1NC
OFF
Interpretation - Legalization means removal of sanctions
Drug Policy Alliance 13
(Approaches to Decriminalizing Drug Use & Possession February 2013, http://www.abwfct.org/wpcontent/uploads/2013/03/DPA_Fact-Sheet_Approaches-to-Decriminalizing-Drug-Use-and-Possession.pdf)
Legalization is defined as “the complete removal of sanctions, making a certain behavior legal and applying
no criminal or administrative penalties”. Caitlin Elizabeth Hughes and Alex Stevens, “What Can We Learn from the
Portuguese Decriminalization of Illicit Drugs?” British Journal of Criminology 50 (2010): 999.
The aff is extra-topical because they fiat the regulation
Destroys Negative Ground and explodes the topic – unpredictable advantages
about the mech rather than
OFF
Dems will hold the Senate now—most accurate models
Logiurato 9-17-14 (Brett, staff writer, "Meet The New Nate Silver" Business Insider) www.businessinsider.in/Meet-The-NewNate-Silver/articleshow/42727612.cms
In 2012, as President Barack Obama fell behind in pre-election polls but not in election statistician Nate Silver's odds, this phrase
quickly caught on: "Keep calm and trust Nate Silver!" This summer, Democrats have a new election guru to turn to
for comfort: Sam
Wang, a neuroscientist and professor at Princeton University who runs a model at
Princeton's Election Consortium. Most of the 2014 election models - from The Washington Post, The New
York Times, and from Silver, among others - have for a while projected Republicans not only furthering their grip on
control of the House of Representatives, but also having a good chance of flipping Senate control as well. But
Wang's model has been the most bullish for Democrats. His model has two forecasts: If the
election were held today, Democrats would have an 80% chance of retaining control of the Senate.
Predicting for Election Day, he estimates slightly less bullish 70% odds. He predicts that as of
today, Senate Democrats and Independents that caucus with the party will make up 50 seats in the
chamber, enabling them to keep control by the thinnest of margins. (In such a 50-50 situation, Vice President Joe Biden would
cast the theoretical deciding vote.) On Tuesday, other models began shifting toward a better chance for
Democratic control of the Senate. The Washington Post on Tuesday put Democrats' odds at 51%.
The New York Times' new "Leo" model has control of the Senate at a 50-50 tossup. And Silver's site,
FiveThirtyEight, has Republicans' chances slimming to about 53%. "My model is slightly more favorable
because it relies on current polling conditions" as its main factor, Wang said in a recent interview with
Business Insider. The differences between their models - and their differing predictions - has opened up a pseudo-rivalry between
Wang and Silver in the lead-up to the midterm elections. During an interview with WNYC's Brian Lehrer last week, Silver claimed
Wang's model uses "arbitrary assumptions," something Wang rejected as an "out-and-out falsehood." In a blog post on Tuesday,
Wang playfully responded to a comment from Silver in which he said he'd like to "place a large
wager against" Wang. He called Silver's forecast that day, which gave Republicans a 64% chance of swinging
Senate control, into question, saying the "special sauce" (or formula) Silver uses for his model is
"messy stuff." But the difference between Wang and Silver, Wang says, is substantive. It is
predicated on the divide between the models - Wang's relies only on a reading of the latest polls,
while Silver's model adds in the "fundamentals" of the race when making predictions. Those
fundamentals vary by state. They can take into account fundraising, the liberal-conservative ideology of individual
candidates, and national factors like presidential approval rating and the history of the president's party performing badly in the sixth
year of his presidency, for example. "When he started in 2008, he brought lively commentary and the
addition of econometric assumptions to predict the future," Wang told Business Insider of Silver.
"He made the hobby fun for people to read about. All horse race commentators owe him a debt.
"The difference between us is substantive. In most years, adding assumptions doesn't alter the
picture too much: 2008, 2010, and 2012 were not hard prediction problems. However, this year's
Senate race is as close as 2004, and giving an accurate picture of the race is challenging. Adding
assumptions can bias an analyst's interpretation ." Nate Silver's model relies on more than just
polls. Somewhat similar to Silver, Wang's interest in political prognostication grew out of the insatiable need to fuel what had
been a hobby. He is the son of Taiwanese immigrants, grew up in California, graduated with a B.S. from the California Institute of
Technology by the age of 19, and subsequently graduated with a PhD from Stanford. He began his model in 2004, when
he was intensely following the presidential campaign that pitted President George W. Bush
against Democrat John Kerry. In the constant horse-race mentality and the over-reporting on
single polls, he said, he saw an opportunity to contribute a new, more comprehensive and
accurate element to the conversation. "I was motivated by the extreme closeness of the Kerry-Bush contest, and the
news stories about single polls were driving me crazy," Wang told Business Insider. "I thought a simple way to summarize all the
polls at once would improve the quality of coverage." Since then, his
model has nearly nailed the result in every
national election . In 2004, the model predicted Bush would grab 286 electoral votes to Kerry's
252. That was off by only a single electoral vote. (He made a personal prediction that turned out to be wrong.) The
2008 presidential election was similar - off by a single vote in each direction. The model only missed
Nevada's Senate race in 2010, a race in which nearly every poll was off the mark. And the model in 2012 correctly
predicted the vote in 49 of 50 states, the popular vote count of 51.1% to 48.9%, and 10 out of 10
tight Senate races - including Montana and South Dakota, which Silver missed. To Wang, it proves
that a model that solely focuses on polls is a reliable indicator of eventual electoral outcomes. And
he thinks models based on "fundamentals" like Silver's and like The New York Times' new model,
dubbed "Leo," significantly alter the picture this year . "As of early September, both the New York Times's model
'Leo' and the FiveThirtyEight model exert a pull equivalent to adjusting Senate polls in key races by several percentage points. In
other words, Republican candidates have slightly underperformed analyst expectations," Wang said. And this year, that could mean
the expected Republican "wave" might never materialize. Wang sees Democratic candidates
outperforming expectations all over the map.
Plan guts dem strategy for victory by making pot ballot initiatives irrelevant
Dunkelberger ‘14
Lloyd Dunkelberger, staffwriter for The Ledger Tallahassee Bureau, 1/28/14, “Florida's Marijuana Vote Could Affect Other Races”
http://www.theledger.com/article/20140128/NEWS/140129089?p=1&tc=pg
But the
key variable is this: Voting in nonpresidential election years typically skews older, while
polls show support for the marijuana initiative is strongest among the youngest voters.
So on the surface, a larger turnout among younger voters — who don't typically show up in big
numbers in nonpresidential years — could help Democrats, as demonstrated by President Barack Obama in his
last two successful elections in Florida.
"Very few people are single-issue voters. But that issue could be
Susan MacManus, a political scientist at the University of South Florida.
a mobilizing issue for younger voters," said
A GOP senate destroys the Iran deal
Julian Pecquet, journalist, “GOP Senate Takeover Could Kill Iran Deal,” THE HILL, 1—23—14,
http://thehill.com/policy/international/196170-gop-senate-takeover-could-kill-iran-nuclear, accessed 5-31-14.
