyst, June 2011, “Instability in the South: The Implications of Mexican State Failure on U.S.
National Security”, Proquest)//EM
Foreign Terrorist Organizations and Violations of Mexican State Sovereignty The possibility of foreign terrorist
organizations using Mexico as a base of operations for future attacks on the United States would
have major implication on U.S. national security. Foreign terrorist organizations, most likely linked to AlQaeda, would have greater freedom of movement in Mexico due to the lack of security in that
country. Organizations such as Al-Qaeda seem to move from country to country preying on weak and
chaotic states. The government of Mexico would be unable to sufficiently hamper the activities of terrorist organizations due to
a failed state scenario. The Mexican military and police forces would have limited leadership from the federal government which is
needed in order to confront terrorist organizations. The lack of security within the border of Mexico would provide terrorist
organizations with the needed cover to plan, train, and conduct terrorist activities. This insecurity in
Mexico is in stark contrast when compared to the United States neighbor to the north, Canada.
Cartel strength is an independent internal link
WND 10/13/14—citing Michael Maloof, former senior security policy analyst in the office of
the secretary of defense
(“Drug cartels, al-Qaida linked by 1 key factor”, http://www.wnd.com/2014/10/drug-cartels-al-qaida-linked-by-1-key-factor/, dml)
Three months ago, Michael Maloof, a former
senior security policy analyst in the office of the secretary of defense,
warned that ISIS may try to infiltrate the United States via its southern border with Mexico. Now it appears
the former Defense Department analyst’s concern has become a reality.
Judicial Watch said its “Homeland Security” sources reported federal and state authorities
arrested four ISIS
terrorists in Texas. That was just a day after Rep. Duncan Hunter, R-Calif., said on Fox News that at least 10 ISIS
fighters had already been caught trying to cross the U.S.-Mexico border.
Maloof, now a senior staff writer for WND as well as Joseph Farah’s G2 Bulletin intelligence report, said in a July interview ISIS
“may be working to infiltrate” the U.S. with help from transnational drug cartels.
“I had intelligence sources within the government tell me that there was evidence of such exchanges
with the cartels and with the MS-13 people who are associated with the cartels,” Maloof said. “That isn’t to say ISIS was in
touch with MS-13, but they were in touch with the cartels.”
Islamic terrorists and Latin American drug cartels are two very different groups. They don’t share a common faith or ideology, and
they don’t work toward the same goal.
Yet Maloof said the Defense Department has known for years, at least since he worked there, that al-Qaida and the drug
cartels have a strong relationship. The former analyst said it’s not difficult to see why these two different groups have
been able to work together over the years.
“It’s money,” Maloof said. “Making money. They
don’t care where the money comes from. Cartels have no
ideology. It’s not everyday Mexicans; it’s not the Mexican government. Many people within the Mexican
government are probably being paid off by the cartels to look the other way.”
Maloof said ISIS was wise to seize the oil fields when it took over Iraq. ISIS now rakes in a bounty of oil revenue, and that is how it
is able to pay off the cartels and MS-13 cells. He said those vast financial assets for ISIS could also allow
it to attack the U.S. via proxies – sympathetic jihadists already in the U.S.
Maloof worries that the U.S. doesn’t have the resources to deal with an ISIS proxy war.
“Frankly, a lot of law enforcement is not geared to deal with this,” he said. “They don’t have access to the
intelligence, and if these lone wolves act the way that they do, the crime will have been committed
before you’re able to stop it in most cases, and I think that this is going to pose a potential problem, and it can
really create instability in the United States.”
WMD terrorism draws in great powers.
Ayson, 10 — Professor of Strategic Studies and Director of the Centre for Strategic Studies in
New Zealand at the Victoria University of Wellington (Robert, “After a Terrorist Nuclear Attack:
Envisaging Catalytic Effects”, Studies in Conflict & Terrorism, Volume 33, Issue 7, July 2010,
InformaWorld)
A terrorist nuclear attack, and even the use of nuclear weapons in response by the country attacked in the first place, would not
necessarily represent the worst of the nuclear worlds imaginable. Indeed, there are reasons to wonder whether nuclear terrorism
should ever be regarded as belonging in the category of truly existential threats. A contrast can be drawn here with the global
catastrophe that would come from a massive nuclear exchange between two or more of the sovereign states that possess these
weapons in significant numbers. Even the worst terrorism that the twenty-first century might bring would fade into insignificance
alongside considerations of what a general nuclear war would have wrought in the Cold War period. And it must be admitted that as
long as the major nuclear weapons states have hundreds and even thousands of nuclear weapons at their disposal, there is always
the possibility of a truly awful nuclear exchange taking place precipitated entirely by state possessors themselves. But these two
nuclear worlds—a non-state actor nuclear attack and a catastrophic interstate nuclear exchange—are not necessarily separable. It is
just possible that some sort of terrorist attack, and especially an act of nuclear terrorism, could precipitate a chain of
events leading to a massive exchange of nuclear weapons between two or more of the states that possess
them. In this context, today’s and tomorrow’s terrorist groups might assume the place allotted during the early Cold War years to
new state possessors of small nuclear arsenals who were seen as raising the risks of a catalytic nuclear war between the superpowers
started by third parties. These risks were considered in the late 1950s and early 1960s as concerns grew about nuclear proliferation,
the so-called n+1 problem. It may require a considerable amount of imagination to depict an especially plausible situation where an
act of nuclear terrorism could lead to such a massive inter-state nuclear war. For example, in the event of a terrorist nuclear attack
on the United States, it might well be wondered just how Russia and/or China could plausibly be brought into the picture, not least
because they seem unlikely to be fingered as the most obvious state sponsors or encouragers of terrorist groups. They would seem far
too responsible to be involved in supporting that sort of terrorist behavior that could just as easily threaten them as well. Some
possibilities, however remote, do suggest themselves. For example, how might the United States react if it was thought or discovered
that the fissile material used in the act of nuclear terrorism had come from Russian stocks,40 and if for some reason Moscow denied
any responsibility for nuclear laxity? The correct attribution of that nuclear material to a particular country might not be a case of
science fiction given the observation by Michael May et al. that while the debris resulting from a nuclear explosion would be “spread
over a wide area in tiny fragments, its radioactivity makes it detectable, identifiable and collectable, and a wealth of information can
be obtained from its analysis: the efficiency of the explosion, the materials used and, most important … some indication of where the
nuclear material came from.”41 Alternatively, if the act of nuclear terrorism came as a complete surprise, and American officials
refused to believe that a terrorist group was fully responsible (or responsible at all) suspicion
would shift immediately
to state possessors. Ruling out Western ally countries like the United Kingdom and France, and probably Israel and India as
well, authorities in Washington would be left with a very short list consisting of North Korea, perhaps Iran if its
program continues, and possibly Pakistan. But at what stage would Russia and China be definitely ruled out
in this high stakes game of nuclear Cluedo? In particular, if the act of nuclear terrorism occurred against a backdrop of existing
tension in Washington’s relations with Russia and/or China, and at a time when threats had already been traded between these
major powers, would officials and political leaders not be tempted to assume the worst? Of course, the chances of this occurring
would only seem to increase if the United States was already involved in some sort of limited armed conflict with Russia and/or
China, or if they were confronting each other from a distance in a proxy war, as unlikely as these developments may seem at the
present time. The reverse might well apply too: should a nuclear terrorist attack occur in Russia or China during a period of
heightened tension or even limited conflict with the United States, could Moscow and Beijing resist the pressures that might rise
domestically to consider the United States as a possible perpetrator or encourager of the attack? Washington’s early
response to a terrorist nuclear attack on its own soil might also raise the possibility of an unwanted (and nuclear
aided) confrontation with Russia and/or China. For example, in the noise and confusion during the immediate
aftermath of the terrorist nuclear attack, the U.S. president might be expected to place the country’s armed forces, including its
nuclear arsenal, on a higher stage of alert. In such a tense environment, when careful planning runs up against the friction of reality,
it is just possible that Moscow and/or China might mistakenly read this as a sign of U.S. intentions to use force (and possibly nuclear
force) against them. In that situation, the temptations to preempt such actions might grow, although it must be admitted that any
preemption would probably still meet with a devastating response. As part of its initial response to the act of nuclear terrorism (as
discussed earlier) Washington
might decide to order a significant conventional (or nuclear) retaliatory or
against the leadership of the terrorist group and/or states seen to support that group. Depending on the
identity and especially the location of these targets, Russia and/or China might interpret such action as being far
too close for their comfort, and potentially as an infringement on their spheres of influence and even on their sovereignty.
disarming attack
One far-fetched but perhaps not impossible scenario might stem from a judgment in Washington that some of the main aiders and
abetters of the terrorist action resided somewhere such as Chechnya, perhaps in connection with what Allison claims is the “Chechen
insurgents’ … long-standing interest in all things nuclear.”42 American pressure on that part of the world would almost certainly
raise alarms in Moscow that might require a degree of advanced consultation from Washington that the latter found itself unable or
unwilling to provide. There is also the question of how other nuclear-armed states respond to the act of nuclear terrorism on another
member of that special club. It could reasonably be expected that following a nuclear terrorist attack on the United States, both
Russia and China would extend immediate sympathy and support to Washington and would work alongside the United States in the
Security Council. But there is just a chance, albeit a slim one, where the support of Russia and/or China is less automatic in some
cases than in others. For example, what would happen if the United States wished to discuss its right to retaliate against groups
based in their territory? If, for some reason, Washington found the responses of Russia and China deeply underwhelming, (neither
“for us or against us”) might it also suspect that they secretly were in cahoots with the group, increasing (again perhaps ever so
slightly) the chances of a major exchange. If the terrorist group had some connections to groups in Russia and China, or existed in
areas of the world over which Russia and China held sway, and if Washington felt that Moscow or Beijing were placing a curiously
modest level of pressure on them, what conclusions might it then draw about their culpability? If Washington decided to use, or
decided to threaten the use of, nuclear weapons, the responses of Russia and China would be crucial to the chances of avoiding a
more serious nuclear exchange. They might surmise, for example, that while the act of nuclear terrorism was especially heinous and
demanded a strong response, the response simply had to remain below the nuclear threshold. It would be one thing for a non-state
actor to have broken the nuclear use taboo, but an entirely different thing for a state actor, and indeed the leading state in the
international system, to do so. If Russia and China felt sufficiently strongly about that prospect, there is then the question of what
options would lie open to them to dissuade the United States from such action: and as has been seen over the last several decades,
the central dissuader of the use of nuclear weapons by states has been the threat of nuclear retaliation. If some readers find this
simply too fanciful, and perhaps even offensive to contemplate, it may be informative to reverse the tables. Russia, which
possesses an arsenal of thousands of nuclear warheads and that has been one of the two most important trustees of the non-use
taboo, is subjected to an attack of nuclear terrorism. In response, Moscow places its nuclear forces very visibly
on a high er state of alert and declares that it is considering the use of nuclear retaliation against the group and any of its state
supporters. How would Washington view such a possibility? Would it really be keen to support Russia’s use of nuclear weapons,
including outside Russia’s traditional sphere of influence? And if not, which seems quite plausible, what options would Washington
have to communicate that displeasure? If China had been the victim of the nuclear terrorism and seemed likely to retaliate in kind,
would the United States and Russia be happy to sit back and let this occur? In the charged atmosphere
immediately after a nuclear terrorist attack, how would the attacked country respond to pressure from other major nuclear powers
not to respond in kind? The phrase “how dare they tell us what to do” immediately springs to mind. Some might even go so far as to
interpret this concern as a tacit form of sympathy or support for the terrorists. This might not help the chances of nuclear restraint.
Drug cartels can acquire WMD and bioweapons.
Reblup, 10 (Tina, article from Bio Prep Watch which is a website on Biological Threats for
Policymakers and First Responders, “Drug trade could increase availability of bioweapons,”
January 21, 2010, http://www.bioprepwatch.com/news/drug-trade-could-increase-availabilityof-bioweapons/211687/ ) Harbeck
Drug cartels, as a result of the increase in the narcotics trade, have been increasingly able to
acquire biological and chemical weapons and radioactive material for the purpose of WMD
creation, the U.S. State Department has warned.¶ “The sums of money involved are growing in
extraordinary amounts, and that raises the possibility, because of the sums and the areas in
which these groups have begun to operate, for that opportunity to be exploited ,” David Johnson,
assistant secretary of state for the Bureau of International Narcotics and Law Enforcement Affairs, told The Jerusalem Post.¶
“Some of these criminal syndicates have the organizational and financial wherewithal that
could potentially allow them to acquire and sell radioactive material, biological and chemical
weapons, and technologies used for weapons of mass destruction.Ӧ Johnson told listeners at the
Washington Institute of Near East Affairs that the unparalleled growth in drug profits is attributable to increasing demand and
supply in the worldwide market.¶
Bioweapons are an existential risk.
Matheny, 7 (Jason, Former Associate – Oxford University, MPJ – Johns Hopkins University,
“Reducing the Risk of Human Extinction”, Risk Analysis, 27(5), pg. 1335-1344,
http://jgmatheny.org/matheny_extinction_risk.htm)
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). There is currently no independent body assessing the risks of high-energy physics experiments. Posner (2004) has
recommended withdrawing federal support for such experiments because the benefits do not seem to be worth the risks.
1AC 2
US demand is driving Afghani instability – drugs are windfall for the insurgency
Goodman, 14 [ H. A. Goodman Author and Journalist published in Salon.com, the Jerusalem
Post, Chicago Tribune, The Hill's Congress Blog, and other publications. www.hagoodman.com
Legalizing Marijuana Should Be a Top National Security Objective: Terrorism and Border
Instability Would Diminish Posted: 07/14/2014 7:01 am EDT,
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/h-a-goodman/legalizing-marijuana-shou_b_5583767.html
Afghanistan according to CBS News is the world's largest supplier of cannabis and the plant is
even more profitable to Afghan farmers than opium poppy. Considering that the U.S. is the
largest consumer of marijuana in the world with 7.3 percent of Americans -- around 23 million citizens -- who regularly use marijuana, the
Afghan economy and people could benefit greatly from supplying a legal cannabis
industry. American citizens spend $40.6 billion a year on marijuana, so a federally
recognized marijuana industry in the U.S. could provide people in war-torn states like Afghanistan
a needed source of legal income. This alone could mitigate instability , but the fact that
terror groups are using profits from Afghanistan's cannabis crop directly undermines our
national security objectives. According to the UN Office on Drugs and Crime, "Drug trafficking, the critical link between
supply and demand, is fueling a global criminal enterprise valued in the hundreds of billions of
dollars that poses a growing challenge to stability and security." The report goes on to state that there are "more and more
acts of violence, conflicts and terrorist activities fuelled by drug trafficking and organized crime."
Echoing this alarming fact, Secretary General Ban Ki-moon stated the Afghan illegal drug trade"is funding insurgency,
international terrorism and wider destabilization." Therefore, Afghanistan's cannabis crop is
funding terror groups; a reality that directly undermines the White House's stated counterterrorism objectives. According to a 2010 Time article titled,
Afghanistan's New Bumper Drug Crop: Cannabis, federally legalizing marijuana would drain cash from
insurgents in the ongoing Afghanistan War: "'Afghanistan is using some of its best land
to grow cannabis,' says Antonia Maria Costa, director of the UN drug office in Vienna. 'If they grew
wheat instead, insurgents would not have money to buy weapons and the international
community would not have to spend hundreds of millions of dollars on food aid.' ... 'Eradicating marijuana
First,
and opium fields can breed resentment by people and be destabilizing,' says John Dempsey, a rule-of-law adviser to U.S. and Afghan officials for the U.S. Institute of Peace. ...
Groups of armed drug traffickers, meanwhile, travel through the countryside, buying opium and cannabis at the farm gates for cash. For many farmers in the area, making a
living and staying alive -- sadly -- go hand in hand." Furthering the link between the illegal cannabis trade and terror, a Guardian article in 2012 explained that, "Officials in
southern Uruzgan province, which borders Kandahar and Helmand, largely stamped out farming of the drug because of worries it was financing the Taliban."
Legalizing a drug that 40 percent of high school students in the U.S. have tried in order to slash funding to the Taliban,
al-Qaeda, and other terrorist organizations is far more feasible than introducing a democratic
system to tribes and Afghan farmers. As it stands, the U.S. is the world's largest consumer of
cannabis and Afghanistan is the largest producer, but neither Bush nor Obama has taken action to address this glaring economic reality.
Legalization solves—it destroys the cannabis trade
Pagan and Stroleny, 14 [Christopher Pagan is an attorney practicing criminal defense with a
law degree from Syracuse University, Julian Stroleny is an attorney with a law degree from
Florida International University, citing U.N. statistics on marijuana cultivation in Afghanistan
from the U.N. Office on Drugs and Crime, "", http://www.pslaw.org/legalizing-marijuana-willreduce-terrorism-border-instability/]
Legalizing marijuana should be a top national security objective – that is, if the United States wants
to minimize terrorism and border instability. How do legalizing marijuana and maintaining national security relate
to each other? Well, here’s the breakdown! The United States has been waging wars with Iraq and Afghanistan
for the past two decades and has tried relentlessly to stabilize both Iraq and Afghanistan by
attempting to build some type of political and economic structure within each of those nations .
Additionally, as the 2011 U.S. National Strategy for Counterterrorism states, the President’s top national security priority is ensuring
the security of the citizens of the United States and the interests of the United States from terrorists. With that in mind,
Afghanistan is the largest provider of cannabis in the world and the United States is the world’s
largest consumer of cannabis. Citizens of the United States spend about $40.6 billion a year on cannabis. Therefore, if
the United States legalizes cannabis, Afghanistan and its people and economy could establish a
source of income by supplying the United States’ legal cannabis industry. This would create
some sort of economic stability in Afghanistan and even destabilize terror groups. This is
because terrorist groups are the main beneficiaries of the illegal drug trade in Afghanistan.
According to the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime, the terrorist groups use profits from drug trafficking
to fund acts of terrorism, violence and other conflicts. The illegal drug trade in Afghanistan is
supporting the ongoing influx of terror activities. Therefore, so long as marijuana is still illegal in
the United States, the terrorist groups will benefit from illegal drug trafficking. However, if the
United States would legalize marijuana, the illegal drug trade in Afghanistan would disappear
and terrorist groups would lack funds to carry out their terror activities.