A Republican takeover of the Senate this fall could scuttle one of President Obama’s biggest second term goals
— a nuclear deal with Iran. Republicans have lambasted the interim agreement with Iran, calling for
the Senate to move an Iran sanctions bill. The House last year passed a measure in an overwhelming and bipartisan
400-20 vote. Both the Obama administration and Iran have warned moving such a measure could kill
a final deal. A number of Democrats have also criticized the interim accord, which lifted $6 billion in sanctions on Iran in
exchange for a commitment to restrictions on enriching uranium. Critics in both parties say the deal gave away too much to Iran.
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) has given Obama cover by refusing to bring sanctions
legislation to the floor. If Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) becomes majority leader,
sanctions legislation could move quickly to the floor and could attract a veto-proof majority. “If
Republicans held the majority, we would have voted already; with Democrats in charge, Harry Reid denies
the American people the bipartisan diplomatic insurance policy they deserve, ” a senior Republican
Senate aide complained. The aide suggested Republicans would use the issue of Iran to show how a GOPrun Senate would differ with the status quo. “So the question really is, what kind of Senate would people rather have
— one that puts politics over good policy, or one that holds Iran accountable and works overtime to prevent a world with Iranian
nuclear weapons?” the aide asked. A total of 59 senators — 16 Democrats and every Republican save two
— have
co-sponsored the sanctions bill from Sens. Robert Menendez (D-N.J.) and Mark Kirk (R-Ill.). Republicans
need to gain six seats to win back the majority, something within their grasp this year. The party is a solid favorite to
pick up seats in West Virginia, South Dakota and Montana, and believes it could also secure wins in Alaska, Arkansas, Louisiana
and North Carolina.
Causes Israel strikes
Perr 13 – B.A. in Political Science from Rutgers University; technology marketing consultant based in Portland,
Oregon. Jon has long been active in Democratic politics and public policy as an organizer and advisor in California
and Massachusetts. His past roles include field staffer for Gary Hart for President (1984), organizer of Silicon Valley
tech executives backing President Clinton's call for national education standards (1997), recruiter of tech executives
for Al Gore's and John Kerry's presidential campaigns, and co-coordinator of MassTech for Robert Reich (2002).
12/24 (Jon, “Senate sanctions bill could let Israel take U.S. to war against Iran” Daily Kos,
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2013/12/24/1265184/-Senate-sanctions-bill-could-let-Israel-take-U-S-to-war-againstIran#
As 2013 draws to close, the negotiations over the Iranian nuclear program have entered a delicate stage. But in 2014, the tensions will escalate
dramatically as a bipartisan group of Senators brings a new Iran sanctions bill to the floor for a vote. As many others have warned, that
promise of new measures against Tehran will almost certainly blow up the interim deal reached by the Obama administration and its UN/EU partners in
Geneva. But Congress' highly unusual intervention into the President's domain of foreign policy doesn't just make the prospect of an American conflict
empowers Israel to decide whether the United
States will go to war against Tehran. On their own, the tough new sanctions imposed automatically if a final deal isn't completed in six
months pose a daunting enough challenge for President Obama and Secretary of State Kerry. But it is the legislation's commitment
to support an Israeli preventive strike against Iranian nuclear facilities that almost ensures the U.S. and Iran will
come to blows. As Section 2b, part 5 of the draft mandates: If the Government of Israel is compelled to take military action in legitimate selfwith Iran more likely. As it turns out, the Nuclear Weapon Free Iran Act essentially
defense against Iran's nuclear weapon program, the United States Government should stand with Israel and provide, in accordance with the law of the
United States and the constitutional responsibility of Congress to authorize the use of military force, diplomatic, military, and economic support to the
Government of Israel in its defense of its territory, people, and existence. Now, the legislation being pushed by Senators Mark Kirk (R-IL), Chuck
Schumer (D-NY) and Robert Menendez (D-NJ) does not automatically give the President an authorization to use force should Israel attack the
Iranians. (The draft language above explicitly states that the U.S. government must act "in accordance with the law of the United States and the
constitutional responsibility of Congress to authorize the use of military force.") But there should be little doubt that an AUMF would be forthcoming
from Congressmen on both sides of the aisle. As Lindsey Graham, who with Menendez co-sponsored a similar, non-binding "stand with Israel"
resolution in March told a Christians United for Israel (CUFI) conference in July: "If nothing changes in Iran, come September, October, I will present a
resolution that will authorize the use of military force to prevent Iran from developing a nuclear bomb." Graham would have plenty of company from the
hardest of hard liners in his party. In August 2012, Romney national security adviser and pardoned Iran-Contra architect Elliott Abrams called for a war
authorization in the pages of the Weekly Standard. And just two weeks ago, Norman Podhoretz used his Wall Street Journal op-ed to urge the Obama
the lack of an explicit AUMF in the
mean its supporters aren't giving Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu de facto
carte blanche to hit Iranian nuclear facilities. The ensuing Iranian retaliation against to Israeli and American
interests would almost certainly trigger the commitment of U.S. forces anyway. Even if the Israelis alone launched a strike
administration to "strike Iran now" to avoid "the nuclear war sure to come." But at the end of the day,
Nuclear Weapon Free Iran Act doesn't
against Iran's atomic sites, Tehran will almost certainly hit back against U.S. targets in the Straits of Hormuz, in the region, possibly in Europe and even
potentially in the American homeland. Israel would face certain retaliation from Hezbollah rockets launched from Lebanon and Hamas missiles raining
down from Gaza. That's why former Bush Defense Secretary Bob Gates and CIA head Michael Hayden raising the alarms about the "disastrous"
impact of the supposedly surgical strikes against the Ayatollah's nuclear infrastructure. As the New York Times reported in March 2012, "A classified
war simulation held this month to assess the repercussions of an
Israeli attack on Iran forecasts that the strike would lead to a
wider regional war , which could draw in the United States and leave hundreds of Americans dead, according to American officials." And that
September, a bipartisan group of U.S. foreign policy leaders including Brent Scowcroft, retired Admiral William Fallon, former Republican Senator (now
Obama Pentagon chief) Chuck Hagel, retired General Anthony Zinni and former Ambassador Thomas Pickering concluded that American attacks with
the objective of "ensuring that Iran never acquires a nuclear bomb" would "need to conduct a significantly expanded air and sea war over a prolonged
period of time, likely several years." (Accomplishing regime change, the authors noted, would mean an occupation of Iran requiring a "commitment of
resources and personnel greater than what the U.S. has expended over the past 10 years in the Iraq and Afghanistan wars combined.") The
anticipated blowback? Serious costs to U.S. interests would also be felt over the longer term, we believe, with problematic consequences for global
A dynamic of escalation , action, and counteraction could
produce serious unintended consequences that would significantly increase all of these costs and lead, potentially, to
all-out regional war.
and regional stability, including economic stability.
Escalates to major power war
Trabanco 9 – Independent researcher of geopoltical and military affairs (1/13/09, José Miguel Alonso Trabanco, “The Middle
Eastern Powder Keg Can Explode at anytime,” **http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=11762**)
In case of an Israeli and/or American attack against Iran, Ahmadinejad's government will certainly respond. A
possible countermeasure would be to fire Persian ballistic missiles against Israel and maybe even against American military bases
in the regions. Teheran will unquestionably resort to its proxies like Hamas or Hezbollah (or even some of its Shiite allies it has
in Lebanon or Saudi Arabia) to carry out attacks against Israel, America and their allies, effectively setting in flames a large
portion of the Middle East. The ultimate weapon at Iranian disposal is to block the Strait of Hormuz. If such chokepoint is indeed
asphyxiated, that would dramatically increase the price of oil, this a very threatening retaliation because it will bring intense financial
and economic havoc upon the West, which is already facing significant trouble in those respects. In short, the necessary
conditions for a major war in the Middle East are given . Such conflict could rapidly spiral out of control
and thus a relatively minor clash could
quickly and dangerously escalate by engulfing the whole region and perhaps
respective allies
and some great powers could become involved in one way or another (America, Russia, Europe, China).
even beyond. There are many key players: the Israelis, the Palestinians, the Arabs, the Persians and their
Therefore, any miscalculation by any of the main protagonists can trigger something no one can stop. Taking into consideration that
the stakes are too high, perhaps it is not wise to be playing with fire right in the middle of a powder keg.
OFF
Legalization of marijuana violates the single convention – decrim avoids
Donohue et al, 10 – C. Wendell and Edith M. Carlsmith Professor of Law at Stanford (John,
“Rethinking America’s Illegal Drug Policy” http://www.nber.org/chapters/c12096)
International Law. Another complication for legalization is international law. While many
researchers attempt to make international comparisons in studying drugs, one area of drug
control policy that receives scant attention is the United Nations Single Convention on Narcotic
Drugs of 1961 which binds all UN member nations to maintain prohibition of drugs, including
cannabis specifically (Levine and Reinarman 2006, 61). While the Single Convention on
Narcotic Drugs requires that countries maintain prohibition of manufacture, sales, and
import, it does not require a punitive regime of the type currently found in the United
States. Article 36 of the Single Convention, “Penal Provision,” specifically allows for treatment
programs to either enhance or serve as a substitute for punishment.81 The Economist reports
that countries like the Netherlands are able to allow for some innovation in controlling
marijuana use through the convention’s commentary, which states that its goal is “improvement
of the efficacy of national criminal justice systems in the field of drug trafficking” (“A Toker’s
Guide” 2009). Thus, reforms working within the framework of the existing treaty are
possible, though full- scale legalization would require either a country’s withdrawal from
the treaty or revision thereof.
Perhaps partly due to the Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs, even countries with more liberal
narcotics policies than the United States lack full- fledged drug legalization and at most
allow for depenalization of marijuana and/ or widespread needle exchange programs. As
discussed above, in the Netherlands, a country long known for its tolerance of marijuana
smoking, the importation and commercial production of cannabis remains illegal (Levine and
Reinarman 2006, 64). When considering its own drug reform, Portugal declined to adopt
outright legalization likely in part because of its treaty obligations under the 1961 Single
Convention (Cato Institute 2009).
unilateral legalization wrecks the entire UN treaty system
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&ve
d=0CDAQFjAC&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.tdpf.org.uk%2Fsites%2Fdefault%2Ffiles%2FBluepr
int.pdf&ei=xMcRVMEgia_IBL3xgtgE&usg=AFQjCNEzapo6rmX2drItTNAlEF6SqJcDiw&sig2=v
hMVPBlGoaWEJ9GB2HYbHg)
Parties could simply ignore all or part of the treaties. If multiple states engaged in such a
strategy, the treaties would eventually ‘wither on the vine’, falling into disuse without any
specific termination or reform. An individual country disregarding the treaties, or applying them
only partially, could in this way institute any policies deemed to be necessary at the national
level, including arguably the most likely example: the actual legalisation of cannabis and the
introduction of a licensing system for domestic producers (as the Netherlands and Switzerland
have been debating at the parliamentary level for some years, and which is now on the political
agenda in a number of US states).
Such a move however, like all the other possible reforms discussed here, raises serious issues
that go beyond the realm of drug control—particularly if taken unilaterally. The
possibility of nations unilaterally ignoring drug control treaty commitments could threaten, or
be perceived to threaten, the stability of the entire treaty system. The cost of such a threat
and the benefits derived from the wider UN treaty system would make states wary of opting
out, even on a limited reform such as cannabis production.
A strong commitment to UN-based multilateralism prevents extinction
Dyer, 4 - London-based independent Canadian journalist, syndicated columnist and military
historian; PhD in military and Middle Eastern history at King's College London; was employed
as a senior lecturer in war studies at the Royal Military Academy Sandhurst (Gwynne, Toronto
Star, “The End of War” The Toronto Star, 12/30, lexis)
The "firebreak" against nuclear weapons use that we began building after Hiroshima and
Nagasaki has held for well over half a century now. But the proliferation of nuclear weapons to
new powers is a major challenge to the stability of the system. So are the coming crises, mostly
environmental in origin, which will hit some countries much harder than others, and may drive
some to desperation.
Add in the huge impending shifts in the great-power system as China and India grow to rival the
United States in GDP over the next 30 or 40 years and it will be hard to keep things from
spinning out of control. With good luck and good management, we may be able to ride out the
next half-century without the first-magnitude catastrophe of a global nuclear war, but the
potential certainly exists for a major die-back of human population.
We cannot command the good luck, but good management is something we can choose to
provide. It depends, above all, on preserving and extending the multilateral system
that we have been building since the end of World War II. The rising powers must be absorbed into a system that emphasizes co-operation and makes
room for them, rather than one that deals in confrontation and raw military power. If they are obliged to play the traditional great-power game of
winners and losers, then history will repeat itself and everybody loses.
Our hopes for mitigating the severity of the coming environmental crises also depend on early
and concerted global action of a sort that can only happen in a basically co-operative
international system.
When the great powers are locked into a military confrontation, there is simply not enough
spare attention, let alone enough trust, to make deals on those issues, so the highest priority at
the moment is to keep the multilateral approach alive and avoid a drift back into alliance
systems and arms races. And there is no point in dreaming that we can leap straight into some never-land of universal brotherhood; we
will have to confront these challenges and solve the problem of war within the context of the existing state system.
The solution to the state of international anarchy that compels every state to arm itself for war was so obvious that it arose almost spontaneously in
1918. The wars by which independent states had always settled their quarrels in the past had grown so monstrously destructive that some alternative
system had to be devised, and that could only be a pooling of sovereignty, at least in matters concerning war and peace, by all the states of the world. So
the victors of World War I promptly created the League of Nations.
But the solution was as difficult in practice as it was simple in concept. Every member of the League of Nations understood that if the organization
somehow acquired the ability to act in a concerted and effective fashion, it could end up being used against them, so no major government was willing
to give the League of Nations any real power.
Instead, they got World War II, and that war was so bad - by the end the first nuclear weapons had been used on cities - that the victors made a second
attempt in 1945 to create an international organization that really could prevent war. They literally changed international law and made war illegal, but
they were well aware that all of that history and all those reflexes were not going to vanish overnight.
It would be depressing to catalogue the many failures of the United Nations, but it would also be misleading. The implication would be that this was an
enterprise that should have succeeded from the start, and has failed irrevocably. On the contrary; it was bound to be a relative failure at the outset. It
was always going to be very hard to persuade sovereign governments to surrender power to an untried world authority which might then make
decisions that went against their particular interests. In the words of the traditional Irish directions to a lost traveller: "If that's where you want to get
to, sir, I wouldn't start from here."