Instability spreads – US marijuana use key
Falk, 11 [ByPamela FalkCBS NewsJune 23, 2011, 10:03 AM U.N.: Afghan's $61B drug trade
funding terrorism, http://www.cbsnews.com/news/un-afghans-61b-drug-trade-fundingterrorism/]
drug trafficking is no longer a social and criminal ill but a trade that funds organized
crime , terrorism and other security threats. The 272-page report, issued by the U.N. Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC), is chock full
of frightening profiles: cartels, terror groups, corruption of government officials, and networks that evade law enforcement. "Drug trafficking, the critical
link between supply and demand, is fuelling a global criminal enterprise valued in the hundreds
of billions of dollars that poses a growing challenge to stability and security," the report states, also noting that
there are "more and more acts of violence, conflicts and terrorist activities fuelled by drug trafficking and organized crime." One of those places where
the drug trade has become linked with terrorism is Afghanistan, where the $61 billion annual opiate trade still thrives. The
World Drug Report indicates that Afghan opium production will probably increase this year. Afghanistan's drug trade "is funding
insurgency, international terrorism and wider destabilization," Secretary General Ban Ki-moon said, as
The World Drug Report for 2011 is grim:
he announced an ongoing effort to incorporate anti-drug programs into the U.N.'s peacekeeping and disarmament programs. The price of opium, for example, has increased,
meaning that opium has become more of a lifeline to the Afghan economy. UNODC has focused on Herat, Farah, Nimroz, Ghor and Kandahar with the effort to contain opium
cultivation and instability. "We can definitely see a record profit in this harvest", said the UNODC's country office representative in Afghanistan, Jean-Luc Lemahieu. Sadly, in
the case of Afghanistan, not much has improved overall. An earlier "Afghan Opium Survey 2009," released by UNODC two years ago concluded that the war-torn country had its
very own drug cartel and that insurgents are moving up the "value chain" in the drug trafficking business - not merely taxing supply, but now working with criminal gangs and
corrupt officials to produce, process, stock, and export opium. Even two years ago, according to the UNODC, drugs in Afghanistan not only had become a major source of income
for poor farmers, but was also financing suicide bombers because of a "marriage of convenience" between anti-government insurgents and criminal groups, spawning narcotics
Corruption of government leaders accompanies the drugs:
cartels in Afghanistan with direct links to the Taliban.
"In recent years we have seen several such cases in which ministers and heads of national law enforcement agencies have been implicated in drug-related corruption," the report
marijuana) is the
world's drug of choice , produced in the Americas and Africa, and in South-West Asia.
Afghanistan continued to produce the world's largest supply of cannabis and
Afghan farmers found cannabis herb to be a far more profitable crop than opium
poppy. On an international basis, the numbers are large: "Globally, some 210 million people use illicit drugs each year, and almost 200,000 of them die from drugs,"
the report says. And, no big surprise, the report says that " North America continues to be the world's largest drug
market ," even though it is now smaller than a decade ago, and is focused on cannabis , amphetamine-type stimulants (ATS) and opiates.
states. This year's report adds more to the global drug picture, including the profiles of regions and how they have changed. Cannabis (
Afghan instability causes nuclear war
Cronin 13 (Audrey Kurth Cronin is Professor of Public Policy at George Mason University and
author of How Terrorism Ends and Great Power Politics and the Struggle over Austria. Thinking
Long on Afghanistan: Could it be Neutralized? Center for Strategic and International Studies
The Washington Quarterly • 36:1 pp. 55_72 http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/0163660X.2013.751650)
With ISAF withdrawal inevitable, a sea change is already underway: the question is whether
the U nited S tates will be ahead of the curve or behind it. Under current circumstances, key actions within Afghanistan
by any one state are perceived to have a deleterious effect on the interests of other competing states, so the only feasible solution is to discourage all of them from interfering in a
As the U nited S tates draws down over the next two years, yielding to regional anarchy would
be irresponsible. Allowing neighbors to rely on bilateral measures, jockey for relative position , and pursue
conflicting national interests without regard for dangerous regional dynamics will result in a repeat of
the pattern that has played out in Afghanistan for the past thirty years_ /except this time the outcome could be not just terrorism
but nuclear war.
neutralized state.
Spills over to Central Asia and Pakistan
Curtis, 13 [Senior Research Fellow, Heritage Foundation, “Nato's total withdrawal from
Afghanistan could rock Asia stability”, 11-18
http://www.heritage.org/research/commentary/2013/11/natos-total-withdrawal-fromafghanistan-could-rock-asia-stability]
Analysts warn that the recent increase in al-Qaeda violence in Iraq should serve as a warning that failure to maintain a residual force
in Afghanistan would increase instability throughout South and Central Asia. If the Taliban were able to re-assert
power in Afghanistan, it would embolden militants in Pakistan and increase the risk of
extremists gaining access to Islamabad’s nuclear weapons. An absence of international
troops in Afghanistan post-2014 would also leave the door open for the Islamic Movement of
Uzbekistan to gain a foothold in northern Afghanistan, from where it could launch operations
into Central Asia. ‘We cannot risk allowing the Taliban to retake control of Afghanistan,’ said Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, chair of
the US’s House Subcommittee on the Middle East and North Africa, at a congressional hearing in October 2013 . ‘This could
also lead to al-Qaeda regrouping and stepping up terrorist activities using its safe havens in
Pakistan as a staging post, posing a real danger to our national security interests and those of
our allies in the region.’ The threat is most acute for Pakistan, a nuclear-armed nation of 180 million,
where there is real concern over nuclear weapons falling into the hands of extremists. Pakistan’s
nuclear weapons arsenal is one of the fastest growing in the world today. -It has around 100 warheads. The traditional Loya Jirga
(assembly of tribal elders) will meet in Kabul (November 18 – 21) to decide whether to approve the BSA. If the Jirga is in favour and
the BSA is finalised, the US and its Nato partners are likely to leave an international force of about 10,000 – 15,000 troops to help
fight extremist elements and train and advise the Afghan National Security Forces. The US decision on the number of troops will be
watched closely by Afghanistan’s neighbours as it will determine the extent to which various Islamist extremist groups are able to
thrive in Afghanistan and use it as a base from which to export their ideology and violence. A Taliban victory in
Afghanistan would have a blowback effect in Pakistan and embolden terrorist
elements there. There are a variety of terrorist groups based in Pakistan’s tribal areas, including the Haqqani network,
Tehrik-e-Taliban Pakistan (TTP), and the Islamic Movement of Uzbekistan (IMU), all of which have links to the Taliban and alQaeda. Fred Kagan, of the US-based think tank the American Enterprise Institute, said at the congressional hearing that an absence
of international troops in Afghanistan post-2014 would leave the door open for Haqqani militants to re-establish their bases in
eastern Afghanistan and for the IMU to gain a foothold in northern Afghanistan. There is concern that the IMU would
use its base in Afghanistan to launch operations into Central Asian states, particularly
Tajikistan and Uzbekistan. Russia also is concerned that a complete withdrawal of US and Nato
forces from Afghanistan could embolden jihadist elements in Afghanistan that would, in turn,
export Islamist ideology and violence to the north.
escalates and goes nuclear—diplomacy won’t work
Bruce Riedel 10-19-2014; senior fellow and director of the Brookings Intelligence Project “ICYMI: India-Pakistan Head for
Nuke War”
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/10/19/icymi-india-pakistan-head-for-nuke-war.html
A crisis is brewing between nuclear-armed India and Pakistan that could be their most
dangerous ever. India and Pakistan have fought four wars since 1947 and had several crises that went to the brink of war. Both
tested nuclear weapons in 1998. Now tensions are escalating between the two again. It began in May, when a heavily
armed squad of Pakistani terrorists from Lashkar e Tayyiba (Army of the Pure) attacked India’s consulate in
Herat, in western Afghanistan. They planned to massacre Indian diplomats on the eve of the inauguration of India’s new Hindu
nationalist prime minister, Narendra Modi. The consulate’s security forces killed the LeT terrorists first, preventing a crisis. Since
LeT is a proxy of Pakistan's military intelligence service known as the ISI, Indian intelligence officials assume the
Herat attack was coordinated with higher-ups in Pakistan. They assume another LeT attack is only a matter of
time. They are probably right on both counts. This summer, clashes between Indian and Pakistani troops
have escalated along the ceasefire line in Kashmir. Called “the Line of Control,” the Kashmiri front line this year
has witnessed the worst exchanges of artillery and small arms fire in a decade, displacing hundreds of civilians on both sides. More
than 20 have died in the crossfire already this month. Modi has ordered his army commanders to strike back hard at
the Line of Control to demonstrate
Indian resolve. Although Modi made a big gesture in May when he invited his
then Modi has canceled routine diplomatic talks
with Pakistan on Kashmir and signaled a tough line toward terrorism. He also appointed a very
experienced intelligence chief, Ajit Doval as his national security adviser. Doval is known as a hard-liner on
terrorism—and on Pakistan. Modi’s Bharatiya Janata Party strongly criticized his predecessor, Manmohan Singh, for what it saw
Pakistani counterpart, Nawaz Sharif, to his inauguration, since
as a weak response to LeT’s attack on Mumbai in 2008. No military action was taken after 10 LeT terrorists, armed and trained by
the ISI, killed and wounded hundreds of innocents, including six American dead. In 2001, a previous BJP government mobilized the
Indian military for months after a Pakistan-based terror attack on the Indian parliament. The two countries were eyeball to eyeball
in a tense standoff for almost a year. Two years before that, the two countries fought a war in Kashmir around the town of Kargil. In
the 1999 Kargil War, the Pakistani army crossed the LOC to seize mountain heights controlling a key highway in Kashmir.
BJP Prime Minister Atal Vajpayee responded with airstrikes and ground forces. The Indian navy prepared to blockade Karachi,
Pakistan’s major port and its critical choke point for importing oil. A blockade would have rapidly cut off Pakistan from oil supplies.
The Indian navy was so eager to strike it had to be restrained by the high command. The Pakistanis began losing the fight
at Kargil. Then
they put their nuclear forces on high alert. President Bill Clinton pressured Nawaz Sharif (the
Clinton had not
persuaded Sharif to withdraw behind the LOC, the war would have escalated further, perhaps to a nuclear
exchange. Kargil is a good paradigm for what a future crisis might look like. A BJP government
is not likely to turn the other cheek. It cannot afford to let terror attacks go unpunished. That would encourage more.
The difference between the Kargil War and today is that both India and Pakistan now have far more nuclear
weapons and delivery systems than 15 years ago. Pakistan is developing tactical nuclear weapons
and has the fastest growing nuclear arsenal in the world. China provides Pakistan with its nuclear reactors.
India has missiles that can reach all of Pakistan and even to Beijing. The escalatory ladder is far
more terrifying than it was on the eve of the millennium. For retreating in 1999, Sharif was overthrown in a
coup by the army commander, Pervez Musharraf, who had planned the Kargil War. Now Musharraf is calling for Sharif
to stand up to Modi and not be pushed around by India. The main opposition party leader, Bilawal Bhutto, has
prime minister then and now) into backing down at a crucial summit at Blair House on July 4, 1999. If
called for a tough line defending Kashmiri Muslim rights, promising to take “every inch” of Kashmir for Pakistan if he is elected
prime minister in the future. Sharif is under pressure from another party leader, Imran Khan, to resign. The politics on both
sides in South Asia leave little room for compromise or dialogue. America is seen in South Asia as a
power in decline, a perception fueled by the Afghan War. U.S. influence in New Delhi and Islamabad is low. A Clinton-like
intervention to halt an escalation will be a tough act to follow. But the consequences of a nuclear
exchange are almost too horrible to contemplate.
Impact defense is wrong
Shamil Shams 7-13-2013 Editor/reporter at Deutsche Welle, Germany's international broadcaster “Is Pakistan's nuclear stock
safe?” Deutsche Wells http://www.dw.de/is-pakistans-nuclear-stock-safe/a-17143032
Though Pakistan's civilian and military establishments claim their nuclear weapons are under strict
state control, many defense experts fear that they could fall into the hands of terrorists in the event of
an Islamist takeover of Islamabad or if things get out of control for the government and the military. " Nuclear programs are
never safe. On the one hand there is perhaps a hype about Pakistani bombs in the Western media, on the other there is
genuine concern," London-based Pakistani journalist and researcher Farooq Sulehria told DW. "The Talibanization of the
Pakistan military is something we can't overlook. What if there is an internal Taliban takeover of the nuclear
assets?" Sulehria speculated. Sulehria's concerns are probably justified. The Taliban militants have
proven time and again that they are capable of attacking not only civilians but also military
bases. In August 2012, militants armed with guns and rocket launchers attacked an air base in the town of
Kamra in the Punjab province. The large base is home to several squadrons of fighter and surveillance planes,
which air force officials said had not been damaged in the attack. The
Taliban have great influence in Pakistan's
restive northwestern Swat Valley and according to defense experts, several nuclear installations are located
not too far from the area. Despite that, political and defense analyst Zahid Hussain told DW the West was "unnecessarily
worried." "Pakistan conducted its nuclear tests more fifteen years ago. Nothing has happened since then. Pakistan has made sure the
nuclear weapons remain safe." Nuclear proliferation However, Pakistan's nuclear safety
Hussain claims. In 2004, the
record is not as clean as
"founder" of the country's nuclear bomb Dr. A. Q. Khan confessed to selling
nuclear technology to North Korea and Iran. Khan was removed from his post as head of the country's nuclear program by
former military dictator and President Pervez Musharraf in 2001. Khan spent five years under house arrest after Musharraf had him
arrested in 2004 for his alleged role in divulging nuclear secrets. The restrictions on his movement were relaxed after a court in
Islamabad declared him a free man in 2009. The Pakistani military and civilian leaders have been accused of being too easy on
Khan, but they have defended themselves, saying that the state had no role in what they say was Khan's "individual act." But many in
Pakistan and in the West believe Khan
was only able to pass on such sensitive information with support
from the establishment. Khan is a popular figure among Islamists and common Pakistanis alike, who believe that nuclear
weapons are "necessary" for the security of the country. Pakistan's political and religious parties invariably use nuclear rhetoric
against India and Western nations. "The atomic bomb is our protector. It guarantees our sovereignty. Nobody can harm Pakistan as
long as we have this bomb, and that is the reason why the US, India and other Western countries are conspiring against it," Abdul
Basit, a student at Karachi University, told DW. Asim Uddin, a London-based Jamaat-e-Islami activist, is of the same view. He says
Pakistan needs nuclear assets because it has a nuclear neighbor - India - against which it has fought three wars. "Pakistan needs
nuclear weapons as a war deterrent," he told DW. Sulehria, on the other hand, says that though the world needs to be more vigilant
about Pakistan's nuclear weapons, its nuclear obsession is more about domestic politics than external threats. "Politicians use
nuclear rhetoric to appease the public. Since the 1980s, jihad has been part of the state doctrine. And for jihad, the country needs the
'ultimate weapon' -the nuclear bomb." Experts like Sulehria fear that a crumbling economy, an ever-increasing
Islamist threat, and a popular nuclear narrative are a perfect recipe for a nuclear crisis . They
also say that the Pakistani government and the premier need to do a lot more than merely issuing official statements about nuclear
safety.
1AC 3
Status quo state-by-state legalization undermines the FDA’s credibility –federal
action is key
Eddy, 10 [CRS Report for Congress Prepared for Members and Committees of Congress
Medical Marijuana: Review and Analysis of Federal and State Policies Mark Eddy Specialist in
Social Policy April 2, 2010]
The current efforts to gain legal status of marijuana through ballot initiatives seriously
threaten the F ood and D rug A dministration statutorily authorized process of proving safety
and efficacy. (Brief of the Drug Free America Foundation et al., 2004112) Although the individual states regulate the practice of medicine,
the federal government has taken primary responsibility for the regulation of medical
products , especially those containing controlled substances. Pharmaceutical drugs must be approved for use in
the United States by the Food and Drug Administration ( FDA ), an agency of the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS).
The Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetics Act gives HHS and FDA the responsibility for determining that drugs are safe and effective, a requirement that
all medicines must meet before they can enter interstate commerce and be made available for general medical use.113 Clinical evaluation is required
regardless of whether the drug is synthetically produced or originates from a natural botanical or animal source. Opponents of medical marijuana say
that the FDA’s drug approval process should not be circumvented. To permit states to decide which
medical products can be made available for therapeutic use, they say, would undercut this regulatory system. State medical marijuana initiatives are
seen as inconsistent with the federal government’s responsibility to protect the public from unsafe, ineffective drugs. The Bush Administration argued
in its brief in the Raich case that “excepting drug activity for personal use or free distribution from the sweep of [federal drug laws] would discourage
the consumption of lawful controlled substances and would undermine Congress’s intent to regulate the drug market comprehensively to protect public
health and safety.”114 Three prominent drug abuse experts argued the following in their Amici brief: This
action by the state of
California did not create a “novel social and economic experiment,” but rather chaos in the
scientific and medical communities. Furthermore, under Court of Appeals ruling, such informal State
systems could be replicated, and even expanded, in a manner that puts at risk the critical
protections so carefully crafted under the national food and drug legislation of the 20th
century.115 The FDA itself has stated that FDA is the sole Federal agency that approves drug products as safe and effective for particular
indications, and efforts that seek to bypass the FDA drug approval process would not serve the
interests of public health. FDA has not approved marijuana for any indication. Only the disciplined, systematic,
scientific conduct of clinical trials can establish whether there is any medicinal value to
marijuana, smoked or otherwise.116 The Drug Free America Raich brief elaborates further (pp. 12-13): The ballot initiative-led
laws create an atmosphere of medicine by popular vote, rather than the rigorous
scientific and medical process that all medicines must undergo. Before the
development of modern pharmaceutical science, the field of medicine was fraught with potions
and herbal remedies. Many of those were absolutely useless, or conversely were harmful to
unsuspecting subjects. Thus evolved our current Food and Drug Administration and drug scheduling
processes, which Congress has authorized in order to create a uniform and reliable system of drug approval and regulation. This system is
being intentionally undermined by the legalization proponents through use of medical marijuana
initiatives. The organizers of the medical marijuana state initiatives deny that it was their intent to undermine the federal drug approval process.
Rather, in their view, it became necessary for them to bypass the FDA and go to the states because of the federal government’s resistance to marijuana
research requests and rescheduling petitions. As for the charge that politics should not play a role in the drug approval and controlled substance
scheduling processes, medical marijuana supporters point out that marijuana’s original listing as a Schedule I substance in 1970 was itself a political act
on the part of Congress. Scientists
on both sides of the issue say more research needs to be done, yet some
researchers charge that the federal government has all but shut down marijuana clinical
trials for reasons based on politics and ideology rather than science.151 In any case, as the IOM Report pointed out, “although a drug is normally
approved for medical use only on proof of its ‘safety and efficacy,’ patients with life-threatening conditions are sometimes (under protocols for
‘compassionate use’) allowed access to unapproved drugs whose benefits and risks are uncertain.”152 This was the case with the FDA’s IND
Compassionate Access Program under which a limited number of patients are provided government-grown medical marijuana to treat their serious
medical conditions. Some observers believe the pharmaceutical industry and some politicians oppose medical marijuana to protect pharmaceutical
industry profits. Because the whole marijuana plant cannot be patented, research efforts must be focused on the development of synthetic cannabinoids
such as Marinol. But even if additional cannabinoid drugs are developed and marketed, some believe that doctors and patients should still not be
criminalized for recommending and using the natural substance. The New England Journal of Medicine has editorialized that [A] federal policy that
prohibits physicians from alleviating suffering by prescribing marijuana for seriously ill patients is misguided, heavy-handed, and inhumane.