But here is where we must start from, for it is states that run the world.
The present international system, based on heavily armed and jealously independent states, often exaggerates the conflicts between the multitude of
human communities in the world, but it does reflect an underlying reality: We cannot all get all we want, and some method must exist to decide who
gets what. That is why neighbouring states have lived in a perpetual state of potential war, just as neighbouring hunter-gatherer bands did 20,000 years
ago.
If we now must abandon war as a method of settling our disputes and devise an alternative, it only can be done with the full co-operation of the world's
governments. That means it certainly will be a monumentally difficult and lengthy task: Mistrust reigns everywhere and no nation will allow even the
least of its interests to be decided upon by a collection of foreigners.
Even the majority of states that are more or less satisfied with their borders and their status in the world would face huge internal opposition from
nationalist elements to any transfer of sovereignty to the United Nations.
The U.N. as presently constituted is certainly no place for idealists, but they would feel even more uncomfortable in a United Nations that actually
worked as was originally intended.
It is an association of poachers turned game-keepers, not an assembly of saints, and it would not make its decisions according to some impartial
standard of justice.
There is no impartial concept of justice to which all of mankind would subscribe and, in any case, it is not "mankind" that makes decisions at the United
Nations, but governments with their own national interests to protect.
To envision how a functioning world authority might reach its decisions, at least in its first century or so, begin with the arrogant promotion of selfinterest by the great powers that would continue to dominate U.N. decision-making and add in the crass expediency masquerading as principle that
characterizes the shifting coalitions among the lesser powers in the present General Assembly: It would be an intensely political process.
The decisions it produced would be kept within reasonable bounds only by the need never to act in a way so damaging to the interest of any major
member or group of members that it forced them into total defiance, and so destroyed the fundamental consensus that keeps war at bay.
There is nothing shocking about this.
National politics in every country operates with the same combination: a little bit of principle, a lot of power, and a final constraint on the ruthless
exercise of that power based mainly on the need to preserve the essential consensus on which the nation is founded and to avoid civil war.
In an international organization whose members represent such radically different traditions, interests, and levels of development, the proportion of
principle to power is bound to be even lower. It's a pity that there is no practical alternative to the United Nations, but there isn't.
If the abolition of great-power war and the establishment of international law is truly a hundred-year project, then we are running a bit behind schedule
but we have made substanial progress.
We have not had World War III, and that is thanks at least in part to the United Nations, which
gave the great powers an excuse to back off from several of their most dangerous confrontations
without losing face. No great power has fought another since 1945, and the wars that have
broken out between middle-sized powers from time to time - Arab-Israeli wars and IndoPakistani wars, mostly - seldom lasted more than a month, because the U.N.'s offers of
ceasefires and peacekeeping troops offered a quick way out for the losing side.
OFF
The United States federal government should amend the Controlled Substances
Act to exempt state-level marijuana and hemp laws. States and territories of the
United States should decriminalize marihuana, and repeal any existing laws
which legalize marijuana. The United States should legalize industrial hemp.
CP solves
Caulkins et al 12 (Marijuana Legalization: What Everyone Needs to Know® Paperback – July 13, 2012
by Jonathan P. Caulkins (Author), co-director of RAND's Drug Policy Research Center, Angela Hawken (Author), Beau Kilmer
(Author), & 1 more (p.221))
Could the U nited S tates allow industrial hemp without legalizing marijuana? Certainly. Many
nations legalized industrial hemp production in the 1990s while continuing prohibition of
marijuana as a psychoactive drug. Different strains of cannabis—and different parts of any given plant—produce very
different levels of the plant's psychoactive agents. Typically, laws allowing industrial hemp require the use of
very-low-THC strains (less than 1 percent or even 0.3 percent THC, compared to the 4-18 percent characteristic of cannabis
produced and sold as a drug). So there's a reasonably bold line between industrial hemp and intoxicating
marijuana.
CP avoids the cartels DA
Chad Murray et al 11, Ashlee Jackson “Mexican Drug Trafficking Organizations and Marijuana: The Potential Effects of U.S.
Legalization” Amanda C. Miralrío, Nicolas Eiden Elliott School of International Affairs/Inter-American Drug Abuse Control
Commission: Capstone Report April 26, 2011
Decriminalization does not affect DTOs . As Mexico demonstrates, decriminalization has little if
any security benefits. This is due to the fact that decriminalization only affects the legal status of
personal consumption and petty possession . It does not address the reason for a drug‟s
profitability, and thus the root of its importance to DTOs . As long as the production and sale of a
drug are illegal , the price will remain artificially inflated , and organized crime will control the
market. This has also proven to be true in U.S. states like California, where possession of
marijuana has been decriminalized, but Mexican DTOs still operate in the wholesale market supplying these
consumers.
Legalization destabilizes mexico- causes cartel lashout and diversification
Chad Murray et al 11, Ashlee Jackson Amanda C. Miralrío, Nicolas Eiden Elliott School of International Affairs/InterAmerican Drug Abuse Control Commission: Capstone Report April 26, 2011 “Mexican Drug Trafficking Organizations and
Marijuana: The Potential Effects of U.S. Legalization”
Mexican DTOs would likely branch into other avenues of crime . Perhaps the most obvious shortterm effect of marijuana legalization is that this would rob the Sinaloa and Tijuana cartels of up to
half of their total revenue.117 The economic strain placed on the Sinaloa cartel and Tijuana cartel
may not necessarily help Mexico in the short term . The short-term effects of legalization could
very well create chaos for Mexico. “The cartels compensate for their loss of drug revenue by
branching out into other criminal activities-- kidnapping , murder-for-hire, contraband , illegal ¶ 29
¶
immigrant smuggling , extortion, theft of oil and other items, loan-sharking, prostitution , selling
protection, etc .”118 This means that if the social and economic environment remains the same
then “they are not going to return to the licit world .”119 If the Sinaloa cartel and the Tijuana cartel
turn towards activities like kidnapping, human trafficking and extortion, it could lead to a spike in
violence that would prove to be destabilizing in those organizations‟ areas of operation. ¶
The
Sinaloa cartel and Tijuana cartel might splinter into smaller groups. In addition, the loss
of more than 40% of revenue would probably force them to downsize their operations. Like any
large business going through downsizing, employees will likely be shed first in order to maintain
profitability.120 These former DTO operatives will likely not return to earning a legitimate income,
but rather will independently find new revenue sources in a manner similar to their employers.
Therefore it is possible that the legalization of marijuana in the United States could cause
territories currently under the control of the Sinaloa cartel and Tijuana cartel to become more
violent than they are today. This is troubling, as Sinaloa, Baja California, Sonora, and Chihuahua
states are already among the most violent areas of Mexico.121
Mexico instability undermines U.S. leadership and risks global arms races
Robert Haddick, contractor at U.S. Special Operations Command, managing editor of Small Wars Journal, "This Week at War: If
Mexico Is at War, Does America Have to Win It?" FOREIGN POLICY, 9--10--10,
www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2010/09/10/this_week_at_war_if_mexico_is_at_war_does_america_have_to_win_it, accessed 5-213.