Marijuana may have long-term adverse effects and its use may presage serious addictions, but neither long-term side effects nor addiction is a relevant
issue in such patients. It is also hypocritical to forbid physicians to prescribe marijuana while permitting them to use morphine and meperidine to
relieve extreme dyspnea and pain. With both of these drugs the difference between the dose that relieves symptoms and the dose that hastens death is
very narrow; by contrast, there is no risk of death from smoking marijuana. To demand evidence of therapeutic efficacy is equally hypocritical. The
noxious sensations that patients experience are extremely difficult to quantify in controlled experiments. What really counts for a therapy with this kind
of safety margin is whether a seriously ill patient feels relief as a result of the intervention, not whether a controlled trial “proves” its efficacy.153 Some
until the federal government relents and becomes more hospitable to
marijuana research proposals and more willing to consider moving marijuana to a less restrictive schedule, the medical
marijuana issue will continue to be fought at state and local levels of governance. As one
observers suggest that
patient advocate has stated, “As the months tick away, it will become more and more obvious that we need to continue changing state laws until the
federal government has no choice but to change its inhumane medicinal marijuana laws.”154
Challenges to FDA credibility are increasing now – reasserting a strong role is key
to the pharamcuetical industry
LaMattina, 14 [John LaMattina Contributor I cover news on drugs and R&D in the pharma
industry Opinions expressed by Forbes Contributors are their own.“How Did A 30 Year Big
Pharma Veteran Become An FDA Apologist?”,
http://www.forbes.com/sites/johnlamattina/2014/04/01/how-did-a-30-year-big-pharmaveteran-become-an-fda-apologist/ ]
a strong, independent FDA is crucial to the success of any
company doing drug R&D. The primary role of the FDA is to protect Americans from unsafe
drugs and poorly effective agents. Patients and physicians need to be assured that the medicine
being prescribed has undergone vigorous and thorough testing. FDA credibility makes moot
the accusations of pharma critics like Goldacre that: Drugs are tested by the people who
manufacture them, in poorly designed trials
in such
a way that they exaggerate the benefits of treatment.”
unless we have a strong and
well respected FDA, such challenges are accepted as fact.
Some
critics charge that the industry hides adverse events of their experimental medicines
when a company files a New Drug Application for FDA
approval, every shred of data ever accumulated by the company is included Thus, the
credibility of the biopharmaceutical industry is directly connected with the
credibility of the FDA Should the public believe that the FDA is inadequately
doing its job then they will be concerned that the medicines they are being prescribed are not
what they are made out to be. In effect, pharma’s reputation is directly tied to the
strength of the FDA. Given that I believe that pharma’s biggest challenge is improving its
poor reputation, you can see why I believe that the FDA’s role is important for so many reasons.
So, how did a big pharma guy become an FDA apologist? Basically, it stems from the fact that
Ben
“
, on hopelessly small numbers of weird, unrepresented patients, and analyzed using techniques that are flawed by design,
Anyone who has worked with the FDA knows that the FDA reviews all clinical trials and would never allow a key
clinical trial to proceed if it was poorly designed or was to include weird, unrepresented patients, or analyzed with flawed techniques. Such comments are absurd. Yet,
The same can be said about the side effects of new drugs.
. Few realize, however, that a
company is legally bound to report every adverse drug event within 15 days of its occurrence. Furthermore,
.
.
,
Its reverse causal -- it implicates overall industry innovation
Baghda, 7 [Ramsey, Regulation Policy Market Access, September, Vol. 2, No. 9, Avandia and
the Commercial Impact of FDA’s Credibility Gap,
www.consumersunion.org/pdf/RPMreport0907.pdf]
Still, Mott says, the agency’s longevity as the gold standard acts as an anchor in a turbulent environment. “The FDA has a reservoir of credibility built over decades.
Notwithstanding the recent bashing in the media and political arenas, I think that reservoir still exists.” Mott’s right: Not even FDA’s strongest critics have come out and said the
agency isn’t the gold standard anymore. But when asked whether FDA’s credibility is a real commercial issue for drug and biotech companies, Mott doesn’t hesitate. “Absolutely.
reductions in either the actual effectiveness or capabilities of the agency—or the perceived effectiveness or capabilities and credibility
of the agency— increases the already tremendous risks, costs and timelines in the
drug development process and hurts the industry and ultimately patients.” “FDA’s credibility
crisis “does affect our decisions on drug development targets and the risk we’re
prepared to take on in drug development. Clearly, the safety bar has gone up in the
agency over the last few years as we’ve gone through this cycle of safety questions
and credibility assaults on the FDA. That affects how we think about what we’re
going to develop and how we design and run experiments.” Wall Street and internal R&D
Any
programs aren’t the only places feeling the negative impact from FDA’s credibility
gap. The venture capital community is looking at deals through a slightly different
lens as well.
The impact is economic collapse—pharma sector ensures resilience
Sullivan 11 (Thomas Sullivan, founder of Rockpointe Inc., former political consultant, “Study
Shows Importance of Biopharmaceutical Jobs For US Economy,” Policy and Medicine, July 12,
2011, http://www.policymed.com/2011/07/study-shows-importance-of-biopharmaceuticaljobs-for-us-economy-for-every-20-billion-loss-in-revenue.html)
Biopharmaceutical research companies produce the highest-value jobs, the types of jobs Americans want in the 21st century
economy, the kinds of jobs that can drive future economic growth. No other sector has the ability to
drive innovation, create high-quality jobs and provide new life-saving medicines for patients.
According to a recent report from the Battelle Technology Partnership Practice (TPP), “nationwide,
the biopharmaceutical sector supported a total of 4 million jobs in 2009, including nearly 675,000 direct jobs.
Battelle is the world’s largest non‐profit independent research and development
organization, providing innovative solutions to the world’s most pressing needs through its four global businesses. TPP has an
established reputation in state‐by‐state assessment of the biopharmaceutical sector, and has recently undertaken major impact
assessment projects for the Human Genome Project, the nation’s biotechnology sector, and major bioscience organizations such as Mayo Clinic. TPP
has also been active in provision of analysis to industry organizations, including the Council for American Medical Innovation, PhRMA and BIO‐the
Biotechnology Industry Organization. Each
job in a biopharmaceutical research company supported almost 6
additional jobs in other sectors, ranging from manufacturing jobs to construction and other building service jobs to contract
researchers and child care providers. Together, this biopharmaceutical sector‐related workforce received
$258 billion in wages and benefits in 2009. “Battelle also found that across all occupations involved in the biopharmaceutical
sector, the average wage is higher than across all other private sector industries, due to the sector’s role as a ‘high value-added sector.” Specifically, the
annual average personal income of a biopharmaceutical worker was $118,690 in 2009 as compared to $64,278 in the overall economy. Additionally,
the biopharmaceutical sector’s total economic output (including direct, indirect and induced impacts) was $918
billion in 2009. The sector generated an estimated $85 billion tax revenues in 2009—$33 billion in state and local and more than $52 billion in
federal. This impact comprises $382 billion in direct impact of biopharmaceutical businesses and $535 billion in indirect and induced impacts (an
output multiplier of 2.4—meaning that every $1 dollar in output generated by the biopharmaceutical sector generates another $1.4 in
output in other sectors of the economy). To put this export volume into perspective, 2010’s total biopharmaceutical
exports of $46.7 billion compares favorably to other major U.S. exports including: automobiles ($38.4 billion
in 2010 exports); plastics and rubber products ($25.9 billion); communications equipment ($27 billion) and computers ($12.5 billion). In addition, the
U.S. Congressional Budget Office noted that, “the
pharmaceutical industry is one of the most research‐intensive
industries in the United States and that pharmaceutical firms invest as much as five times more in
research and development, relative to their sales, than the average U.S. manufacturing firm.” At over $105,000 in biopharmaceutical
R&D per employee, the sector is way ahead of the average across all U.S. manufacturing which stands at about $10,000 per employee—and is far ahead
of the second and third ranked sectors of “communications equipment” and “semiconductors, which respectively spend $63,000 and $40,000 per
employee in R&D annually. PhRMA Statement on Battelle Report Consequently, Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America (PhRMA)
President and CEO John J. Castellani issued a statement discussing the results from this report and the biopharmaceutical research sector’s impact on
jobs and the American economy. Castellani asserted that, “at a time when the U.S. is facing a jobs crisis, evidenced by the terrible employment numbers
from last Friday, it is critical that our policymakers embrace dynamic and innovative business sectors such as the biopharmaceutical research sector
and refrain from stifling job growth through shortsighted proposals such as government-mandated price controls in Medicare Part D.” Specifically, the
PhRMA CEO pointed to a new paper from the Battelle Technology Partnership Practice, which underscored the pharmaceutical sector’s tremendous
contribution to America’s economy. Castellani recognized that, “startling potential job losses would result from undermining the business foundations
of biopharmaceutical companies.” He noted that the Battelle report estimated “that a $20 billion per year reduction in biopharmaceutical sector
revenue would result in 260,000 job losses across the U.S. economy” and a $59 billion reduction in U.S. economic activity. As a result, Castellani
recognized that, “as the President and Congressional leaders negotiate an important agreement on the debt ceiling and the future of the nation’s
economy, it is critical that the jobs crisis is not exacerbated.” For example, Castellani noted how “the President and some in Congress have proposed
including government-mandated rebates in Medicare Part D as part of a debt ceiling agreement.” However, he recognized that “such a provision would
have a dramatic negative effect on the economy and patients, and could undermine the success of the Part D program, which has very high beneficiary
satisfaction and has cost far less than original government projections.” He pointed to the “Battelle numbers, which clearly demonstrated that reducing
the biopharmaceutical sector’s annual revenue by $20 billion would be a serious blow to employment.” Castellani added that, “while the research is not
specific to any one policy or event, proposals being considered, such as government-mandated Part D rebates, would be expected to have revenue
impact of this magnitude.” Moreover, he noted that, “Part D is an unparalleled success, providing unprecedented access to life-saving medicines for
seniors.” Accordingly, Castellani asserted that PhRMA does not “believe policies that discourage R&D and cutting-edge science and that will inevitably
slow the development of needed new medicines are fair for seniors waiting for new treatments against our most challenging and costly diseases.”
Battelle Report The
Battelle Report quantifies the economic impact of the biopharmaceutical sector
on the U.S. economy and jobs using input/output analysis, measures the direct and indirect impacts of the
biopharmaceutical sector, and quantifies the economic impacts that would occur if biopharmaceutical
revenues increase or decrease from significant changes in the business operating environment. The report also highlights
some of the functional impacts of the sector—the wide‐ranging benefits provided through the biopharmaceutical sector’s contributions to enhancing
human health, improving life spans and sustaining the high quality‐of‐life that Americans enjoy—and assesses the contributions
of the
biopharmaceutical sector to key areas of importance to our economy— innovation,
product exports and quality of jobs produced. The Battelle Report starts by recognizing that the
biopharmaceutical sector has all of the characteristics for an ideal industry for economic growth
and sustainability in the U.S. Specifically, the biopharmaceutical sector: Grows in output and employment
even in tough economic times Provides high wage, good quality jobs Is innovative and deploys high‐
technology to generate comparative advantage for U.S. companies Generates significant exports that
boost the U.S. economy Has a strong supply chain that drives further economic growth
across the economy through “multiplier effects” Builds on America’s long‐standing strengths and investment in
fundamental and applied research Encourages capital flows to sustain growth, and is profitable to provide
funds for reinvestment into the research and development (R&D) cycle; Generates federal, state and local taxes and
other economic contributions that support public services Is sustainable and not a major drain on global resources Is geographically
dispersed, providing opportunities for job creation and economic growth across many areas of
the nation, not just a few selected places Produces a product of value to society, something that improves the quality of life for
humankind, including Improved life spans (personal longevity) Improved productivity resulting from prevention and
effective management of disease and chronic conditions; and Reductions in unnecessary
hospitalizations resulting in potential cost‐offsets elsewhere in the health care system. Fundamental to
major progress in human longevity, reducing the marginalization of individuals from disease and disability, and generally improving our quality‐of‐life,
biopharmaceuticals are a unique contributor to societal and individual well‐being. Moreover, the output of the biopharmaceutical sector is highly
valued by society because the sector develops and manufactures a broad‐range of unique products to treat disorders and diseases that, were they to go
untreated, can ruin individual quality of life, personal abilities and productivity. In many instances, biopharmaceuticals
are central
to helping to prevent and treat a range of public health issues, address pandemic risk and thereby support national
economic security. For example, innovation in the biopharmaceutical sector, combined with the diagnostic and treatment
skills of U.S. healthcare professionals, has contributed to a lengthening of the average life span of Americans. In 1900,
the expected life span of an American at birth was just 47.3 years. With the advent of more modern medicines and advanced medical knowledge, life
expectancy at birth has seen a steady increase rising to 69.7 years in 1960, and 77.9 years in 2007. In fact, the National Bureau of Economic Research
reports that “there
is a highly statistically significant relationship between the number of new
molecular entities [drugs] approved by the FDA and increased longevity.” Furthermore, Lichtenberg found in
a study of FDA data that "approval of priority‐review drugs—those considered by the FDA to offer significant improvements in the treatment, diagnosis,
or prevention of a disease—has a significant positive impact on longevity.” Additionally, the American Hospital Association (AHA) notes that
“advances in medicine contribute to national economic growth by helping Americans recover
more quickly from injury and illness, avoid lost or ineffective work time due to flare‐ups of chronic
conditions, and live longer with higher quality of life.” Without effective medicines and treatments for illnesses, injuries,
pain and chronic conditions, the productivity of the U.S. economy would clearly be greatly impaired.
Biopharmaceuticals are a key contributor to a more productive and healthy America and U.S.
economy. Beyond direct employment in biopharmaceutical companies, the biopharmaceutical sector is the
foundation upon which one of the United States’ most dynamic innovation and business ecosystems
is built. A large part of the modern biomedical economy is built upon a robust foundation of biopharmaceutical companies that
perform and support advanced biomedical and technological R&D, and act as the funnel and
distribution engine for getting life‐saving and quality‐of‐life‐sustaining therapeutics to the marketplace. Providing R&D
impetus and funding, capital resources, technology licensing opportunities, and a sophisticated market
access and distribution system, the biopharmaceutical sector is of central importance to the
much broader biomedical and life sciences economy. Fueled by private investment capital, venture capital investments,
and public/private collaborations, and enabled by the U.S. open market system, the nation has been able to advance
biomedical innovation, which in turn has led to new start‐up companies, business growth and
exports across the world. Conclusion Despite the tremendous success in the biopharmaceutical industry, emerging infectious diseases
continue to present new challenges and a substantial volume of long‐standing diseases such as cancer, diabetes, neurodegenerative diseases, psychiatric
diseases, immunological diseases, etc. continue to demand novel treatments and improved therapeutics. There are millions of people suffering from
diseases and disorders for which a therapy has yet to be found. The need for ongoing biopharmaceutical research and development is simply enormous.
The only way the U.S. economy can stay ahead of international competition is by using advanced R&D and innovation to drive the growth of high value‐
added industries. By leveraging investment in federal lab, university and industry R&D, our nation is able to produce high‐value, typically
technologically advanced products that the rest of the world values highly. In recent decades, life
sciences have come to the fore as
a leading driver of U.S. technological innovation and competitive advantage, and the biopharmaceutical
sector is a key foundation of the life sciences innovation ecosystem. The Unites States’
biopharmaceutical industry produces products that save, sustain and improve lives, and the sector has a large and
significant economic impact, affecting many other key areas of the U.S. economy. Gains
or losses in biopharmaceutical sector revenues will be reflected in gains and losses across a
broad range of additionally important U.S. economic sectors that have robust supply
chain relationships with the biopharmaceutical sector.
global war—decline causes lashout
Harold James 14, Professor of history at Princeton University’s Woodrow Wilson School who
specializes in European economic history, 7/2/14, “Debate: Is 2014, like 1914, a prelude to world
war?,” http://www.theglobeandmail.com/globe-debate/read-and-vote-is-2014-like-1914-aprelude-to-world-war/article19325504/
it could
happen again . The approach of the hundredth anniversary of 1914 has put a spotlight on the fragility
of the world’s political and economic security systems . At the beginning of 2013, Luxembourg’s Prime Minister JeanClaude Juncker was widely ridiculed for evoking the shades of 1913. By now he is looking like a prophet. By 2014, as the security
situation in the South China Sea deteriorated, Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe cast China as the equivalent to
Kaiser Wilhelm’s Germany; and the fighting in Ukraine and in Iraq is a sharp reminder of the dangers of
escalation. Lessons of 1914 are about more than simply the dangers of national and sectarian animosities. The main story
of today as then is the precariousness of financial globalization , and the consequences that political leaders
draw from it. In the influential view of Norman Angell in his 1910 book The Great Illusion, the interdependency of the
increasingly complex global economy made war impossible. But a quite opposite conclusion was
possible and equally plausible – and proved to be the case . Given the extent of fragility, a clever
twist to the control levers might make war easily winnable by the economic hegemon. In the
wake of an epochal financial crisis that almost brought a complete global collapse, in 1907,
several countries started to think of finance as primarily an instrument of raw power, one that could
As we get closer to the centenary of Gavrilo Princip’s act of terrorism in Sarajevo, there is an ever more vivid fear:
and should be turned to national advantage. The 1907 panic emanated from the United States but affected the rest of the world and
demonstrated the fragility of the whole international financial order. The aftermath of the 1907 crash drove the then hegemonic
power – Great Britain - to reflect on how it could use its financial power. Between 1905 and 1908, the British Admiralty evolved the
broad outlines of a plan for financial and economic warfare that would wreck the financial system of its major European rival,
Germany, and destroy its fighting capacity. Britain used its extensive networks to gather information about opponents. London
banks financed most of the world’s trade. Lloyds provided insurance for the shipping not just of Britain, but of the world. Financial
networks provided the information that allowed the British government to find the sensitive strategic vulnerabilities of the opposing
alliance. What pre-1914 Britain did anticipated the private-public partnership that today links technology giants such as Google,
Apple or Verizon to U.S. intelligence gathering. Since last year, the Edward Snowden leaks about the NSA have shed a light on the
way that global networks are used as a source of intelligence and power. For Britain’s rivals, the financial panic of 1907 showed the
necessity of mobilizing financial powers themselves. The United States realized that it needed a central bank analogous to the Bank
of England. American financiers thought that New York needed to develop its own commercial trading system that could handle bills
of exchange in the same way as the London market. Some of the dynamics of the pre-1914 financial world are
now re-emerging. Then an economically declining power, Britain, wanted to use finance as a
weapon against its larger and faster growing competitors, Germany and the United States. Now America is in turn
obsessed by being overtaken by China – according to some calculations, set to become the world’s largest economy in
2014. In the aftermath of the 2008 financial crisis, financial institutions appear both as dangerous
weapons of mass destruction , but also as potential instruments for the application of national power. In managing the
2008 crisis, the dependence of foreign banks on U.S. dollar funding constituted a major weakness, and required the provision of
large swap lines by the Federal Reserve. The United States provided that support to some countries, but not others, on the basis of
an explicitly political logic, as Eswar Prasad demonstrates in his new book on the “Dollar Trap.” Geo-politics is intruding into
banking practice elsewhere. Before the Ukraine crisis, Russian banks were trying to acquire assets in Central and Eastern Europe.