Most significantly, a
strengthening Mexican insurgency would very likely affect America's role in the rest
of the world . An increasingly chaotic American side of the border, marked by bloody cartel wars,
corrupted government and media, and
a breakdown in security, would likely cause many in the U nited
S tates to question the importance of military and foreign policy ventures elsewhere in the world.
Should the southern border become a U.S. president's primary national security concern, nervous
allies and opportunistic adversaries elsewhere in the world would no doubt adjust to a distracted
and inward-looking America, with potentially disruptive arms races the result. Secretary Clinton has
looked south and now sees an insurgency. Let's hope that the United States can apply what it has recently learned about
insurgencies to stop this one from getting out of control.
Hegemony solves conflicts that cause extinction
Thomas P.M. Barnett, chief analyst, Wikistrat, “The New Rules: Leadership Fatigue Puts U.S. and Globalization, at
Crossroads,” WORLD POLITICS REVIEW, 3—7—11, www.worldpoliticsreview.com/articles/8099/the-new-rules-leadershipfatigue-puts-u-s-and-globalization-at-crossroads
Americans that we stand at a crossroads in our continuing evolution
as the world's sole full-service superpower. Unfortunately, we are increasingly seeking change without cost, and shirking from
Events in Libya are a further reminder for
risk because we are tired of the responsibility. We don't know who we are anymore, and our president is a big part of that problem.
Instead of leading us, he explains to us. Barack Obama would have us believe that he is practicing strategic patience. But many
experts and ordinary citizens alike have concluded that he is actually beset by strategic incoherence -- in effect, a man overmatched
by the job. It is worth first examining the larger picture: We live in a time of arguably the greatest structural change in the global
order yet endured, with this historical moment's most amazing feature being its relative and absolute lack of mass violence. That is
something to consider when Americans contemplate military intervention in Libya, because if we do take the step to prevent largerscale killing by engaging in some killing of our own, we will not be adding to some fantastically imagined global death count
stemming from the ongoing "megalomania" and "evil" of American "empire." We'll be engaging in the same sort of systemadministering activity that has marked our stunningly successful stewardship of global order since World War II. Let me be more
blunt: As the guardian of globalization, the U.S. military has been the greatest force for peace the
world has ever known. Had America been removed from the global dynamics that governed the 20th
century, the mass murder never would have ended. Indeed, it's entirely conceivable there would now be no identifiable
human civilization left, once nuclear weapons entered the killing equation. But the world did not
keep sliding down that path of perpetual war. Instead, America stepped up and changed everything by
ushering in our now-perpetual great-power peace . We introduced the international liberal trade order known as
globalization and played loyal Leviathan over its spread. What resulted was the collapse of empires, an explosion of
democracy, the persistent spread of human rights, the liberation of women, the doubling of life
expectancy, a roughly 10-fold increase in adjusted global GDP and a profound and persistent
reduction in battle deaths from state-based conflicts. That is what American "hubris" actually delivgered. Please
remember that the next time some TV pundit sells you the image of "unbridled" American military power as the cause of global
disorder instead of its cure. With self-deprecation bordering on self-loathing, we now imagine a post-American world that is anything
but. Just watch who scatters and who steps up as the Facebook revolutions erupt across the Arab world. While we might imagine
ourselves the status quo power, we remain the world's most vigorously revisionist force. As for the sheer "evil" that is our militaryindustrial complex, again, let's examine what the world looked like before that establishment reared its ugly head. The last great
period of global structural change was the first half of the 20th century, a period that saw a death toll of about 100 million across two
world wars. That comes to an average of 2 million deaths a year in a world of approximately 2 billion souls. Today, with far more
comprehensive worldwide reporting, researchers report an average of less than 100,000 battle deaths annually in a world fast
approaching 7 billion people. Though admittedly crude, these calculations suggest a 90 percent absolute drop and
a 99 percent relative drop in deaths due to war . We are clearly headed for a world order characterized by
multipolarity, something the American-birthed system was designed to both encourage and accommodate. But given how things
turned out the last time we collectively faced such a fluid structure, we would do well to keep U.S. power, in all of its forms , deeply
embedded in the geometry to come. To continue the historical survey, after salvaging Western Europe from its half-century of civil
war, the U.S. emerged as the progenitor of a new, far more just form of globalization -- one based on actual free trade rather than
colonialism. America then successfully replicated globalization further in East Asia over the second half of the 20th century, setting
the stage for the Pacific Century now unfolding.
[insert decrim avoids]
OFF
The United States federal government should amend the Controlled Substances
Act to establish an exemption for local-level marijuana laws for localities that
establish cannabis exchanges. Localities, city councils, county commissions
and territories of the United States should legalize marihuana and establish a
Cannabis Exchange.
Counterplan exempts ONLY local governments- keeps federal ban on state laws
on the books.
Allowing state authority crushes local solutions- internal link turns the first
advantage- ONLY local solutions can push back against anti-democratic, big
corporate influence- Broadband proves
Morris, 14 -- RINF Alternative News
[David, "States Rights, Local Democracy, and the Future of Broadband," 9-3-14, rinf.com/alt-news/sicence-technology/states-rightslocal-democracy-future-broadband/, accessed 9-22-14]
States Rights, Local Democracy, and the Future of Broadband
In July, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) stirred up a hornets’ nest by announcing it might overturn state prohibitions on municipally
owned broadband networks. Republicans protested that Washington should keep its grubby hands off state authority. Giant cable and phone
companies contended that local governments are incapable of managing telecommunications networks and the resulting failure will burden taxpayers.
The national debate is both welcome and timely. Welcome because it is grounded while addressing some of the most fundamental issues of our time:
What is the role of government? What is the value of competition? What is the meaning of democracy? Timely because we are entering the home
stretch of an election year where most state legislators are up for re-election. And because we confront the prospect of two telecommunication megamergers—one between Comcast and Time Warner and one between AT&T and DIRECTTV—that may operate under new rules that allow them
greater ability to discriminate against other providers. Some background to the FCC’s decision may be in order. In the early 2000s, exasperated by
poor service, high prices and the condescending refusal of cable and phone companies to upgrade their networks, cities began to build their own.
Today 150 cities have laid fiber or cable to every address in town. Another 250 offer Internet access to either businesses or residents. About 1,000
have created school or library networks. See map. The vast majority of these networks have proven wildly successful. The borough of Kutztown,
Pennsylvania, for example, saved an estimated $2 million in just the first few years after constructing one of the nation’s first fiber networks, a result of
lower rates by the muni network and price reductions by the incumbent cable company in response to competitive pressure. Bristol Virginia estimates
its network has saved residents and businesses over $10 million. Lafayette, Louisiana estimates savings of over $90 million. (The benefits of muni
networks have been amply catalogued by the Community Broadband Initiative.) Competition by public networks has spurred cable and phone
companies to upgrade. After Monticello, Minnesota moved ahead with its citywide fiber network TDS, its incumbent Telco, began building its own
despite having maintained for years that no additional investments were needed. After Lafayette began building its network, incumbent cable company
Cox, having previously dismissed customer demands for better service as pure conjecture scrambled to upgrade. It’s true that some public networks
have had significant financial losses, although it is usually bondholders, not taxpayers who feel the pain. But compared to the track record of private
telecoms, public sector management may be a paragon of financial probity. In 2002, after disclosing $2.3 billion in off balance sheet debt and the
indictment of five corporate officials for financial shenanigans Adelphia declared bankruptcy. In 2009 Charter collapsed resulting in an $8 billion loss
after four executives were indicted for improper financial reporting. In 2009 FairPoint Communications declared bankruptcy, resulting in a loss of more
than $1 billion. WorldCom, TNCI, Cordia Communications, AstroTel, Norvergence… the list of private telecommunications companies that have been
mismanaged to the point of collapse is long. We should bear in mind that investors will deduct the losses from their taxes. Thus the cost to taxpayers of
private corporate mismanagement arguably has been far greater than that caused by losses in public networks. In any event, as FCC Chairman Tom
Wheeler told a House Communications Subcommittee in May, “I understand that the experience with community broadband is mixed, that there have
been both successes and failures. But if municipal governments want to pursue it,
laws
they shouldn’t be inhibited by state
that have been adopted at the behest of incumbent providers looking to limit competition.” If forced to, private companies will compete,
but they much prefer to spend tens of millions of dollars buying the votes of state legislators to enact laws that forestall competition
rather than spend hundreds of millions to improve their networks. Today, four states have outright bans on municipal networks. Fifteen others impose
severe restrictions. In Utah, for example, if a public network wants to offer retail services, a far more profitable endeavor than providing wholesale
services, it must demonstrate that each service provided will have a positive cash flow in its first year! After five North Carolina cities proved that muni
networks could be hugely successful, Time Warner lobbied the state legislature to prohibit any imitators. Dan Ballister, Time Warner’s Director of
Communications insisted, “We’re all for competition, as long as people are on a level playing field.” Level playing field? Time Warner has annual
revenues of $18 billion, more than 500 times greater than Salisbury, North Carolina’s $34 million budget. It has 14 million customers while Salisbury’s
Fibrant network has about 2500. Level playing field? Incumbent telephone and cable companies long ago amortized the costs of building their network.
When a new competitor enters the market, it must build an entirely new network, passing the costs onto subscribers or investors in the form of higher
prices or reduced margins. Large incumbents have far more leverage when negotiating cable channel contracts. A new network serving a single
community might pay 25- 50 percent more for its channels. The law Time Warner wrote and persuaded the North Carolina legislature to pass slants the
playing field even more in favor of the giant telecoms. Time Warner can build networks anywhere in North Carolina but the public sector is limited to its
municipal boundaries. A public network must price its communication services based on the cost of capital available to private providers even if it can
access capital more cheaply. The North Carolina law, as with many such state laws, prohibits public networks from using surpluses from one part of
the city to finance the telecommunications system. But the law doesn’t prohibit private networks from doing so. Time Warner can tap into profits from its
vast customer base (largely in uncompetitive areas) to subsidize predatory pricing against muni competition. When Scottsboro, Alabama built a city
wide cable network Charter used profits from other markets to offer Scottsboro customers a video package with 150 channels for less than $20 per
month, even while Charter was charging customers in nearby communities over $70 for the same package. In a proceeding at the FCC,
expertsestimated Charter was losing at least $100-$200 year on these deals and even more when factoring in the cost of six major door-to-door
marketing campaigns. Existing North Carolina law already required a referendum before a city can issue bonds to finance a public network. The new
law specifically exempts cities from having to obtain voter approval “prior to the sale or discontinuance of the city’s communications network”. Terry
Huval, Director of Lafayette’s LUS Fiber describes still other ways state laws favor incumbents. “While Cox Communications can make rate decisions
in a private conference room several states away, Lafayette conducts its business in an open forum, as it should. While Cox can make repeated and
periodic requests for documents under the Public Records Law, it is not subject to a corresponding [process of transparency]… Louisiana law limits the
ability of a governmental enterprise to advertise, but nothing prevents the incumbent providers from spending millions of dollars in advertising
campaigns.” The FCC’s current proceeding came in response to petitions from two cities: Chattanooga, Tennessee and Wilson, North Carolina. Both
have very successful world-class muni networks. Surrounding communities are clamoring to interconnect. The Chattanooga Times Free Press recently
described the frustration and anger of people living tantalizingly close to these public networks: When Joyce Coltrin looks outside the front door of her
wholesale plant business, her gaze stops at a spot less than a half mile away. All she can do is stare in disbelief at the spot in rural Bradley County
where access to EPB’s fiber-optic service abruptly halts, as mandated under a Tennessee law that has frozen the expansion of the fastest Internet in
the Western Hemisphere…the small business owner has no access to wired Internet of any type, despite years of pleas to the private companies that
provide broadband in her community. “The way I see it, Comcast and Charter and AT&T have had 15 years to figure out how to get Internet to us, and
they’ve decided it’s not cost-effective,” Coltrin said. “We have not been able to get anything
fault of our own,
we are treated as second-class citizens. They’ve
because of
just sort of
these
state laws , and through no
held us hostage .” On July 16, House
Republicans voted 221-4 to freeze FCC funding if it attempts to overturn state prohibitions. Sixty Republican House members sent a letter to Wheeler
declaring, “Without any doubt, state governments across the country understand and are more attentive to the needs of the American people than
unelected federal bureaucrats in Washington, D.C.” Eleven Republican Senators agreed, “States are much closer to their citizens and can meet their
needs better than an unelected bureaucracy in Washington, D.C… State political leaders are accountable to the voters who elect them…” But if state
legislatures are closer to and more accountable to the people than the FCC or Congress surely city councils and county
commissions are even closer and more accountable. Ultimately then, this is a fight about democracy. Corporations prefer to
fight in 50 remote state capitols rather than 30,000 local communities. But genuine democracy depends on allowing, to the
greatest extent possible, those who feel the impact of decisions to be a significant part in the decision making process.
Harold DePriest, head of Chattanooga’s municipally owned broadband network (and electricity company) poses the fundamental question this way,
“(D)oes our community control our own fate, or does someone else control it?” Decisions about caps and rates and access, about the digital divide
and net neutrality can be debated and made at the local level, not in some distant boardroom or having to rely on federal agencies to act and
federal courts to support their actions.
OFF
Prohibition keeps use down
Kevin Sabet PhD, Director of the Drug Policy Institute at the University of Florida and an Assistant Professor in the College of
Medicine, Department of Psychiatry. Former Senior Policy Advisor to President Obama's Drug Czar / April 27, 2014 “Marijuana Is
Harmful: Debunking 7 Myths Arguing It’s Fine” Daily Signal, http://dailysignal.com/2014/04/27/time-reefer-sanity/ AC 6-18
Less than 8 percent of Americans smoke marijuana versus 52 percent who drink and 27 percent
of people that smoke tobacco cigarettes. Coupled with its legal status, efforts to reduce demand
for marijuana can work. Communities that implement local strategies implemented by area-wide
coalitions of parents, schools, faith communities, businesses, and, yes, law enforcement, can
significantly reduce marijuana use. Brief interventions and treatment for marijuana addiction (which
affects about 1 in 6 kids who start using, according to the National Institutes of Health) can also work.