European and U.S. banks are playing a much reduced role in Asian trade finance. Chinese banks are being pushed to expand their
role in global commerce. After the financial crisis, China started to build up the renminbi as a major international currency. Russia
and China have just proposed to create a new credit rating agency to avoid what they regard as the political bias of the existing
(American-based) agencies. The next stage in this logic is to think about how financial power can be directed to national advantage
in the case of a diplomatic tussle. Sanctions are a routine (and not terribly successful) part of the pressure applied to rogue states
such as Iran and North Korea. But financial pressure can be much more powerfully applied to countries that are deeply embedded in
the world economy. The test is in the Western imposition of sanctions after the Russian annexation of Crimea. President Vladimir
Putin’s calculation in response is that the European Union and the United States cannot possibly be serious about the financial war.
It would turn into a boomerang: Russia would be less affected than the more developed and complex financial markets of Europe
and America. The
threat of systemic disruption generates a new sort of uncertainty, one that mirrors
the decisive feature of the crisis of the summer of 1914. At that time, no one could really know
whether clashes would escalate or not. That feature contrasts remarkably with almost the entirety of the Cold War,
especially since the 1960s, when the strategic doctrine of Mutually Assured Destruction left no doubt
that any superpower conflict would inevitably escalate . The idea of network disruption relies on the ability to
achieve advantage by surprise, and to win at no or low cost. But it is inevitably a gamble, and raises prospect that others might, but
also might not be able to, mount the same sort of operation. Just as in 1914, there is an enhanced temptation to roll
the dice, even though the game may be fatal.
Failure to maintain medical innovation makes epidemics inevitable.
Sachs, Columbia sustainable development professor, 8-17-14
(Jeffrey, “Important lessons from Ebola outbreak”,
http://www.bworldonline.com/content.php?section=Opinion&title=important-lessons-fromebola-outbreak&id=92924)
Ebola is the latest of many recent epidemics, also including AIDS, SARS, H1N1 flu, H7N9 flu, and others.
AIDS is the deadliest of these killers, claiming nearly 36 million lives since 1981. Of course, even larger and more sudden
epidemics are possible , such as the 1918 influenza during World War I, which claimed 50-100
million lives (far more than the war itself). And, though the 2003 SARS outbreak was contained, causing fewer than 1,000 deaths, the
disease was on the verge of deeply disrupting several East Asian economies including China’s. There are four crucial facts to
understand about Ebola and the other epidemics. First, most emerging infectious diseases are zoonoses, meaning
that they start in animal populations, sometimes with a genetic mutation that enables the jump to
humans. Ebola may have been transmitted from bats; HIV/AIDS emerged from chimpanzees; SARS most likely came from civets traded in animal
markets in southern China; and influenza strains such as H1N1 and H7N9 arose from genetic re-combinations of viruses among wild and farm animals.
New zoonotic diseases are inevitable as humanity pushes into new ecosystems (such as formerly
food industry creates more conditions for genetic recombination; and climate
change scrambles natural habitats and species interactions. Second, once a new infectious disease
appears, its spread through airlines, ships, megacities, and trade in animal products is likely to be extremely rapid .
These epidemic diseases are new markers of globalization, revealing through their
chain of death how
vulnerable the world has become from the pervasive movement of people and goods. Third, the poor are the first to
suffer and the worst affected. The rural poor live closest to the infected animals that first transmit
the disease. They often hunt and eat bushmeat, leaving them vulnerable to infection. Poor, often illiterate, individuals are
generally unaware of how infectious diseases -- especially unfamiliar diseases -- are transmitted, making them much more
likely to become infected and to infect others. Moreover, given poor nutrition and lack of access to basic health
services, their weakened immune systems are easily overcome by infections that better
nourished and treated individuals can survive. And “de-medicalized” conditions -- with few if any professional health workers to ensure an
remote forest regions); the
appropriate public-health response to an epidemic (such as isolation of infected individuals, tracing of contacts, surveillance, and so forth) -- make
initial outbreaks more severe. Finally, the
required medical responses, including diagnostic tools and effective medications and vaccines,
must be continually replenished. This
requires cutting-edge biotechnology, immunology, and ultimately bioengineering to create largescale industrial responses (such as millions of doses of vaccines or medicines in the case of large epidemics). The AIDS crisis, for
inevitably lag behind the emerging diseases. In any event, such tools
example, called forth tens of billions of dollars for research and development -- and similarly substantial commitments by the pharmaceutical industry - to produce lifesaving antiretroviral drugs at global scale. Yet each
breakthrough inevitably leads to the pathogen’s
mutation , rendering previous treatments less effective. There is no ultimate victory, only a constant arms
race between humanity and disease-causing agents.
Extinction
Clapper 13 – Director of National Intelligence (James R., “Worldwide Threat Assessment of the US Intelligence Community
Senate Select Committee on Intelligence”, 3/12/13; <www.intelligence.senate.gov/130312/clapper.pdf>)//Beddow
Scientists continue to discover previously unknown pathogens in humans that made the “jump”
from animals—zoonotic diseases. Examples are: a prion disease in cattle that jumped in the 1980s to cause variant
Creutzeldt-Jacob disease; a bat henipavirus that in 1999 became known as the human Nipah Virus; a bat corona virus that jumped to
humans in 2002 to cause Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome (SARS); and another SARS-like corona virus recently identified in
individuals who have been in Saudi Arabia, which might also have bat origins. Human and livestock population
growth and encroachment into jungles increase human exposure to crossovers. No one can
predict which pathogen will be the next to spread to humans, or when or where
such a development will occur, but humans will continue to be vulnerable to
pandemics, most of which will probably originate in animals. An easily
transmissible, novel respiratory pathogen that kills or incapacitates more than
one percent of its victims is among the most disruptive events possible. Such an
outbreak would result in a global pandemic that causes suffering and death in
every corner of the world, probably in fewer than six months. This is not a
hypothetical threat. History is replete with examples of pathogens sweeping populations that
lack immunity, causing political and economic upheaval, and influencing the
outcomes of wars—for example, the 1918 Spanish flu pandemic affected military operations
during World War I and caused global economic disruptions. The World Health Organization has described
one influenza pandemic as “the epidemiological equivalent of a flash flood.” However, slow-spreading pathogens, such as HIV/AIDS,
have been just as deadly, if not more so. Such a pathogen with pandemic potential may have already
jumped to humans somewhere; HIV/AIDS entered the human population more than 50 years before it was recognized
and identified. In addition, targeted therapeutics and vaccines might be inadequate to keep up with
the size and speed of the threat, and drug-resistant forms of diseases, such as tuberculosis,
gonorrhea, and Staphylococcus aureus, have already emerged.
the plan solves— it ensures FDA regulation
Kalam, 02 [Harvard Law School, The Food and Drug Administration and Drug Legalization: A
Brief Model of Regulation Murad Kalam March 22, 2002 Professor Peter Barton Hutt Food and
Drug Law (Winter Term),
http://dash.harvard.edu/bitstream/handle/1/8852123/Kalam.html?sequence=2]
Drug legalization [2] entails the free-market availability of all currently illegal drugs; in such a regime,
“the entire illicit drug trade would become legal: manufacture, transportation, sale, purchase,
possession, use.” [3] All currently illegal drugs would become as available to consumers as any other
prescription or non-prescription drug approved by the Food and Drug Administration ( FDA ).[4] The FDA
seems the natural regulator of newly-legalized drugs (NLD’s) because the FDA already
regulates “almost every object placed into or around the human body.” [5] While many advocates of legalizing
drugs suggest that the FDA should regulate NLD’s, very little has been written about how the FDA would regulate once illicit drugs like legal drugs.[6]
For instance, California Superior Court Justice James Gray, a proponent of drug legalization, envisions a drug legalization regime in which a person
goes to his local supermarket for groceries. He puts into his cart some frozen lemonade, chocolate chip cookies, aspirin grapes—and a six-pack of
cocaine. A friend has recommended the “Big Kick” brand of cocaine and the store is having a special sale: six hits for the price of four. In this scenario,
all of the products in this man’s cart are sold in a “legalized” or “free” market. Under such a program, the
FDA would ensure the
cleanliness and purity of all these products, and see to it that they were labeled accurately for their contents and strength.
This is how the FDA regulates the sale of aspirin, a fully “legalized” drug in this country. [7]
that creates legal certainty and solves jurisdictional conflict
McDonough 2000 – director of the Florida Office of Drug Control for the Hoover Institution
(James, Stanford University, “Marijuana on the ballot”,
http://www.hoover.org/research/marijuana-ballot)
The mission of the Food and Drug Administration’s (FDA) Center for Drug Evaluation and Research is "to assure that safe and effective
drugs are available to the American people." Circumvention of the FDA approval process would remove this
essential safety mechanism intended to safeguard public health. The FDA approval process is not designed to keep drugs out of the hands of the
sick but to offer a system to ensure that drugs prevent, cure, or treat a medical condition. FDA approval can involve testing of hundreds of
compounds, which allows scientists to alter them for improved performance . The IOM report addresses
this situation explicitly: "Medicines today are expected to be of known composition and quantity. Even in cases where marijuana can provide relief from symptoms, the crude
plant mixture does not meet this modern expectation."
For a proposed drug to gain approval by the FDA, a potential manufacturer must produce a new drug application. The application must provide enough information for FDA
reviewers to determine (among other criteria) "whether the drug is safe and effective for its proposed use(s), whether the benefits of the drug outweigh its risks [and] whether
the methods used in manufacturing the drug and the controls used to maintain the drug’s quality are adequate to preserve the drug’s integrity, strength, quality, and purity."
On the "benefits" side, the Institute of Medicine found that the therapeutic effects of cannabinoids are "generally modest" and that for the majority of symptoms there are
approved drugs that are more effective. For example, superior glaucoma and anti-nausea medications have already been developed. In addition, the new drug Zofran may
provide more relief than THC for chemotherapy patients. Dronabinol, the synthetic THC , offers immunocompromised HIV patients a safe alternative to inhaling marijuana
smoke, which contains carcinogens.
On the "risks" side, there is strong evidence that smoking marijuana has detrimental health effects. Unrefined marijuana contains approximately 400 chemicals that become
combustible when smoked, producing in turn over 2,000 impure chemicals. These substances, many of which remain unidentified, include carcinogens. The IOM report states
that, when used chronically, "marijuana smoking is associated with abnormalities of cells lining the human respiratory tract. Marijuana smoke, like tobacco smoke, is associated
with increased risk of cancer, lung damage, and poor pregnancy outcomes." A subsequent study by Dr. Zuo-Feng Zhary of the Jonsson Cancer Center at UCLA determined that
the carcinogens in marijuana are much stronger than those in tobacco.
Chronic bronchitis and increased incidence of pulmonary disease are associated with frequent use of smoked marijuana, as are reduced sperm motility and testosterone levels in
males. Decreased immune system response, which is likely to increase vulnerability to infection and tumors, is also associated with frequent use. Even a slight decrease in
immune response can have major public health ramifications. Because marijuana by-products remain in body fat for several weeks, interference with normal body functioning
may continue beyond the time of use. Among the known effects of smoking marijuana is impaired lung function similar to the type caused by cigarette smoking.
In addressing the efficacy of cannabinoid drugs, the IOM report — after recognizing "potential therapeutic value" — added that smoked marijuana is "a crude THC delivery
system that also delivers harmful substances." Purified cannabinoid compounds are preferable to plants in crude form, which contain inconsistent chemical composition. The
"therapeutic window" between the desirable and adverse effects of marijuana and THC is narrow at best and may not exist at all, in many cases.
The scientific evidence that marijuana’s potential therapeutic benefits are modest, that other approved drugs are generally more effective, and that smoking marijuana is
unhealthy, indicates that smoked marijuana is not a viable candidate for FDA approval. Without such approval, smoked marijuana cannot achieve legitimate status as an
approved drug that patients can readily use. This reality renders the advocacy of smoking marijuana as medicine both misguided and impractical.
Medicine by Ballot Initiative?
ballot initiatives are an indispensable part of our democracy, they are imprudent in the context of advancing smoked marijuana as medicine because they
confound our system of laws, create conflict between state and federal law, and fail to offer a
proper substitute for science.
Ballot initiatives to legalize smoking marijuana as medicine have had a tumultuous history. In 1998 alone, initiatives were passed in five states, but any
While
substantive benefits in the aftermath were lacking. For example, a Colorado proposal was ruled invalid before the election. An Ohio bill was passed but subsequently repealed. In
the District of Colombia, Congress disallowed the counting of ballot results. Six other states permit patients to smoke marijuana as medicine but only by prescription, and
doctors, dubious about the validity of a smoked medicine, wary of liability suits, and concerned about legal and professional risks are reluctant to prescribe it for their patients.
Although voters passed Arizona’s initiative, the state legislature originally blocked the measure. The version that eventually became Arizona law is problematic because it
conflicts with federal statute.
creates a direct conflict between state and federal law in every case, placing patients, doctors, police,
The fundamental legal problem with prescription of marijuana is that federal law
prohibits such use, rendering state law functionally ineffective.
To appreciate fully the legal ramifications of ballot initiatives, consider one specific example. California’s is perhaps the most publicized, and illustrates the chaos
that can result from such initiatives. Enacted in 1996, the California Compassionate Use Act (also known as Proposition 215) was a ballot initiative intended to afford
Indeed, legalization at the state level
prosecutors, and public officials in a difficult position.
legal protection to seriously ill patients who use marijuana therapeutically. The act explicitly states that marijuana used by patients must first be recommended by a physician,
and refers to such use as a "right" of the people of California. According to the act, physicians and patients are not subject to prosecution if they are compliant with the terms of
the legislation. The act names cancer, anorexia, aids, chronic pain, spasticity, glaucoma, arthritis, and migraine as conditions that may be appropriately treated by marijuana,
but it also includes the proviso: "or any other illness for which marijuana provides relief."
Writing in December 1999, a California doctor, Ryan Thompson, summed up the medical problems with Proposition 215:
As it stands, it creates vague, ill-defined guidelines that are obviously subject to abuse. The most glaring areas are as follows:
A patient does not necessarily need to be seen, evaluated or diagnosed as having any specific medical condition to qualify for the use of marijuana.
There is no requirement for a written prescription or even a written recommendation for its medical use.
Once "recommended," the patient never needs to be seen again to assess the effectiveness of the treatment and potentially could use that "recommendation" for the rest of his or
her life.
There is no limitation to the conditions for which it can be used, it can be recommended for virtually any condition, even if it is not believed to be effective.
The doctor concludes by stating: "Certainly as a physician I have witnessed the detrimental effects of marijuana use on patients and their families. It is not a harmless
substance."
Passage of Proposition 215 resulted in conflict between California and the federal government. In February 1997, the Executive Office of the President issued its response to the
California Compassionate Use Act (as well as Arizona’s Proposition 200). The notice stated:
[The] Department of Justice’s (D.O.J.) position is that a practitioner’s practice of recommending or prescribing Schedule I controlled substances is not consistent with the public
interest (as that phrase is used in the federal Controlled Substances Act) and will lead to administrative action by the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) to revoke the
practitioner’s registration.
The notice indicated that U.S. attorneys in California and Arizona would consider cases for prosecution using certain criteria. These included lack of a bona fide doctor-patient
relationship, a "high volume" of prescriptions (or recommendations) for Schedule I drugs, "significant" profits derived from such prescriptions, prescriptions to minors, and
"special circumstances" like impaired driving accidents involving serious injury.
The federal government’s reasons for taking such a stance are solid. Dr. Donald Vereen of the Office of National Drug Control Policy explains that "research-based evidence"
must be the focus when evaluating the risks and benefits of any drug, the only approach that provides a rational basis for making such a determination. He also explains that
since testing by the Food and Drug Administration and other government agencies are designed to protect public health, circumvention of the process is unwise.
While the federal government supports FDA approved cannabinoid-based drugs, it maintains that ballot initiatives should not be allowed to remove marijuana evaluation from
the realm of science and the drug approval process — a position based on a concern for public health. The Department of Health and Human Services has revised its regulations
by making research-grade marijuana more available and intends to facilitate more research of cannabinoids. The department does not, however, intend to lower its standards of
scientific proof.
Problems resulting from the California initiative are not isolated to conflict between the state and federal government.
California courts themselves limited the distribution of medical marijuana. A 1997 California Appellate decision held that the state’s Compassionate Use Act only allowed
purchase of medical marijuana from a patient’s "primary caregiver," not from "drug dealers on street corners" or "sales centers such as the Cannabis Buyers’ Club." This decision
allowed courts to enjoin marijuana clubs.
The course of California’s initiative and those of other states illustrate that such ballot-driven movements are not a legally effective or reliable way to supply the sick with
whatever medical benefit the marijuana plant might hold. If the focus were shifted away from smoking the plant and toward a non-smoked alternative based on scientific
research, much of this conflict could be avoided.
Filling "Prescriptions"
It is one thing to pass a ballot initiative defining a burning plant as medicine. It is
yet another to make available such "medicine" if the plant itself remains — as it should —
illegal . Recreational use, after all, cannot be equated with medicinal use, and none of the ballots passed were constructed to do so.
Nonetheless, cannabis buyers’ clubs were quick to present the fiction that, for medical benefit, they were now in business to provided relief for the sick. In California, 13 such
clubs rapidly went into operation, selling marijuana openly under the guise that doing so had been
legitimized at the polls. The problem was that these organizations were selling to people under the flimsiest of facades. One club went so far as to proclaim: "All use of
marijuana is medical. It makes you smarter. It touches the right brain and allows you to slow down, to smell the flowers."
legal interpretation of what was allowed became problematic
Depending on the wording of the specific ballots,
. The buyers’
clubs became notorious for liberal interpretations of "prescription," "doctor’s recommendation," and "medical." In California, Lucy Mae Tuck obtained a prescription for
marijuana to treat hot flashes. Another citizen arrested for possession claimed he was medically entitled to his stash to treat a condition exacerbated by an ingrown toenail.
Undercover police in several buyers clubs reported blatant sales to minors and adults with little attention to claims of medical need or a doctor’s direction. Eventually, 10 of the
13 clubs in California were closed.
Further exacerbating the confusion over smoked marijuana as medicine are doctors’ concerns over medical
liability. Without the Food and Drug Administration’s approval, marijuana cannot become a pharmaceutical drug to be
purchased at local drug stores. Nor can there be any degree of confidence that proper doses can be
measured out and chemical impurities eliminated in the marijuana that is obtained. After all, we are talking about a leaf, and a burning one at that. In the meantime, the harmful
effects of marijuana have been documented in greater scientific detail than any findings about the medical benefits of smoking the plant.
2AC
TREATIES/CEA CP
The prohibitionist bloc will derail it even without the US
Gomis, 14 – Visiting Scholar at the University of British Columbia and the Canadian Network
for Research in Terrorism, Security and Society in Vancouver, Canada (Benoit, “Illicit Drugs and
International Security: Towards UNGASS 2016” February, chathamhouse)
Meanwhile Russia has expressed concerns over flows of drugs from Afghanistan following the
withdrawal of the International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) in 2014. It is pushing for
harsher counter-narcotics policies in the country, as the latest UN report indicates a record
annual increase of opium production.62 Russia has also supported a series of counter-narcotics
programmes focused on law enforcement and interdiction training in Afghanistan,
Turkmenistan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan and Pakistan, and in Central American countries. Russia’s
uncompromising prohibitionist stance continues to be popular in numerous countries in Asia
and Africa that advocate zero-tolerance policies.63
Europe certainly has lessons to offer regarding drug policy but European governments have
largely stayed away from the recent international debates. In countries such as Portugal, where
progressive policies have been implemented, budgetary pressures and the rise of conservative
views are endangering progress domestically.64 In the United Kingdom, Prime Minister David
Cameron rejected the parliamentary Home Affairs Select Committee’s proposal for a Royal
Commission to comprehensively reassess current policies. Home Secretary Theresa May has
been reluctant to discuss reform, even disregarding recommendations from the Advisory
Council on the Misuse of Drugs and putting in place a ban on khat.65 An internal review into
drug policy concluded that decreases in use in the country demonstrate that existing policies are
working. This argument, however, ignores the international nature of the challenge and the
larger responsibility of West European governments in tackling a truly global and complex
problem that fuels high levels of organized crime and violence. In addition, the United Kingdom
faces an increase in the use of other drugs, including new psychoactive substances and over-thecounter or prescription medicine.
Other regions of the world face increased levels of political uncertainty and insecurity related to
drug production and trafficking. West Africa struggles to tackle the multiple challenges linked to
the growing trade through the region, including corruption, organized crime, financing of
extremist organizations, an increase in addiction and an increased burden on law-enforcement
agencies and other already struggling public institutions.66 In Afghanistan, the withdrawal of
ISAF from the country and the transition to an Afghan-led security apparatus shows little
promise of mitigating opium production and related corruption.67
This international political context makes it very difficult, if not impossible, to substantially
reform the UN conventions. However, current difficulties and the overall complexity of the
problem should not be used as an excuse for policy inaction and inertia. The current situation –
characterized by persistent levels of violence, insecurity and corruption, changing trade routes
causing instability in new regions, the emergence of new drugs and the negative impact of drug
policies – is no longer sustainable.
plan’s key to treaty reform—prior legalization jumpstarts reform
Collins, 10/28/14 - John Collins is the International Drug Policy Project Coordinator at LSE
IDEAS at the London School of Economics (John, “Surprising source offers signs the global ‘war
on drugs’ may be ending” Reuters, http://blogs.reuters.com/greatdebate/2014/10/28/surprising-source-offers-signs-the-global-war-on-drugs-may-be-ending/
William R. Brownfield, assistant secretary of state in the Bureau of International Narcotics and
Law Enforcement Affairs summed up the key idea underpinning the shift at the United Nations
on Oct. 9:
Things have changed since 1961. We must have enough flexibility to allow us to incorporate
those changes into our policies … to tolerate different national drug policies, to accept the fact
that some countries will have very strict drug approaches; other countries will legalize entire
categories of drugs.
The statement is hugely significant as it represents a new diplomatic doctrine and a potential
tipping point in efforts to end the disastrous “war on drugs” that has lasted six decades.
It recognizes that immediate reform of the UN drug control conventions (the core of which is the
1961 Single Convention), while necessary, is not yet feasible. But it acknowledges that UN
conventions should never serve as a barrier to improving global drug policies and that different
policies will work for different regions and nations. Lastly, it accepts that member states can
reinterpret the conventions in response to new scientific evidence and with careful regard to
other international human rights norms and obligations — as Uruguay has done in the case of
cannabis regulation.
The United States was a key architect of the international control system, begun in 1909, and
has traditionally served as chief proselytizer for a repressive prohibitionist model globally.
Although it initially rejected the 1961 Single Convention as too weak relative to its predecessor
treaties, the United States soon embraced it as a useful mechanism to rally nations towards the
global war on drugs, formally launched in the 1970s. The United States soon worked to
strengthen the convention through successor treaties, funding initiatives and aggressive
bilateral drug diplomacy.
Now that the United States has openly rejected the role of key bilateral enforcer the United
Nations will likely cease to be a forum where states are pressured to pursue the war on drugs
orthodoxy. Instead, it can become a forum that facilitates cooperation and discussion on a new
range of policy approaches.
The main obstacle to this change will likely remain Russia and a coalition of conservative states
that are reticent to move away from a militarized and repressive police response. Nonetheless,
Russia, despite a strong grip on the UN drug control apparatus, will struggle to enforce its vision
due to the post-Ukraine diplomatic freeze and a general recognition that Russia’s domestic drug
policies have fuelled incarceration, human rights abuses and a HIV epidemic.
As states approach the 2016 UN General Assembly Special Session on Drugs, Brownfield’s
framework provides a practical way forward. It allows states to push ahead with various national
regulatory reforms, including regulated markets around the recreational use of certain drugs. It
focuses diplomatic effort on preserving the ‘core’ of the conventions — nothing to do with
national cannabis or coca leaf prohibitions, and everything to do with regulating licit markets for
pain medicines.
And it focuses enforcement efforts on minimizing the impact of illicit markets through effective
targeting of criminal gangs, rather than blanket enforcement of impossible global prohibitions.
Finally, it allows regions to move ahead with case-specific policies that reflect their local needs,
rather than acting as agents of a self-destructive global ‘one-size-fits-all’ policy.
The United Nations and member states are moving toward a more nuanced understanding that
places the drug conventions within broader contexts of human rights, indigenous rights and
other frameworks of health and human empowerment. As Brownfield points out, part of this
shift is driven by the need to make rational determinations of resource allocation and interpret
implementation of the conventions accordingly.
The United States federal government does not believe making U.S. states comply with drug
conventions on cannabis is a good use of resources. Other nations should make similar, case
specific, determinations.
Legal reform of the international drug conventions is certainly required but only prior national
reforms will make that process seem necessary and inevitable to member states.
The course outlined in the Brownfield doctrine appears the best strategy to ensure the survival
and modernization of the global drug control framework for the immediate future.
No solvency --- delay
Steinberg 1 – Gerald Steinberg, Center for Strategic Studies, Jerusalem Post, 9-21-2001, Lexis
Instead of time-consuming negotiations and diplomatic coalition building, President Bush, as the
leader of the world's only superpower needs to demonstrate his determination and power through clear
action . This does not mean that long-standing allies such as NATO (including Turkey) and partners such as Israel, Japan, South
Korea, Taiwan, India and even Russia and China should be ignored. Consultation and cooperation are important,
but the US must also provide an unambiguous lead . Those states that are serious about anti-terrorist policies
will follow, including Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Kuwait and many other Arab and Islamic countries which are themselves
threatened by fundamentalist Islamic terror.
UN says no
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=xMcRV
MEgia_IBL3xgtgE&usg=AFQjCNEzapo6rmX2drItTNAlEF6SqJcDiw&sig2=vhMVPBlGoaWEJ9GB2HYb
Hg)
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 exSoviet 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.
CEAs don’t resolve the underlying uncertainty
Kleiman, 13 – professor at UCLA (Mark, “MARIJUANA LEGALIZATION: ARE THERE
ALTERNATIVES TO STATE-FEDERAL CONFLICT?” 4/15,
http://www.brookings.edu/~/media/events/2013/4/15marijuana/20130415_marijuana_federalism_transcript.pdf)
And it’s
not fully clear to me that simply entering into a cooperative enforcement agreement is going
to solve the problem unless the states are prepared to do what their voters were promised they wouldn’t have to do. One of the
premises of these legalization issues was let’s take law enforcement resources out of the cannabis sector and start enforcing the laws
we really care about. But it seems to me, at least in the first few years, it’s going to require more law enforcement to
support a taxed and regulated market in the face of untaxed and unregulated threats to it, then it’s
taken up till now. And whether the states will actually enter into that agreement seems to me an interesting question. Whether they
have the capacity to keep it given -- it’s true that most law enforcement is federal -- I’m sorry, state and local rather than federal, but
most state and local law enforcement is very distinctly local. It’s not obvious to me that the Washington State Police, even if they
wanted to, could shut down what goes on. So if a cooperative enforcement agreement were entered into, and I
think it’s a serious idea, it’d
still be somewhat unsatisfactory because it would leave people doing what’s
legal under state law committing felonies under federal law . And there could be a
published policy that that particular federal felony is a low enforcement priority, but that’s not
a legal defense . MR. RAUCH: Is there a better approach? What’s your first choice? MR. KLEIMAN: Well, the first choice
might be to legalize the substance nationally. I don’t think the country’s ready for that, but if I had to guess, I’ve been predicting for a
couple of years now that we’d have full national cannabis legalization sometime in Hillary Clinton’s second term. (Laughter) And
that still seems to me like about the right guess. Not plausible now. An alternative, again, I think not plausible now, but the right
thing to do now, would be to have statutory authority not merely to enter into a cooperative
enforcement agreement, but to actually legalize at the federal level what’s done under state law for
a state which has presented to the federal government a plan for how it’s going to keep its cannabis in state rather than becoming a
national supplier. So this would be the cannabis equivalent of the welfare reform waiver policy. MR. RAUCH: And why is that
better than doing it through a contract between the AG and the states? MR. KLEIMAN: Because then
the grower and the seller would be legal rather than merely hoping they didn’t get busted.
MR. RAUCH: So you have a clear, safe harbor, which gives you a stronger incentive to stay in the legal market and
out of the gray market . MR. KLEIMAN: And then the bank that you want to deposit your money
in wouldn’t have to worry about whether its teller was going to get a 20- year sentence for
violating the money laundering laws.
FDA CP
Federal prohibition creates a shortage of cyber workers—CSA is key
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-cyber-hiring-could-take-hit-undermarijuana-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
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
hosts job fairs. "
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
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 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
infractions. Or, unless those rolling a joint work for them. “
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."
Cyber-vulnerability causes great power nuclear war
Fritz 9 | Researcher for International Commission on Nuclear Nonproliferation and
Disarmament [Jason, researcher for International Commission on Nuclear Nonproliferation
and Disarmament, former Army officer and consultant, and has a master of international
relations at Bond University, “Hacking Nuclear Command and Control,” July,
http://www.icnnd.org/latest/research/Jason_Fritz_Hacking_NC2.pdf]
This paper will analyse the threat of cyber terrorism in regard to nuclear weapons. Specifically, this research will use open source
knowledge to identify the structure of nuclear command and control centres, how those structures might be compromised through computer
network operations, and how doing so would fit within established cyber terrorists’ capabilities, strategies, and tactics. If
access to
command and control centres is obtained, terrorists could fake or actually cause one nucleararmed state to attack another, thus provoking a nuclear response from another nuclear
power. This may be an easier alternative for terrorist groups than building or acquiring a
nuclear weapon or dirty bomb themselves. This would also act as a force equaliser, and
provide terrorists with the asymmetric benefits of high speed, removal of geographical
distance, and a relatively low cost. Continuing difficulties in developing computer tracking
technologies which could trace the identity of intruders, and difficulties in establishing an internationally agreed
upon legal framework to guide responses to computer network operations, point towards an inherent weakness in using
computer networks to manage nuclear weaponry. This is particularly relevant to reducing the
hair trigger posture of existing nuclear arsenals. All computers which are connected to the internet are
susceptible to infiltration and remote control. Computers which operate on a closed network may also be
compromised by various hacker methods, such as privilege escalation, roaming notebooks,
wireless access points, embedded exploits in software and hardware, and maintenance entry
points. For example, e-mail spoofing targeted at individuals who have access to a closed network,
could lead to the installation of a virus on an open network. This virus could then be carelessly transported on
removable data storage between the open and closed network. Information found on the internet may also reveal
how to access these closed networks directly. Efforts by militaries to place increasing reliance
on computer networks, including experimental technology such as autonomous systems, and
their desire to have multiple launch options, such as nuclear triad capability, enables multiple
entry points for terrorists. For example, if a terrestrial command centre is impenetrable, perhaps isolating one nuclear armed
submarine would prove an easier task. There is evidence to suggest multiple attempts have been
made by hackers to compromise the extremely low radio frequency once used by the US
Navy to send nuclear launch approval to submerged submarines. Additionally, the alleged Soviet
system known as Perimetr was designed to automatically launch nuclear weapons if it was
unable to establish communications with Soviet leadership. This was intended as a retaliatory
response in the event that nuclear weapons had decapitated Soviet leadership; however it did
not account for the possibility of cyber terrorists blocking communications through computer
network operations in an attempt to engage the system. Should a warhead be launched, damage could be further
enhanced through additional computer network operations. By using proxies, multi-layered attacks could be
engineered. Terrorists could remotely commandeer computers in China and use them to
launch a US nuclear attack against Russia. Thus Russia would believe it was under attack
from the US and the US would believe China was responsible. Further, emergency response
communications could be disrupted, transportation could be shut down, and disinformation,
such as misdirection, could be planted, thereby hindering the disaster relief effort and
maximizing destruction. Disruptions in communication and the use of disinformation
could also be used to provoke uninformed responses. For example, a nuclear strike between
India and Pakistan could be coordinated with Distributed Denial of Service attacks against
key networks, so they would have further difficulty in identifying what happened and be
forced to respond quickly. Terrorists could also knock out communications between these states so they cannot discuss the
situation. Alternatively, amidst the confusion of a traditional large-scale terrorist attack, claims
of responsibility and declarations of war could be falsified in an attempt to instigate a hasty
military response. These false claims could be posted directly on Presidential, military, and government websites. E-mails could also be
sent to the media and foreign governments using the IP addresses and e-mail accounts of government officials. A sophisticated and
all encompassing combination of traditional terrorism and cyber terrorism could be enough
to launch nuclear weapons on its own, without the need for compromising command and
control centres directly.
POLITICS
Iran fight thumps the link --- a top priority
Pianin, 12/29/14 --- veteran journalist who has covered the federal government, congressional
budget and tax issues, and national politics (Eric, “How the GOP Could Jettison the Iran Talks,”
http://www.thefiscaltimes.com/2014/12/29/How-GOP-Could-Jettison-Iran-Talks, JMP)
Republicans signaled over the weekend they intend to waste little time in the New Year before
they challenge President Obama on a range of sensitive national security and defense issues.
Likely to be first up: a measure to beef up economic sanctions against Iran if that country
violates an interim nuclear agreement with the U.S. or scuttles the ongoing talks on the future of
Iran’s nuclear weapons capability.
Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) said on Saturday in Israel that the Senate would vote on a
bipartisan measure next month that could greatly complicate the delicate talks by introducing
the threat of additional sanctions, The Hill reported.
The administration wants a deal with Iran that would dismantle large parts of its nuclear
infrastructure and delay for years its nuclear weapons capability in exchange for further relief
from tough economic sanctions that have severely hampered Iran’s economy.
Standing side-by-side with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, Graham said, “You will
see a very vigorous Congress when it comes to Iran. You will see a Congress making sure
sanctions are real and will be reimposed at the drop of a hat. You will see Congress wanting to
have a say about any final deal.”
The joint appearance of Graham, a prominent congressional defense hawk, along with
Netanyahu was highly symbolic of the GOP’s skepticism over Obama’s foreign policy and
defense tactics and its determination to take a harder line. Graham is closely allied with Sen.
John McCain (R-AZ), a top Obama critic who becomes chair of the Armed Services Committee
next month.
Netanyahu has also been highly critical of Obama’s policy toward Iran. Little more than a year
ago, he threatened unilateral military action unless Tehran abandoned its perceived drive to
develop nuclear weapons that could be used against Israel.
With the Republicans taking control of both the Senate and House beginning next month, the
debate over the conduct of U.S. foreign policy and defense will be front and center on
Capitol Hill. GOP leaders are certain to challenge Obama on a wide range of topics – on
everything from his handling of the war against ISIS in Syria and Iraq to his efforts to combat
Russian President Vladimir Putin’s military aggression in Ukraine, to spending on defense and
new weapons systems.
Warming is inevitable
Solomon et al 09 [Susan- member of the US National Academy of Sciences, the European
Academy of Sciences, and the Academy of Sciences of France, Nobel Peace Prize Winner,
Chairman of the IPCC, “Irreversible climate change due to carbon dioxide emissions,” PNAS,
Vol 106, 2/10/09 http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2009/01/28/0812721106.full.pdf]
Over the 20th century, the atmospheric concentrations of key greenhouse gases increased due to
human activities. The stated objective (Article 2) of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC)
is to achieve stabilization of greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere at a low enough level to prevent ‘‘dangerous
anthropogenic interference with the climate system.’’ Many studies have focused on projections of possible 21st century dangers (1–
3). However, the principles (Article 3) of the UNFCCC specifically emphasize ‘‘threats of serious
or irreversible damage,’’ underscoring the importance of the longer term. While some irreversible climate
changes such as ice sheet collapse are possible but highly uncertain (1, 4), others can now be
identified with greater confidence, and examples among the latter are presented in this paper. It is not generally
appreciated that the atmospheric temperature increases caused by rising carbon dioxide
concentrations are not expected to decrease significantly even if carbon emissions were to
completely cease (5–7) (see Fig. 1). Future carbon dioxide emissions in the 21st century will hence lead to adverse climate
changes on both short and long time scales that would be essentially irreversible (where irreversible is defined here as
a time scale exceeding the end of the millennium in year 3000; note that we do not consider geo-engineering measures that might be
able to remove gases already in the atmosphere or to introduce active cooling to counteract warming). For the same reason,
the physical climate changes that are due to anthropogenic carbon dioxide already in the
atmosphere today are expected to be largely irreversible. Such climate changes will lead to a
range of damaging impacts in different regions and sectors, some of which occur promptly in
association with warming, while others build up under sustained warming because of the time
lags of the processes involved. Here we illustrate 2 such aspects of the irreversibly altered world that should be expected.
These aspects are among reasons for concern but are not comprehensive; other possible climate impacts include Arctic sea ice
retreat, increases in heavy rainfall and flooding, permafrost melt, loss of glaciers and snowpack with attendant changes in water
supply, increased intensity of hurricanes, etc. A complete climate impacts review is presented elsewhere (8) and is beyond the scope
of this paper. We focus on illustrative adverse and irreversible climate impacts for which 3 criteria are met: (i) observed
changes are already occurring and there is evidence for anthropogenic contributions to these
changes, (ii) the phenomenon is based upon physical principles thought to be well understood,
and (iii) projections are available and are broadly robust across models. Advances in modeling have led
not only to improvements in complex Atmosphere–Ocean General Circulation Models (AOGCMs) for projecting 21st century
climate, but also to the implementation of Earth System Models of Intermediate Complexity (EMICs) for millennial time scales.