Legalization kills growth and ruins lives—IQ, health effects, workplace productivity,
drugged driving
David G. Evans Special Adviser to the Drug Free America Foundation “Marijuana Legalization's Costs Outweigh Its Benefits”
Oct. 30, 2012 http://www.usnews.com/debate-club/should-marijuana-use-be-legalized/marijuana-legalizations-costs-outweigh-itsbenefits
Legalization will cause a tremendous increase in marijuana use. Based on the experience elsewhere, the
number of users will double or triple . This means an additional 17 to 34 million young and adult
users in the United States. Legalization will mean that marijuana businesses can promote their
products and package them in attractive ways to increase their market share.¶ Increased marijuana
use will mean millions more damaged young people. Marijuana use can permanently impair
brain development . Problem solving , concentration , motivation , and memory are negatively
affected. Teens who use marijuana are more likely to engage in delinquent and dangerous
behavior, and experience increased risk of schizophrenia and depression, including being three
times more likely to have suicidal thoughts. Marijuana-using teens are more likely to have multiple
sexual partners and engage in unsafe sex.¶ [Read the U.S. News Debate: Should Welfare Recipients Be Tested for
Drugs?]¶ Marijuana use accounts for tens of thousands of marijuana related complaints at
emergency rooms throughout the United States each year. Over 99,000 are young people.¶ Despite arguments by
the drug culture to the contrary, marijuana is addictive.
The levels of THC (marijuana's psychoactive ingredient) have
never been higher . This is a major factor why marijuana is the number one drug causing young people to enter treatment and
why there has been a substantial increase in the people in treatment for marijuana dependence.¶ Marijuana legalization
means more drugged driving . Already, 13 percent of high school seniors said they drove after using
marijuana while only 10 percent drove after having several drinks. Why run the risk of increasing
marijuana use among young drivers?¶ [See a collection of political cartoons on healthcare.]¶ Employees who
test positive for marijuana had 55 percent more industrial accidents and 85 percent more injuries
and they had absenteeism rates 75 percent higher than those that tested negative. This damages
our economy .
Econ collapse causes extinction
Auslin 09 (Michael, Resident Scholar – American Enterprise Institute, and Desmond Lachman – Resident Fellow – American
Enterprise Institute, “The Global Economy Unravels”, Forbes, 3-6, http://www.aei.org/article/100187)
global chaos
followed hard on economic collapse. The mere fact that parliaments across the globe, from America to Japan, are unable
What do these trends mean in the short and medium term? The Great Depression showed how social and
to make responsible, economically sound recovery plans suggests that they do not know what to do and are simply hoping for the
least disruption. Equally worrisome is the adoption of more statist economic programs around the globe, and the concurrent decline
of trust in free-market systems. The threat of instability is a pressing concern. China, until last year the world's fastest growing
economy, just reported that 20 million migrant laborers lost their jobs. Even in the flush times of recent years, China faced upward of
70,000 labor uprisings a year. A sustained downturn poses grave and possibly immediate threats to Chinese
internal stability. The regime in Beijing may be faced with a choice of repressing its own people or diverting their energies
outward, leading to conflict with China's neighbors. Russia, an oil state completely dependent on energy sales, has had to put down
riots in its Far East as well as in downtown Moscow. Vladimir Putin's rule has been predicated on squeezing civil liberties while
providing economic largesse. If that devil's bargain falls apart, then wide-scale repression inside Russia, along with
a continuing threatening posture toward Russia's neighbors, is likely. Even apparently stable societies face
increasing risk and the threat of internal or possibly external conflict. As Japan's exports have plummeted by nearly 50%, one-third
of the country's prefectures have passed emergency economic stabilization plans. Hundreds of thousands of temporary employees
hired during the first part of this decade are being laid off. Spain's unemployment rate is expected to climb to nearly 20% by the end
of 2010; Spanish unions are already protesting the lack of jobs, and the specter of violence, as occurred in the 1980s, is haunting
the country. Meanwhile, in Greece, workers have already taken to the streets. Europe as a whole will face dangerously
increasing tensions between native citizens and immigrants, largely from poorer Muslim nations, who have increased the labor
pool in the past several decades. Spain has absorbed five million immigrants since 1999, while nearly 9% of Germany's residents
have foreign citizenship, including almost 2 million Turks. The xenophobic labor strikes in the U.K. do not bode well for the rest of
Europe. A prolonged global downturn, let alone a collapse, would dramatically raise tensions inside these
countries. Couple
that with possible protectionist legislation in the United States, unresolved ethnic and territorial disputes
in all regions of the globe and a loss of confidence that world leaders actually know what they are doing. The result
may be a series of small explosions that coalesce into a big bang.
Cannabis Exchange
Industrial model is sustainable and small farms aren’t net better
-lower yields: 20-50%
-land use
-acidification
-soil erosion/tillage
-rotenone x fish
-zero-sum: aff model T/O
Miller 14 (Dr. Henry I. Miller, a physician and molecular biologist, was the founding director of the FDA's Office of Biotechnology
and is a research fellow at Stanford University's Hoover Institution, “Organic Farming Is Not Sustainable,” May 15,
http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702304431104579550002888434432, Groot)
You may have noticed that the organic section of your local supermarket is growing. Advocates tout organic-food production—in
everything from milk and coffee to meat and vegetables—as a "sustainable" way to feed the planet's expanding population. The
Worldwatch Institute, a Washington, D.C.-based environmental group, goes so far as to say organic
farming "has the potential to contribute to sustainable food security by improving nutrition
intake and sustaining livelihoods in rural areas, while simultaneously reducing vulnerability to climate
change and enhancing biodiversity." The evidence argues otherwise . A study by the Institute for
Water Research at Ben-Gurion University in Israel, published last year in the journal Hydrology and Earth System Sciences, found
that "intensive organic
agriculture relying on solid organic matter, such as composted manure that is implemented in the soil
resulted in significant down-leaching of nitrate" into
prior to planting as the sole fertilizer,
groundwater. With many of the world's most fertile farming regions in the throes of drought, increased nitrate in groundwater
is hardly a hallmark of sustainability. Moreover, as agricultural scientist Steve Savage has documented on the Sustainablog website,
wide-scale composting generates significant amounts of greenhouse gases such as methane and nitrous oxide. Compost may also
deposit pathogenic bacteria on or in food crops, which has led to more frequent occurrences of food poisoning in the U.S. and
elsewhere. Organic farming might work well for certain local environments on a small scale, but its farms produce far less food per
of land and water than conventional ones. The low yields of organic agriculture—typically 20%-50% less than
conventional agriculture—impose various stresses on farmland and especially on water consumption. A British metaanalysis published in the Journal of Environmental Management (2012) found that "ammonia emissions, nitrogen
leaching and nitrous oxide emissions per product unit were higher from organic
systems" than conventional farming systems, as were "land use, eutrophication
potential and acidification potential per product unit." Lower crop yields are inevitable given organic farming's
systematic rejection of many advanced methods and technologies. If the scale of organic production were
significantly increased, the lower yields would increase the pressure for the
conversion of more land to farming and more water for irrigation, both of which are serious
environmental issues. Another limitation of organic production is that it disfavors the best
approach to enhancing soil quality—namely, the minimization of soil disturbances
such as tilling, combined with the use of cover crops. Both approaches help to limit
soil erosion and the runoff of fertilizers and pesticides. Organic growers do frequently
plant cover crops, but in the absence of effective herbicides, often they rely on tillage (or even laborintensive hand weeding) for weed control. One prevalent myth is that organic agriculture does not
employ pesticides. Organic farming does use insecticides and fungicides to
prevent predation of its crops. More than 20 chemicals (mostly containing copper and sulfur) are
commonly used in the growing and processing of organic crops and are
acceptable under U.S. organic rules. They include nicotine sulfate, which is
extremely toxic to warm-blooded animals, and rotenone , which is moderately toxic to most mammals but
unit
so toxic to fish that it's widely used for the mass poisoning of unwanted fish
populations during restocking projects. Perhaps the most illogical and least sustainable aspect of
organic farming in the long term is the exclusion of " g enetically m odified o rganism s ," but only
those that were modified with the most precise and predictable techniques such
as gene splicing. Except for wild berries and wild mushrooms, virtually all the fruits, vegetables and
grains in our diet have been genetically improved by one technique or another, often
through what are called wide crosses, which move genes from one species or genus to another in ways that do not occur in nature.