These 2 types of models are used in this paper to show how different peak carbon dioxide concentrations that could be attained in
the 21st century are expected to lead to substantial and irreversible decreases in dry-season rainfall in a number of already-dry
subtropical areas and lower limits to eventual sea level rise of the order of meters, implying unavoidable inundation of many small
islands and low-lying coastal areas. Results Longevity of an Atmospheric CO2 Perturbation. As has long been known, the removal of
carbon dioxide from the atmosphere involves multiple processes including rapid exchange with the land biosphere and the surface
layer of the ocean through air–sea exchange and much slower penetration to the ocean interior that is dependent upon the buffering
effect of ocean chemistry along with vertical transport (9–12). On the time scale of a millennium addressed here, the CO2
equilibrates largely between the atmosphere and the ocean and, depending on associated increases in acidity and in ocean warming
(i.e., an increase in the Revelle or ‘‘buffer’’ factor, see below), typically 20% of the added tonnes of CO2 remain in the atmosphere
while 80% are mixed into the ocean. Carbon isotope studies provide important observational constraints on these processes and
time constants. On multimillenium and longer time scales, geochemical and geological Author contributions: S.S., G.-K.P., R.K., and
P.F. designed research; S.S., G.-K.P., and R.K. performed research; G.-K.P. and R.K. analyzed data; and S.S., G.-K.P., R.K., and P.F.
wrote the paper. The authors declare no conflict of interest. Freely available online through the PNAS open access option. 1 To whom
correspondence should be addressed. E-mail: susan.solomon@noaa.gov. This article contains supporting information online at
www.pnas.org/cgi/content/full/ 0812721106/DCSupplemental. © 2009 by The National Academy of Sciences of the USA 1704 –
1709 PNAS February 10, 2009 vol. 106 no. 6 www.pnas.orgcgidoi10.1073pnas.0812721106processes could restore atmospheric
carbon dioxide to its preindustrial values (10, 11), but are not included here. Fig. 1 illustrates how the concentrations of carbon
dioxide would be expected to fall off through the coming millennium if manmade emissions were to cease immediately following an
illustrative future rate of emission increase of 2% per year [comparable to observations over the past decade (ref. 13)] up to peak
concentrations of 450, 550, 650, 750, 850, or 1,200 ppmv; similar results were obtained across a range of EMICs that were assessed
in the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Fourth Assessment Report (5, 7). This is not intended to be a realistic
scenario but rather to represent a test case whose purpose is to probe physical climate system changes. A more gradual reduction of
carbon dioxide emission (as is more likely), or a faster or slower adopted rate of emissions in the growth period, would lead to longterm behavior qualitatively similar to that illustrated in Fig. 1 (see also Fig. S1). The example of a sudden cessation of
emissions provides an upper bound to how much reversibility is possible, if, for example,
unexpectedly damaging climate changes were to be observed. Carbon dioxide is the only greenhouse gas
whose falloff displays multiple rather than single time constants (see Fig. S2). Current emissions of major non-CO2
greenhouse gases such as methane or nitrous oxide are significant for climate change in the next
few decades or century, but these gases do not persist over time in the same way as carbon dioxide (14). Fig. 1 shows that a
quasi-equilibrium amount of CO2 is expected to be retained in the atmosphere by the end of the millennium that is surprisingly
large: typically 40% of the peak concentration enhancement over preindustrial values (280 ppmv). This can be easily understood on
the basis of the observed instantaneous airborne fraction (AF peak ) of 50% of anthropogenic carbon emissions retained during their
buildup in the atmosphere, together with well-established ocean chemistry and physics that require 20% of the emitted carbon to
remain in the atmosphere on thousand-year timescales [quasiequilibrium airborne fraction (AF equi ), determined largely by the
Revelle factor governing the long-term partitioning of carbon between the ocean and atmosphere/biosphere system] (9–11).
Assuming given cumulative emissions, EMI, the peak concentration, CO2 peak (increase over the preindustrial value CO2 0 ), and
the resulting 1,000-year quasi-equilibrium concentration, CO2 equi can be expressed as CO2 peak CO2 0 AF peak EMI [1] CO2 equi
CO2 0 AF equi EMI [2] so that CO2 equi
CO2 0 AF equi AF peak CO2 peak
CO2 0
. [3] Given an instantaneous airborne
fraction (AF peak ) of 50% during the period of rising CO2, and a quasi-equilbrium airborne factor (AF equi ) of 20%, it follows that
the quasi-equilibrium enhancement of CO2 concentration above its preindustrial value is 40% of the peak enhancement. For
example, if the CO2 concentration were to peak at 800 ppmv followed by zero emissions, the
quasi-equilibrium CO2 concentration would still be far above the preindustrial value at 500
ppmv. Additional carbon cycle feedbacks could reduce the efficiency of the ocean and biosphere
to remove the anthropogenic CO2 and thereby increase these CO2 values (15, 16). Further, a longer decay
time and increased CO2 concentrations at year 1000 are expected for large total carbon emissions (17). Irreversible Climate Change:
Atmospheric Warming. Global average temperatures increase while CO2 is increasing and then remain approximately constant
(within
0.5 °C) until the end of the millennium despite zero further emissions in all of the test cases shown in Fig. 1. This important result is
due to a near balance between the long-term decrease of radiative forcing due to CO2 concentration decay and reduced cooling
through heat loss to the oceans. It arises because long-term carbon dioxide removal 1800 2000 2200 2400 2600 2800 3000 400
600 800 1000 1200 CO 2 (ppmv) 1800 2000 2200 2400 2600 2800 3000 0 1 2 3 4 5 Surface Warming (K) 1800 2000 2200 2400
2600 2800 3000 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 Thermal expansion (m) Emission growth Zero emission after peaks Peak at 1200 850 750 650 550
450 Global average warming Thermal expansion of ocean Year 2%/year growth to peak preindustrial Fig. 1. Carbon dioxide and
global mean climate system changes (relative to preindustrial conditions in 1765) from 1 illustrative model, the Bern 2.5CC EMIC,
whose results are comparable to the suite of assessed EMICs (5, 7). Climate system responses are shown for a ramp of CO2
emissions at a rate of 2%/year to peak CO2 values of 450, 550, 650, 750, 850, and 1200 ppmv, followed by zero emissions. The rate
of global fossil fuel CO2 emission grew at 1%/year from 1980 to 2000 and 3%/year in the period from 2000 to 2005 (13). Results
have been smoothed using an 11-year running mean. The 31-year variation seen in the carbon dioxide time series is introduced by
the climatology used to force the terrestrial biosphere model (15). (Top) Falloff of CO2 concentrations following zero emissions after
the peak. (Middle) Globally averaged surface warming (degrees Celsius) for these cases (note that this model has an equilibrium
climate sensitivity of 3.2 °C for carbon dioxide doubling). Warming over land is expected to be larger than these global averaged
values, with the greatest warming expected in the Arctic (5). (Bottom) Sea level rise (meters) from thermal expansion only (not
including loss of glaciers, ice caps, or ice sheets). Solomon et al. PNAS February 10, 2009 vol. 106 no. 6 1705 ENVIRONMENTAL
SCIENCESand ocean heat uptake are both dependent on the same physics of deep-ocean mixing. Sea level rise due to thermal
expansion accompanies mixing of heat into the ocean long after carbon dioxide emissions have stopped. For larger carbon
dioxide concentrations, warming and thermal sea level rise show greater increases and display
transient changes that can be very rapid (i.e., the rapid changes in Fig. 1 Middle), mainly because of changes in ocean
circulation (18). Paleoclimatic evidence suggests that additional contributions from melting of glaciers and ice sheets may be
comparable to or greater than thermal expansion (discussed further below), but these are not included in Fig. 1. Fig. 2 explores how
close the modeled temperature changes are to thermal equilibrium with respect to the changing carbon dioxide concentration over
time, sometimes called the realized warming fraction (19) (shown for the different peak CO2 cases). Fig. 2 Left shows how the
calculated warmings compare to those expected if temperatures were in equilibrium with the carbon dioxide concentrations vs. time,
while Fig. 2 Right shows the ratio of these calculated time-dependent and equilibrium temperatures. During the period when carbon
dioxide is increasing, the realized global warming fraction is 50–60% of the equilibrium warming, close to values obtained in other
models (5, 19). After emissions cease, the temperature change approaches equilibrium with respect
to the slowly decreasing carbon dioxide concentrations (cyan lines in Fig. 2 Right). The continuing warming
through year 3000 is maintained at 40–60% of the equilibrium warming corresponding to the peak CO2 concentration (magenta
lines in Fig. 2 Right). Related changes in fast-responding atmospheric climate variables such as precipitation, water vapor, heat
waves, cloudiness, etc., are expected to occur largely simultaneously with the temperature changes. Irreversible Climate Change:
Precipitation Changes. Warming is expected to be linked to changes in rainfall (20), which can adversely affect the supply of water
for humans, agriculture, and ecosystems. Precipitation is highly variable but long-term rainfall decreases have been observed in
some large regions including, e.g., the Mediterranean, southern Africa, and parts of southwestern North America (21–25). Confident
projection of future changes remains elusive over many parts of the globe and at small scales. However, well-known physics (the
Clausius–Clapeyron law) implies that increased temperature causes increased atmospheric water vapor concentrations, and changes
in water vapor transport and the hydrologic cycle can hence be expected (26–28). Further, advances in modeling show
that a robust characteristic of anthropogenic climate change is poleward expansion of the
Hadley cell and shifting of the pattern of precipitation minus evaporation (P–E) and the storm
tracks (22, 26), and hence a pattern of drying over much of the already-dry subtropics in a
warmer world (15°-40° latitude in each hemisphere) (5, 26). Attribution studies suggest that
such a drying pattern is already occurring in a manner consistent with models including
anthropogenic forcing (23), particularly in the southwestern United States (22) and Mediterranean basin (24, 25). We use a
suite of 22 available AOGCM projections based upon the evaluation in the IPCC 2007 report (5, 29) to characterize precipitation
changes. Changes in precipitation are expected (5, 20, 30) to scale approximately linearly with increasing warming (see Fig. S3). The
equilibrium relationship between precipitation and temperature may be slightly smaller (by 15%) than the transient values, due to
changes in the land/ ocean thermal contrast (31). On the other hand, the observed 20th century changes follow a similar latitudinal
pattern but presently exceed those calculated by AOGCMs (23). Models that include more complex representations of the land
surface, soil, and vegetation interactively are likely to display additional feedbacks so that larger precipitation responses are possible.
Here we evaluate the relationship between temperature and precipitation averaged for each month and over a decade at each grid
point. One ensemble member is used for each model so that all AOGCMs are equally weighted in the multimodel ensemble; results
are nearly identical if all available model ensemble members are used. Fig. 3 presents a map of the expected dry-season (3 driest
consecutive months at each grid point) precipitation trends per degree of global warming. Fig. 3 shows that large uncertainties
remain in the projections for many regions (white areas). However, it also shows that there are some subtropical
locations on every inhabited continent where dry seasons are expected to become drier in the
decadal average by up to 10% per degree of warming. Some of these grid points occur in desert
regions that are already very dry, but many occur in currently more temperate and semiarid locations. We find that
model results are more robust over land across the available models over wider areas for drying of the dry season than for the annual
mean or wet season (see Fig. S4). The Insets in Fig. 3 show the monthly mean projected precipitation changes averaged over several
large regions as delineated on the map. Increased drying of respective dry seasons is projected by 90% of the models averaged over
the indicated regions of southern Europe, northern Africa, southern Africa, and southwestern North America and by 80% of the
models for eastern South America and western Australia (see Fig. S3). Although given particular years would show exceptions, the
long-term irreversible warming and mean rainfall changes as suggested by Figs. 1 and 3 would have important consequences in
many regions. While some relief can be expected in the wet season for some regions (Fig. S4), changes in dry-season precipitation in
northern Africa, southern Europe, and western Australia are expected to be near 20% for 2 °C warming, and those of southwestern
North America, eastern South America, and southern Africa would be 10% for 2 °C of global mean warming. For comparison, the
American ‘‘dust Fig. 2. Comparison between calculated time-dependent surface warming in the Bern2.5CC model and the values that
would be expected if temperatures were in equilibrium with respect to the CO2 enhancements, illustrative of 2%/year emission
increases to 450, 550, 650, 750, 850, and 1,200 ppmv as in Fig. 1. (Left) The actual and equilibrium temperature changes (based
upon the model’s climate sensitivity at equilibrium). The cyan lines in Right show the ratio of actual and equilibrium temperatures
(or realized fraction of the warming for the time-dependent CO2 concentrations), while the magenta lines show the ratio of actual
warming to the equilibrium temperature for the peak CO2 concentration. 1706 www.pnas.orgcgidoi10.1073pnas.0812721106
Solomon et al.bowl’’ was associated with averaged rainfall decreases of 10% over 10–20 years, similar to major droughts in Europe
and western Australia in the 1940s and 1950s (22, 32). The spatial changes in precipitation as shown in Fig. 3 imply greater
challenges in the distribution of food and water supplies than those with which the world has
had difficulty coping in the past. Such changes occurring not just for a few decades but over
centuries are expected to have a range of impacts that differ by region. These include, e.g., human water
supplies (25), effects on dry-season wheat and maize agriculture in certain regions of rain-fed farming such as Africa (33, 34),
increased fire frequency, ecosystem change, and desertification (24, 35–38). Fig. 4 Upper relates the expected irreversible changes in
regional dry-season precipitation shown in Fig. 3 to best estimates of the corresponding peak and long-term CO2 concentrations. We
use 3 °C as the best estimate of climate sensitivity across the suite of AOGCMs for a doubling of carbon dioxide from preindustrial
values (5) along with the regional drying values depicted in Fig. 3 and assuming that 40% of the carbon dioxide peak concentration
is retained after 1000 years. Fig. 4 shows that if carbon dioxide were to peak at levels of 450 ppmv,
irreversible decreases of 8–10% in dry-season precipitation would be expected on average over
each of the indicated large regions of southern Europe, western Australia, and northern Africa,
while a carbon dioxide peak value near 600 ppmv would be expected to lead to sustained rainfall
decreases of 13–16% in the dry seasons in these areas; smaller but statistically significant
irreversible changes would also be expected for southwestern North America, eastern South
America, and Southern Africa. Irreversible Climate Change: Sea Level Rise. Anthropogenic carbon dioxide
will cause irrevocable sea level rise. There are 2 relatively well-understood processes that contribute to this and a third
that may be much more important but is also very uncertain. Warming causes the ocean to expand and sea levels to rise as shown in
Fig. 1; this has been the dominant source of sea level rise in the past decade at least (39). Loss of land ice also makes important
contributions to sea level rise as the world warms. Mountain glaciers in many locations are observed to be retreating due to
warming, and this contribution to sea level rise is also relatively well understood. Warming may also lead to large losses of the
Greenland and/or Antarctic ice sheets. Additional rapid ice losses from particular parts of the ice sheets of
Greenland and Antarctica have recently been observed (40–42). One recent study uses current ice discharge
data to suggest ice sheet contributions of up to 1–2 m to sea level rise by 2100 (42), but other studies suggest that changes in winds
rather than warming may account for currently observed rapid ice sheet flow (43), rendering quantitative extrapolation into the
future uncertain. In addition to rapid ice flow, slow ice sheet mass balance processes are another mechanism for potential large sea
level rise. Paleoclimatic data demonstrate large contributions of ice sheet loss to sea level rise (1, 4) but provide limited constraints
on the rate of such processes. Some recent studies suggest that ice sheet surface mass balance loss for peak CO2 concentrations of
400–800 ppmv may be even slower than the removal of manmade carbon dioxide following cessation of emisFig. 3. Expected
decadally averaged changes in the global distribution of precipitation per degree of warming (percentage of change in precipitation
per degree of warming, relative to 1900–1950 as the baseline period) in the dry season at each grid point, based upon a suite of 22
AOGCMs for a midrange future scenario (A1B, see ref. 5). White is used where fewer than 16 of 22 models agree on the sign of the
change. Data are monthly averaged over several broad regions in Inset plots. Red lines show the best estimate (median) of the
changes in these regions, while the red shading indicates the
1likely range (i.e., 2 of 3 chances) across the models. Solomon et al. PNAS February 10, 2009 vol. 106 no. 6 1707
ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCESsions, so that this loss could contribute less than a meter to irreversible sea level rise even after many
thousands of years (44, 45). It is evident that the contribution from the ice sheets could be large in the future, but the dependence
upon carbon dioxide levels is extremely uncertain not only over the coming century but also in the millennial time scale. An
assessed range of models suggests that the eventual contribution to sea level rise from thermal
expansion of the ocean is expected to be 0.2–0.6 m per degree of global warming (5). Fig. 4 uses this
range together with a best estimate for climate sensitivity of 3 °C (5) to estimate lower limits to eventual
sea level rise due to thermal expansion alone. Fig. 4 shows that even with zero emissions after
reaching a peak concentration, irreversible global average sea level rise of at least 0.4–1.0 m is
expected if 21st century CO2 concentrations exceed 600 ppmv and as much as 1.9 m for a peak
CO2 concentration exceeding 1,000 ppmv. Loss of glaciers and small ice caps is relatively well
understood and is expected to be largely complete under sustained warming of, for example, 4 °C within 500
years (46). For lower values of warming, partial remnants of glaciers might be retained, but this has not been examined in detail for
realistic representations of glacier shrinkage and is not quantified here. Complete losses of glaciers and small ice caps have the
potential to raise future sea level by 0.2–0.7 m (46, 47) in addition to thermal expansion. Further contributions due to partial loss of
the great ice sheets of Antarctica and/or Greenland could add several meters or more to these values but for what warming levels
and on what time scales are still poorly characterized. Sea level rise can be expected to affect many coastal regions (48). While sea
walls and other adaptation measures might combat some of this sea level rise, Fig. 4 shows that carbon dioxide peak
concentrations that could be reached in the future for the conservative lower limit defined by
thermal expansion alone can be expected to be associated with substantial irreversible
commitments to future changes in the geography of the Earth because many coastal and island
features would ultimately become submerged. Discussion: Some Policy Implications It is sometimes imagined that
slow processes such as climate changes pose small risks, on the basis of the assumption that a choice can always be made to quickly
reduce emissions and Fig. 4. Illustrative irreversible climate changes as a function of peak carbon dioxide reached. (Upper) Best
estimate of expected irreversible dry-season precipitation changes for the regions shown in Fig. 3, as a function of the peak carbon
dioxide concentration during the 21st century. The quasi-equilibrium CO2 concentrations shown correspond to 40% remaining in
the long term as discussed in the text. The precipitation change per degree is derived for each region as in Fig. 3; see also Fig. S3. The
yellow box indicates the range of precipitation change observed during typical major regional droughts such as the ‘‘dust bowl’’ in
North America (32). (Lower) Corresponding irreversible global warming (black line). Also shown is the associated lower limit of
irreversible sea level rise (because of thermal expansion only based upon a range of 0.2–0.6 m/°C), from an assessment across
available models (5). Smaller values (by 30%) for expected warming, precipitation, and thermal sea level rise would be obtained if
climate sensitivity is smaller than the best estimate while larger values (by 50%) would be expected for the upper end of the
estimated likely range of climate sensitivity (49). 1708 www.pnas.orgcgidoi10.1073pnas.0812721106 Solomon et al.thereby reverse
any harm within a few years or decades. We have shown that this assumption is incorrect for carbon dioxide emissions,
because of the longevity of the atmospheric CO2 perturbation and ocean warming. Irreversible
climate changes due to carbon dioxide emissions have already taken place, and future carbon
dioxide emissions would imply further irreversible effects on the planet, with attendant long
legacies for choices made by contemporary society. Discount rates used in some estimates of
economic trade-offs assume that more efficient climate mitigation can occur in a future richer
world, but neglect the irreversibility shown here. Similarly, understanding of irreversibility reveals limitations in
trading of greenhouse gases on the basis of 100-year estimated climate changes (global warming potentials, GWPs), because this
metric neglects carbon dioxide’s unique long-term effects. In this paper we have quantified how societal decisions regarding carbon
dioxide concentrations that have already occurred or could occur in the coming century imply irreversible dangers relating to
climate change for some illustrative populations and regions. These and other dangers pose substantial challenges to humanity and
nature, with a magnitude that is directly linked to the peak level of carbon dioxide reached.
Obama won’t have to spend capital on Keystone --- Dems in House will sustain
Obama’s veto
Halstead, 12-26
(Richard, 12-26-14, Marin News, “Huffman says House Democrats will play key role in new
GOP-controlled Congress”, http://www.marinij.com/marinnews/ci_27212362/huffman-sayshouse-democrats-will-play-key-role, amp)
"They're going to need Democratic votes even more to get even the basic stuff done," he said.
And Huffman said if Republicans try to override President Obama's veto on issues such as the
Keystone XL pipeline project, Democrats in the House will muster the votes needed to
sustain the president's veto. He said Republicans might get enough Democratic votes in the
Senate to override a veto, "but I think we have enough votes in the House to block it."
keystone doesn’t matter
Schor, 10/14/14 (Elana, “The incredible shrinking Keystone,” http://www.politico.com/story/2014/10/the-incredibleshrinking-keystone-111876.html?hp=f3, JMP)
The pipeline that launched so many street protests, ad campaigns and political headaches for the
White House is increasingly irrelevant in the midterm elections and the energy markets — even for the groups that
have fought so hard to either build it or block it. Neither side will say publicly that the Keystone XL pipeline is less
important than it once was. But after Keystone’s three-year rise to the top of Washington’s energy agenda, fueling lobbying and
advertising bills well into the tens of millions of dollars, green groups and the oil industry are both moving on.
Environmental groups are happily endorsing pro-Keystone candidates, as long as they support
President Barack Obama’s broader agenda of slashing greenhouse gases. Climate activist billionaire Tom Steyer,
who’s spending up to $100 million to influence seven Senate and gubernatorial races, has yet to air a Keystone-focused ad in any of
them. And oil companies have found plenty of other ways to get Canadian crude into the U.S., even
as Keystone enters its sixth year of awaiting a permit from the State Department. Keystone isn’t
even North America’s biggest oil-sands pipeline project anymore. That title now belongs to a
project most Americans have never heard of called Energy East, which would bypass the
need for U.S. approval by piping Alberta’s heavy crude oil to Canada’s Atlantic provinces.
Essentially, both sides have already won: Keystone is stalled, yet oil is booming. “I don’t want to
say there’s much less interest in getting the pipeline built, but there’s much less concern among guys in the
business about whether it gets built or not,” GOP energy lobbyist and consultant Mike McKenna
said in an interview. “I don’t want to say they’re getting bored with the conversation, but they’re starting to get bored with the
conversation.”
Paris treaty fails and US wouldn’t get on board
Puiu 12/8/14—ZME Science
(Tibi, “Australia might set the stage for failed climate change talks in Paris next year”,
http://www.zmescience.com/ecology/environmental-issues/australia-climate-change-talks-paris-042354/, dml)
This week, negotiators from 194 countries met in Lima, Peru to discuss a potential format for
the Paris talks next year where an international emissions target, similar to the Kyoto Protocol
from 1997, might come into effect. Experts seem to agree that the best course of action is to
guide each country to implement a domestic law that enforces emissions target, one that’s
customized on a case by case basis. If the framework is guided under an international treaty
format, where countries are legally bound, then the whole process is destined to fail since
countries like the US and China won’t ever concede. With US and China out, there’s little reason
for the other countries to participate anymore.
“It seems like they are trying to set impossible conditions so that they can portray a successful
Paris agreement as a failure,” said Frank Jotzo, associate professor at the Australian National
University’s Crawford School.
“Legally binding instruments can build confidence that countries will act on the commitments
they make internationally. However, the legal form of an international agreement does not
determine its effectiveness. The most binding treaty will do little to address climate change if
some major emitters like the US and China do not participate.”
The former Labor government’s expert adviser on climate policy, Professor Ross Garnaut, seems
to agree.
“A comprehensive legally binding agreement is not possible because that is not what the US
does,” he said for The Guardian. “It is rare for the US to bind itself on anything. Woodrow
Wilson was unable to get the US Senate to support membership of the League of Nations that
was the creation of the United States.
“President Obama has made it clear that he will not support US participation in a legally binding
agreement, and that instead the US has made a serious domestic commitment to implementing
the ambitious objectives embodied in the Xi-Obama Agreement. China will not enter a legally
binding agreement if the US does not. So forget about it.”
TREATIES DA
1. Thumpers—
a. Turture, police brutality, deportations, and the war on terror all 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-torturecommittee-slams-u-s-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.Ӧ 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. ¶
b. Syria
Zunes, 9/27/14 [Stephen Zunes, a professor of politics and program director for Middle Eastern Studies
at the University of San Francisco. Home Opinion Story Stephen Zunes: US should use caution in the
fight against ISIL By Stephen Zunes Special to the Sentinel Posted: 09/27/2014 11:01:30 PM PDT]
First of all, bombing
targets in Syria without permission from the Syrian government or authorization from
the UN Security Council is a flagrant violation of U.S. treaty obligations under the U nited N ations charter. And,
without Congressional authorization, it is also a violation of the U.S. Constitution.
Spills over
Clarkson, 9/24/14 [“Humanitarian Air Strikes” against Syria: U.S. Breaks International Law, Again By
Alexander Clackson Global Research, September 24, 2014, http://www.globalresearch.ca/humanitarianair-strikes-against-syria-u-s-breaks-international-law-again/5404014]
The United States, assisted by a handful of Arab nations, conducted air strikes o n Syria on 23rd September . The attacks
mark a striking expansion in America’s military campaign against the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria (ISIS) and have occurred without
the consent of the Syrian government. A U.S. State Department official confirmed that the Syrian government was not asked for
authorisation, saying: “We did not seek the regime’s permission, we didn’t coordinate our actions with the Syrian government, and Secretary
[of State John] Kerry did not send a letter to the Syrian regime.” The U.S. airstrikes are
therefore a clear violation of
international law , as Damascus had earlier said that any direct action by the United States within Syria would
constitute an act of war and a breach of its sovereignty. The U.S. administration lawyers have used spurious excuses, invoking Iraq’s
right to self-defence and the weakness of the Assad government as twin justifications for U.S. bombing in Syria. However, the fact of the matter
is: without United Nations authorisation or approval from the Syrian government, airstrikes on Syria are a violation of basic international law.
The legal circumlocutions to avoid requesting a UN Security Council resolution match similar efforts to avoid requesting specific legal authority
from the U.S. Congress. Fearing that U.S. politicians up for re-election in November may balk at voting for a third military attack on Iraq and
being sucked into a Syrian quagmire, the White House has avoided seeking a fresh authorisation of the use of military force, preferring to rely
on early authorisations against al-Qaida granted after the 11 September 2001 attacks. The President of the Middle East Institute, Yevgeny
Satanovsky, summarised succinctly the illegitimacy of the airstrikes, saying: “The fact that Washington has notified Syria’s UN envoy of air
strikes against militants’ positions in the territory of Syria does not change anything. Aggression will be aggression. The UN Security Council’s
resolution 2170 of August 15 envisaged creation of a basis for a collective international response to the threat from the Islamic State that has
emerged in Iraq and Syria, but gave Washington no right to use force against a sovereign country.” It is important to note that recent testimony
by US intelligence and homeland security officials in Washington have acknowledged that Syrian groups such as Isis are not known to be
planning any direct attacks on the U.S. Thus, in bombing Islamic State targets in Syria, the United States cannot credibly claim that it used force
in self-defence or at the request of the Syrian state exercising lawful force to suppress rebellion. The
United States has a vast track
record of breaking international law. It did so, for example, in March 1999, when along with its NATO allies it
launched an extended bombing campaign in Serbia. In this case also, the United States could not claim it was acting in selfdefence. Nor was military action authorised by the UN Security Council. In addition, the U.S. government is making sure not
to mention the American invasion of Iraq in 2003, which also rested on erroneous claims of weapons of mass destruction and
arguably contributed to its current instability. As always, American allies have remained silent over this blatant refusal to follow international
law. Only Russia has forcefully condemned the illegality of the airstrikes. In its statement, the Russian Foreign Ministry warned: “Any such
action can be carried out only in accordance with international law. That implies not a formal, one-sided ‘notification’ of airstrikes but the
presence of explicit consent from the government of Syria or a corresponding UN Security Council decision.” Describing the U.S.-led move as a
bid to “achieve one’s own geopolitical goals,” the Russian Ministry said the airstrikes would only “exacerbate tensions and further destabilize
the situation.” The point about “achieving one’s own geopolitical goals” is crucial here, as it is highly likely that the U.S. administration is once
again on a mission to carry out another regime chance, with President Bashar al-Assad being the main target. As
the United States and
its allies continue to lecture other states on international law and respecting sovereignty, once again
the preacher has become the main violator of what is being preached. It looks like the hypocritical
nature of the United States knows no bounds.
US response to drug treaties is the Brownfield doctrine which allows the US to
unilaterally reinterpret treaty commitments and forestall international reforms—
it wrecks US credibility
Bewley-Taylor et al, 11/19/14 - David Bewley Taylor is the founding Director of the Global
Drug Policy Observatory at Swansea University, UK. Martin Jelsma is a political scientist who
has specialised in Latin America and international drugs policy. Damon Barrett is a co-founder
and Director of the International Centre on Human Rights and Drug Policy and a Visiting Fellow
at the Human Rights Centre, University of Essex. (“Fatal Attraction: Brownfield's Flexibility
Doctrine and Global Drug Policy Reform” http://www.tni.org/article/fatal-attractionbrownfields-flexibility-doctrine-and-global-drug-policy-reform?context=595)
State-level cannabis reforms, which gathered steam this month, have exposed the inability of the
United States to abide by the terms of the legal bedrock of the global drug control system; the
1961 Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs. This is something that should force a much-needed
conversation about reform to long-standing international agreements. But while ostensibly
'welcoming' the international drug policy reform debate, it is a conversation the US federal
government actually wishes to avoid. The result is a new official position on the UN drugs
treaties that, despite its seductively progressive tone, serves only to sustain the status quo and
may cause damage beyond drug policy.
The 1961 Single Convention has been massively influential. Almost every state in the world is
bound to prohibit cultivation, trade and possession of cannabis and a range of other substances
such as coca and opium for anything but medical and scientific purposes. Wherever you are,
your drugs laws are probably modeled on this agreement.
The United States has been a staunch defender of this legal regime. The treaties are central to its
foreign policy on drugs, including in Latin America. But at home the government has been clear
that it will not trample on the will of voters with regard to cannabis, even though this places it in
breach of the 1961 Convention. So the US faces a predicament; a treaty breach it does not wish
to admit within a system it wishes to protect.
The response is the new 'four pillars' approach, set out by Ambassador William Brownfield
(Assistant Secretary of State for International Narcotics and Law Enforcement):
Respect the integrity of the existing UN Drug Control Conventions...
Accept flexible interpretation of those conventions...
Tolerate different national drug policies...accept the fact that some countries will have very strict
drug approaches; other countries will legalize entire categories of drugs...
Combat and resist criminal organizations
Brownfield's statement received some positive responses, welcoming it as a breakthrough in
drug policy reform. However, its attractiveness is superficial and there are important reasons to
be cautious.
For US foreign policy on drugs the four pillars make sense in the short term. Through these
pillars, the US can appear to embrace reform discussions while changing nothing of substance.
US approaches to Latin America that have dominated US attentions can carry on as before. The
US gets to continue to have presence in places it has no business being other than to fight the
drug trade - the fourth pillar of this 'new' approach.
In addition, in defending the 'integrity of the treaties', the US can go on using those treaties as a
disciplinary tool against producer and transit nations in the region. Under the Foreign Relations
Authorization Act, when a country does not fulfill the requirements of the international drugs
conventions, the President determines that the country has 'failed demonstrably' to meet its
obligations, which can lead to sanctions.
Bolivia received such a determination again only a few weeks ago. While explaining the rationale
for a more 'flexible interpretation' Brownfield said, 'Things have changed since 1961'. However,
the Presidential Determination on Bolivia stressed that the 'frameworks established by the U.N.
conventions are as applicable to the contemporary world as when they were negotiated and
signed by the vast majority of U.N. member states'.
The determination further expressed the US government's concern that Bolivia tries 'to limit,
redefine, and circumvent the scope and control' for coca under the 1961 Convention, even
though that is precisely what the US is doing in the case of cannabis.
The US also objected to Bolivia's efforts to have traditional uses of coca removed from
international control because it challenged the 'integrity of the treaties' - the very first pillar
above. So which countries' reforms or interpretations will be deemed tolerable, and which will
threaten the integrity of the treaties? Crucially, who decides?
It is clear that a legally regulated market in cannabis is not permissible under the 1961 Single
Convention. To deal with this the US, in the second pillar above, has signalled its acceptance of
unilateral interpretation of multilateral agreements beyond what those agreements allow for.
That is a very serious call beyond cannabis and beyond drug policies. The attempt under the
Bush administration to argue that waterboarding was not a breach of the UN Convention
Against Torture and that detainees in the war on terror were not covered by the Geneva
Conventions should caution against allowing this kind of unilateral approach.
In reality, beyond the progressive sounding words, the path the Brownfield doctrine set out
leads to further US exceptionalism and the ongoing use of the treaties as it sees fit.
But that exceptionalism cuts both ways, and the US has also vital interests, including
national security, in holding states to international and bilateral treaty obligations. A recent
example demonstrates the risks of failing to take this into account. In July, the US issued a
determination that Russia was in violation of obligations of the Inter-Range Nuclear Forces
Treaty (INF), a bilateral agreement banning the testing of ballistic missiles of a certain range.
But if a 'flexible', a-la-carte approach is to be permissible under the drug control regime when it
suits the US, why should that not apply here?
Why not other important international agreements that matter to so many such as
environmental protocols setting specific targets, or human rights law and its vital protections?
Following the second pillar to the extent the US suggests is a very slippery slope.
The shift to regulated cannabis markets in the US should open the space for a muchneeded discussion of treaty reform. The problem at hand is not the treaty breach
by the US; the problem is the drug control treaty system itself. Preparations have started for a
UN summit on drugs in 2016, the first in almost twenty years, and where a conversation about
treaty reform should begin. The Brownfield doctrine is part of US efforts to keep it off the
agenda.
For governments, in an effort to avoid political controversy, the four pillars may seem attractive.
For those who support drug policy reform they may seem progressive. But this is no win for drug
policy reform or progress towards policies grounded in evidence and human rights. To allow the
US, for its own ends, to lead us into a politically calculated theatre of adherence simply serves to
sustain a regime that is no longer fit for purpose. It is also harmful for the integrity of
international law more broadly, from human rights, to security to the environment.
The price of allowing the US to avoid its breach of the 1961 Convention, in other words, is too
high. And the war on drugs has already cost too much.
AFRICA DA
No escalation
Adusei, energy expert – Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, 1/6/’12
(Lord Aikins, “Global Energy Security and Africa's rising Strategic Importance,”
http://www.modernghana.com/news/370533/1/global-energy-security-and-africas-risingstrategi.html)
Additionally, the prospect of major inter-state conflict in Africa involving the use of deadly
weapons that could destabilise oil and gas supply looks relatively distant. Few African countries
possess the destructive war machines that Middle Eastern countries have acquired over the last
10 to 20 years. In 2010 for example Saudi Arabia purchased $60 billion worth of U.S. military
hardware which experts believe is geared towards countering Iran's arms build up. Again most
of Africa's oil is located offshore and could be exploited and transported relatively easily with
very little contact with the local population. By way of distance the parts of Africa where most of
the oil and gas are located is relatively closer to the U.S. making cost of transportation and the
security associated with it relatively less expensive. These factors make oil and gas from Africa
more reliable than say the Middle East and remain some of the main reasons why Africa's
strategic importance is growing among oil and gas importers.
Instability inevitable:
French intervention
Tunakan, 9/17/14 [FRENCH POLICIES IN ITS FORMER AFRICAN COLONIES TRIGGER
INSTABILITY After long-term military ties with its former colonies, France is looking to
stabilize the turbulent region. Yet, its broadened military presence over the region derives from
its economic interest Begüm Tunakan,http://www.dailysabah.com/europe/2014/09/17/frenchpolicies-in-its-former-african-colonies-trigger-instability]
ISTANBUL — France
is accused of trying to extend its influence in its former colonies in Africa,
especially Mali and Chad, by increasing its troop numbers, which is exasperating the
already violent conflicts in the region. In the face of terrorism and growing insecurity in
France's former colonies in Africa, France has permanently increased its presence in the region. The
move has been made in the hope of saving the country from internal turmoil by deploying troops across the Sahel region of northern
Africa covering northern Mali and Chad where various militant groups threaten the stability and integrity of the country. France's
desire to build a solid military cooperation with Mali to restore peace and stability is of crucial importance to understanding the
underlying reasons for its presence in its former colony. Considering France's past involvement on the continent, the European
giant's concern for regional stability in Africa can be seen as an attempt to extend its influence over the region while keeping Frenchspeaking Africa in its political and economic sphere. France's military deployment in the region has targeted armed militant groups
operating between northern Chad and northern Niger. With the Sahel region open to attacks, it has strategic importance for France's
interests. Despite France's efforts to stabilize the turbulent region, Mali has long been suffering from growing instability and
security. The north of the country, including the three biggest cities of Kidal, Gao and Timbuktu, has been under de facto control
from the MNLA (National Movement for Liberation of the Azawad) which was founded in 2011. It is believed that France allowed the
rebel group to occupy the northern part of the country by banning the Malian army from entering the rebel-held region. France's
support of the militant group, MNLA is of crucial importance to France's interest over the region. France has used northern Mali as a
buffer zone to prevent militant threats spreading across the Sahel region, towards the borders of Niger. The region that has been
destabilized by the various militant groups in Niger, the world's fourth largest producer of uranium, plays a crucial role for France.
Niger's security is a top priority for France as the country's biggest economic interest lies in Niger. France has reportedly invested
1.9bn Euros (TL 5.4 billion) for the development of the large uranium deposits on the eastern borders of Niger. Any possible militant
threat in Niger would endanger a significant amount of French investment in the African country. "France's desire is to have its
forces react better in the fight against terrorism. That's why we are going to be engaged in Operation Barkhane, which will mean an
integral regional effort by French forces," French Defense minister Jean-Yves Le Drian said in July 2014. Operation Barkhane was
launched at the beginning of August 2014, spanning five countries in the Sahel region; Burkina Faso, Mali, Mauritania, Chad and
Niger. The mission involved the deployment of 3,000 troops across the vast Sahel region, along with six fighter jets, 20 helicopters
and three drones. The new military operation was reorganized after Operation Serval, the French military intervention in the north
of Mali launched in January 2013. In addition, France signed a renewable defense agreement with Mali in July with the aim of
extending its presence through building military bases over the next five years. It would thereby ensure long-term military ties with
its former colony. The new agreement allowed more French military operating within the ex-colonial territories, thus prompting
fears over France's operations across the region. Meanwhile, the
French ex-colonies have long been
paralyzed by the ongoing violence due to rebels seizing power from the central
government. Amid growing insecurity, the U.N. took over a peacekeeping mission in the Central African
Republic (CAR), the former French colony previously run by the African Union in an effort to protect civilians from rebel attacks.
U.N. peacekeepers moved in on Monday to help 2,000 French troops who had previously struggled to stabilize the area. "Civilians
are being killed by all sides at an alarming rate and people are desperate for protection," said Lewis Mudge, the Africa researcher at
Human Rights Watch told Reuters.
Ebola
Reuters, 9/2/14 [US Expert: Ebola Threatening Stability in
Africahttp://news.yahoo.com/cdc-says-ebola-threatens-stability-stricken-countries022837422--finance.html]
An American expert on diseases and epidemics warned against an increase in people contracting
the Ebola virus in western Africa over the next few weeks, and said that the epidemic
threatens the stability of all the countries affected by the virus, as well as those
countries nearby. Over 1,500 people have succumbed to Ebola since the virus was first
diagnosed in western Africa six months ago.
GRADUALISM DA
Existing demand means the market can tolerate massive investment
Chang, 14 – staff for Main Street; cites a report from the ArcView Group, a cannabis investment and
research firm (Ellen, “Is Marijuana the Next Bubble?” 2/26,
http://www.mainstreet.com/article/marijuana-next-bubble
Legal marijuana businesses are cropping up in many states, but those who have definitive business
models and mainstream strategies are able to attract funding from investors, boost their growth and
achieve scale.
The potential for the marijuana market to increase to $10.2 billion within the next five years or a 700%
increase from the current U.S. market value is very likely, said Douglas Leighton, managing partner of
Dutchess Capital, a New York investment firm which manages $125 million in assets, has $200 million in
direct investments and made its first investment in the cannabis industry recently. The "real growth" will
arise when more states decriminalize the use of marijuana.
"I've never seen it where a market already exists for the product," he said. "The market is already there
and it will gain wider acceptance."
Support for legalizing marijuana is widespread as support from Americans rose to an all-time high of
58%, a 10-point increase in a year, according to a Gallup poll last October. Washington and Colorado are
expected to add $359 million and $208 million each to their respective markets in 2014 for adult use.
Another 14 states are projected to pass adult use regulations in the next five years, including Alaska,
Arizona, California, Delaware, Hawaii, Massachusetts, Maine, Maryland, Missouri, New Hampshire,
Nevada, Oregon, Rhode Island and Vermont, the ArcView report said.
While there are very few public companies in this sector currently, the demand for them remains high,
said Leighton. Some of the stocks appear to be expensive, but have risen substantially in the past six
months, he said.
"I think the public stocks have gotten a little ahead of themselves," Leighton said. "There is a large
amount of capital chasing a small pool."
Investors should conduct due diligence on companies before they make an investment and to ensure
the businesses are operating within state regulations, he said. Investing directly into dispensaries or
companies who grow marijuana is not a good option since most of the operations remain smaller
because of state regulations, Leighton said.
Depending on an investors' risk tolerance, consumers should consider investing in ancillary companies
instead who do not directly handle the cannabis or its related byproducts, he said. Dutchess Capital
created http://www.mmjinvest.com/ to connect investors with adult and medical marijuana
entrepreneurs.
"If you can take risk and want a better return on your capital, then those companies which control the
plant are a great place to be," he said. "If your tolerance for risk is lower, then invest in the other
businesses where there is greater growth potential."
Companies which are involved in controlling the cultivation of the core commodity and develop a brand
around it "maintain the best opportunity in the industry," said Derek Peterson, CEO of Terra Tech.
(TRTC), a public company based in Irvine, Calif. which manufactures agricultural equipment.
"From my perch, there is going to be a value in the companies that own and control state issued permits
for retail dispensaries and commercial cultivation throughout the country," he said.
Investing in the marijuana market has the same caveats as allocating money in a startup or emerging
market, said Peterson, a former senior vice president with Morgan Stanley Smith Barney. Investors
should examine the company's valuations and potential market size, but also the space and location it
operates in, he said.
"Investors should look at whether the company has a good product or service and if they are operating
in a location that is supportive of medical cannabis-related companies," Peterson said. "There are areas
in California and other legal states where the local government is pushing these businesses out through
zoning and other restrictions. This industry is unique as it operates in a quasi-legal environment due to
the dichotomy between state and federal law."
Companies traded on the OTC QB and QX markets are required to have independent audited reporting
requirements, he said.
"When looking at public companies I would focus on fully reporting companies," he said. "I believe this
industry is still in its infancy and far away from any level of maturation."
Until marijuana is federally legal, investors should shy away from businesses which are involved in grow
operations, said Bill Chaaban, CEO of Creative Edge Nutrition Inc. (FITX), a public vitamin nutritional
supplement company which plans to produce marijuana for medicinal use in the U.S. and Canada
through its subsidiary CEN Biotech. The market could generate as much as $10 billion in revenue by
2018 and outpace the sales of tobacco and alcohol combined, he said.
"I think it is definitely a lot larger," Chaaban said. "You have a huge percent of the population currently
using marijuana that possess medical marijuana licenses who are really recreational users. There are
many people who partake in it and it will just become legal. It is definitely mainstream."
The margins for the industry will be shrinking in the future, but investing in the cannabis market is not
for short term investors looking for quick gains, said Justin Hartfield, CEO of Ghost Group, a Newport
Beach, Calif. operating company that owns and manages marijuana technology companies including
Weedmaps, a listings and reviews site for marijuana dispensaries.
"You need to be passionate about the product," he said. "This is going to be comparable to the wine
industry and bigger than the tobacco industry in the future. The black market is probably five to 10
times larger than legal sales. There is always demand."
Fed key
Attarwala, 14 [Columbia Business Law Review, Legalized Pot and Banking Wednesday, April 23rd, 2014
at 12:28 pm, by Asif Attarwala, http://cblr.columbia.edu/archives/13026]
Legalized marijuana sales have turned out to be a boon for the state of Colorado, which now expects to collect $98 million in tax
revenue from recreational pot, 40% more than initially expected. Although business is by all accounts booming, cannabis growers and
dispensaries are now facing a new challenge: where to put their money when banks won’t take it. Financial
institutions are spooked by the possibility of facing federal money laundering charges for taking cash from
marijuana related businesses and while the Department of Justice has attempted to reassure them that they won’t be prosecuted for
banking legal pot, the banks don’t appear to be budging. The Obama Administration first outlined its approach to legal,
recreational marijuana in an August 2013 memo by Deputy Attorney General James Cole (“the Cole Memo”). The Cole Memo laid out eight
points of priority for the DOJ in enforcing marijuana prohibition including preventing sales to minors, preventing marijuana trafficking between states that have
legalized the drug and those that have not, and preventing driving under the influence. Noticeably absent from the list of priorities is the prevention of regulated
sales in states where marijuana is legal under state law. Furthermore, the memo emphasizes that low-level and localized activity has been and will continue to be
left to the states. States that have legalized marijuana under state law are told that the implementation of strong regulatory and enforcement regimes are less likely
to draw the interest of federal prosecutors. Although
the memo is couched in equivocal language—necessarily, as
marijuana remains a Schedule I controlled substance under the Controlled Substances Act—the message is quite clear: if you
regulate then you won’t be hassled by the feds. While the Cole Memo may have given some assurances to cannabis enterprises, it apparently was not
enough to convince banks to take deposits or provide other services to legal pot. This inability to access financial
services is a critical problem for those in the business of legal marijuana. Some businesses have been
forced to shut down entirely. Others have been forced to do business on a cash-only basis and consequently they have to store massive amounts of
cash on premises and arm their employees to protect it. This in turn could lead to further problems as one of the Cole Memo’s eight points of priority is “preventing
violence and the use of firearms in the cultivation and distribution of marijuana.” It has also led to cries of hypocrisy as the state of Colorado can take its pot money
to the bank, while the people paying those taxes are left to do the equivalent of stashing cash under their mattresses. On February 14th,the Department of the
Treasury’s Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN) released guidance in an effort to assuage the concerns of banks about taking money from marijuanarelated businesses. Specifically, the memo outlines how financial institutions can provide services to cannabis enterprises while still meeting the requirements of the
Bank Secrecy Act. Under the process outlined by FinCEN, banks must do due diligence to determine whether a marijuana-related business is appropriately licensed
by the state and that there are no red flags from its operations. Institutions that provide financial services to a marijuana business are required to file one of three
different suspicious activity reports (SARs), because marijuana is illegal under federal law. If the bank believes that the marijuana business does not implicate one of
the Cole Memo priorities or violate state law, the bank should file a “Marijuana Limited” SAR as well as periodic continuing activity reports. The SAR contains limited
information on the business and indicates that the bank is only filing the SAR because the client is in the marijuana business. However, if the bank finds, either
during initial or continuing due diligence, that a Cole Memo priority is implicated or a violation of state law is taking place, the bank must file a more detailed
“Marijuana Priority” SAR. Finally, if the bank feels it needs to terminate the relationship to maintain compliance with anti-money laundering laws, it must file a
“Marijuana Termination” SAR. The FinCEN memo lays out a number of “red flags” for banks to distinguish priority SARs. Read together with the Cole Memo,
FinCEN’s guidance can be seen as an assurance to banks that providing services to compliant cannabis enterprises in states where the substance is legal will not
result in prosecution. A business that does not implicate the Cole Memo priorities and thus requires only a Marijuana Limited SAR would not, if the DOJ is to be
believed, attract the attention of a prosecutor. Therefore, it is understandable why some media outlets reported the FinCEN guidance as the Obama Administration
giving banks the go-ahead to accept deposits from marijuana-related businesses. However, as other commenters note, banks remain reluctant to offer services to
marijuana-related businesses. The Colorado Bankers Association has stated that, “an act of Congress is the only way to solve this problem,” and that the FinCEN
guidance is just a modified reporting system imposing a heavy burden with which “[n]o bank can comply.” The American Bankers Association has similarly stated
that banks still face the risk of prosecution. From
a legal standpoint, the bankers are right to be unconvinced about the
efficacy of these memos. They are not laws or even regulation and do not carry the same force. By
relying on them, banks are placing themselves in the hands of the Department of Justice and trusting in prosecutorial discretion.
Furthermore, the DOJ’s priorities may change under the next administration—or even under the current one—
once again exposing banks to risk of money laundering charges. Legal marijuana generates about $2.6 billion in sales per year, meaning the market may
not be large enough for banks to take a risk by providing services in an uncertain environment. For those who
follow the interplay between global finance and the drug trade, this new reluctance to accept deposits from legal marijuana businesses is a head scratcher. After all,
the history of banks taking deposits from drug cartels is well documented. Perhaps banks are on edge due to the record $1.9 billion fine assessed to HSBC for its
acceptance of deposits from Mexico’s Sinaloa cartel among other blacklisted organizations. However, this explanation is unpersuasive considering that the fine was
a drop in the bucket for a bank with $2.6 trillion in assets. In fact, the relative softness of the fine, contrasted with the harsh penalties that some face for carrying or
selling small amounts of drugs, lead at least one commenter to deem it proof that the “Drug War is a Joke.” Whatever the reason for banks’ reluctance to offer
services to cannabis enterprises, it
appears that Congressional action will be necessary for legal pot to be a viable
business. To that end, in 2013, Colorado representatives Jared Polis and Ed Perlmutter introduced legislation
aimed at legitimizing recreational marijuana sales. Polis’ Ending Federal Marijuana Prohibition Act of 2013
is the more ambitious of the two bills. It aims to amend the Controlled Substances Act to eliminate marijuana
as a controlled substance and to set up a regulatory framework for marijuana similar to that in place for alcohol. Perlmutter’s Marijuana Businesses
Access to Banking Act of 2013 sets a more modest goal of removing criminal liability for banks who provide services to legitimate marijuana-related businesses.
Unfortunately for those in the marijuana business, neither bill is likely to pass in the near future. Legal pot has proven to be a financial boon to the state of
Colorado, and given the state’s success in extracting tax revenue from legalization it appears that other states will soon follow suit. For existing marijuana
businesses, increasing legalization by states may be the best hope for spurring Congressional action to make financial services accessible to the industry.
Without the ability to bank, the legal marijuana experiment may die in its infancy.
1AR
ADDON
Cyber-threat is high
Jordain Carney 14, Staff @ National Journal, “Defense Leaders Say Cyber is Top Terror
Threat,” 1-6-14, http://www.nationaljournal.com/defense/defense-leaders-say-cyber-is-topterror-threat-20140106, DOA: 8-13-14, y2k
Defense officials see cyberattacks as the greatest threat to U.S. national security , according
to a survey released Monday. Forty-five percent of respondents to the Defense News Leadership Poll named a
cyberattack as the single greatest threat —nearly 20 percentage points above terrorism, which ranked second. The
Defense News Leadership Poll, underwritten by United Technologies, surveyed 352 Defense News subscribe rs , based on
job seniority, between Nov. 14 and Nov. 28, 2013. The poll targeted senior employees within the White
House, Pentagon, Congress, and the defense industry. " The magnitude of the cyber
problem , combined with declining budgets, will challenge the nation for years to come ," said Vago Muradian, the editor
of Defense News. It's not the first time cyber has ranked at or near the top of a list of security concerns. Seventy percent of Americans called a
cyberattack from another country a major threat in a Pew Research Center survey released last month. Defense Department officials, for their part,
FBI Director James Comey, Rand Beers, the then-acting secretary for
the Homeland Security Department, and Gen. Keith Alexander, director of the National
Security Agency, each voiced their concerns before Congress last year. And House Intelligence Committee
Chairman Mike Rogers, R-Mich., called it the "largest national security threat to the face the U.S. that we are not
have warned about the increasing threat.
even close to being prepared to handle as a country."
POLITICS
Ending emissions isn’t enough—UN report
Warrick and Mooney 11/2/14—Washington Post
(Joby and Chris, “Effects of climate change ‘irreversible,’ U.N. panel warns in report”,
http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/health-science/effects-of-climate-change-irreversible-un-panel-warns-inreport/2014/11/01/2d49aeec-6142-11e4-8b9e-2ccdac31a031_story.html, dml)
The report said some impacts of climate change will “continue for centuries,” even if all
emissions from fossil-fuel burning were to stop. The question facing governments is whether
they can act to slow warming to a pace at which humans and natural ecosystems can adapt, or
risk “abrupt and irreversible changes” as the atmosphere and oceans absorb ever-greater
amounts of thermal energy within a blanket of heat-trapping gases, according to scientists who
contributed to the report.
diplomatic barriers too much
Lean 12/15—Telegraph
(Geoffrey, http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/earth/11293478/How-the-Lima-climate-changetalks-failed.html, dml)
In truth, as Mary Robinson – the former President of Ireland who now serves as the UN's
Special Envoy for Climate Change put it, the talks made just enough headway “to keep the
multilateral process alive, but not enough progress to give confidence that the world is ready to
adopt an equitable and ambitious legally-binding climate agreement in Paris next year”.
The problem is that the more thorny issues that are left to be resolved in Paris the less likely it is
that agreement will be reached in the French capital. That was why the plan was for them to be
cleared up in Lima and why it is serious that they have not been. There are at least three
intermediate negotiating sessions scheduled before Paris, but such lesser meetings have
achieved even less than the main ones in the past. It is hard to believe that they will do better in
2015 unless national leaders now begin to get involved.
International modelling is a joke
Loris 13 (Nicolas Loris, Fellow at the Heritage Foundation. January 30, 2013. "No 'Following
the Leader' on Climate Change". www.heritage.org/research/commentary/2013/1/no-followingthe-leader-on-climate-change
Congress has been unwilling to address climate change unilaterally through legislation. Multilateral
attempts become more futile each year as major players, especially developing nations such as
China and India, refuse to play ball.¶ And why should they? Developing nations are not going to
curb economic growth to solve a theoretical problem when their citizens face far more pressing environmental
problems — especially when so many are trapped in grinding poverty and lack access to reliable electricity.¶ This
leaves the president with only one option for making good on his pledge: impose costly regulatory actions. This approach would be
as pointless as unilateral legislative action.¶ Why? Even accepting as fact the theory that Earth is warming and that carbon dioxide
and other greenhouse gas emissions are a warming agent does not make any of the following true:¶ &bull; Man-made emissions are
driving climate change and are a negative externality that needs to be internalized. Greenhouse gas emissions are a warming agent.
But that fact doesn’t begin to settle the scientific debate about climate change and climate sensitivity — the amount of warming
projected from increased greenhouse gas emissions. Moreover, viewing man-made carbon dioxide as a strictly negative externality
ignores a lot of peer-reviewed literature that identifies many positive effects (e.g., plant growth, human longevity, seed enrichment
and less soil erosion as a result of more robust tree root growth) associated with higher levels of CO2 in the atmosphere.¶ • Earth is
cooking at a catastrophic rate. The media breathlessly reported that a recent National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s
study found 2012 to be the warmest on record for the continental United States. What they largely failed to report was that, globally,
2012 was only the ninth-warmest in the past 34 years. In fact, average global temperatures have leveled off over the past decade and
a half.¶ • Sea levels will rise dramatically, threatening America’s coastlines. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change report,
the bible of CO2-reduction proponents, projects sea levels rising 7 inches to 23 inches over the next century. That’s not as alarming
as it sounds. Sea level has risen at the lower end of that projection over the past two centuries.¶ • There will be more extreme
droughts, heat waves, hurricanes and other natural disasters. Natural disasters (they’re called “natural” for a reason, right?) will
occur with or without increased man-made emissions.¶ Having failed repeatedly to win legislation limiting greenhouse gas
emissions, the Obama administration appears bent on taking the regulatory route. The Environmental Protection Agency is
promulgating stringent emission standards for new power plants that would effectively prohibit construction of coal-fired generators
and prematurely shut down existing plants. The EPA also has introduced costly new air-quality standards for hydraulically fractured
wells and new fuel-efficiency standards that will make cars and light-duty trucks more expensive, smaller and less safe.¶ Restricting
greenhouse gas emissions, whether unilaterally or multilaterally, will impose huge costs on consumers and the U.S. economy as a
whole. Congress should exercise its seldom-used muscles as regulatory watchdog to keep regulatory proposals that are not costeffective from full implementation and reverse the administration’s course on regulating CO2.¶ As for the president’s
suggestion that unilateral action by the U.S. will somehow inspire other countries to emulate our
example — the repeated failure of U.N. negotiations to produce multilateral climate action
demonstrates a near universal disinclination to sacrifice economic growth on the altar of global
warming.¶ President Obama should respond to the threat of climate change by acknowledging that the severity of the threat is
low and the costs of action are painfully high. And that unilateral action by the United States won’t make a
dent in Earth’s temperature anyway.