Therefore, the
exclusion from organic agriculture of organisms simply because they were crafted with
no sense. It also denies consumers of organic goods nutritionally improved foods,
such as oils with enhanced levels of omega-3 fatty acids. In recent decades, we have seen advances in
agriculture that have been more environmentally friendly and sustainable than ever
before. But they have resulted from science-based research and tech nological ingenuity by
farmers, plant breeders and agribusiness companies , not from social elites opposed to modern
insecticides, herbicides, genetic engineering and "industrial agriculture."
modern, superior techniques makes
Small farms fail
McWilliams 09 (James, historian at Texas State University, 10/7, http://freakonomics.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/10/07/let-thefarmers-market-debate-continue/?apage=2)
Some academic critics are starting to wonder. Writing in the Journal of Rural Studies, sociologist C. Clare Hinrichs warns that
“[m]aking ‘local’ a proxy for the ‘good’ and ‘global’ a proxy for the bad may overstate the value in proximity.” Building on this
suspicion, she acknowledges that many small farms are indeed more sustainable than larger ones, but then reminds us that “Small
scale, ‘local’ farmers are not inherently better environmental stewards.” Personal experience certainly confirms my own inability to
make such a distinction. Most of us must admit that in many cases we really haven’t a clue if the local farmers we support run
sustainable systems. The possibility that, as Hinrichs writes, they “may lack the awareness or means to follow more sustainable
production practices” suggests that the mythical sense of community (which depends on the expectation of sound agricultural
practices) is being eroded. After all, if the unifying glue of sustainability turns out to have cracks, so then does the communal
cohesiveness that’s supposed to evolve from it. And this is not a big “If.” “[W]hile affect, trust, and regard can flourish under
conditions of spatial proximity,” concludes Hinrichs, “this is not automatically or necessarily the case.” At the least, those of us who
value our local food systems should probably take the time to tone down the Quixotic rhetoric and ask questions that make our
farmer friends a little uncomfortable.
Status quo solves – the number of small farms is increasing now.
Wanjek 09 (Christopher, LiveScience's Bad Medicine Columnist, author of the books "Bad Medicine" and "Food At Work," 2/10,
http://www.livescience.com/culture/090210-bad-small-farms.html)
When the economy gets tough, it seems that the tough get farming. Tens of thousands of small farms were created since 2002,
according to new data from the Census of Agriculture. The farming forecast isn't entirely sunny. But packed with a cornucopia of
surprise findings — such as large increases in the number and percentage of Asian, Hispanic, Black and female farmers, and a
coup staged by the frigid state of Wisconsin to become the second-leading vegetable producer, behind California — the census
brings promising news to those interested in reducing obesity and improving the environment. What's the connection? More small
farms brings greater diversity of crops, more fresh and local foods, less dependency on chemical fertilizers, less concentration of
manure, and less emphasis on cheap corn to make unhealthy, industrially produced beef, pork and chicken. And if Wisconsin can
grow vegetables with its yearly average temperature of 43 degrees, nearly every state can become self-sufficient vegetable
producers; only seven states are colder. Back to basics "I find it hopeful that the number of farms in this country has increased," said
newly appointed Secretary of Agriculture Tom Vilsack at the Feb. 4 debut of agricultural census data, held in Washington. "I don't
think it is a statistical anomaly that small farms have increased in number... a result of farm programs we have instituted at the
USDA to encourage organic farming" and other environmentally benign practices, he said.
Warming Timeframe is 200 years and adaptation solves
Mendelsohn 9 – Robert O. Mendelsohn 9, the Edwin Weyerhaeuser Davis Professor, Yale School of Forestry
and Environmental Studies, Yale University, June 2009, “Climate Change and Economic Growth,” online:
http://www.growthcommission.org/storage/cgdev/documents/gcwp060web.pdf
These statements are largely alarmist and misleading . Although climate change is a serious problem that
deserves attention, society’s immediate behavior has anextremely low probabilityof leading
tocatastrophic consequences. The science and economics of climate change is quite clear that
emissions over the next few decades will lead to only mild consequences. The severe impacts
predicted by alarmists require a century (or two in the case of Stern 2006) of no mitigation. Many of the
predicted impacts assume there will be no or little adaptation. The net economic impacts from climate
change over the next 50 years will be small regardless. Most of the more severe impacts will take more
than a century or even a millennium to unfold and many of these “potential” impacts will
never occur because people will adapt. It is not at all apparent that immediate and dramatic
policies need to be developed to thwart long‐range climate risks. What is needed are long‐run
balanced responses.
ecosystems are resilient
NIPCC 11. Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change. Surviving the unprecedented climate change
of the IPCC. 8 March 2011. http://www.nipccreport.org/articles/2011/mar/8mar2011a5.html
In a paper published in Systematics and Biodiversity, Willis et al. (2010) consider the IPCC (2007) "predicted climatic
changes for the next century" -- i.e., their contentions that "global temperatures will increase by 2-4°C and possibly
beyond, sea levels will rise (~1 m ± 0.5 m), and atmospheric CO2will increase by up to 1000 ppm" -- noting that it is
"widely suggested that the magnitude and rate of these changes will result in many plants and animals going extinct,"
citing studies that suggest that "within the next century, over 35% of some biota will have gone extinct (Thomas et al.,
2004; Solomon et al., 2007) and there will be extensive die-back of the tropical rainforest due to climate change (e.g.
Huntingford et al., 2008)." On the other hand, they indicate that some biologists and climatologists have
pointed out that "many of the predicted increases in climate have happened before, in terms
of both magnitude and rate of change (e.g. Royer, 2008; Zachos et al., 2008), and yet biotic
communities have remained remarkably resilient (Mayle and Power, 2008) and in some cases
thrived (Svenning and Condit, 2008)." But they report that those who mention these things are often "placed in
the 'climate-change denier' category," although the purpose for pointing out these facts is simply to present "a sound
scientific basis for understanding biotic responses to the magnitudes and rates of climate change predicted for the
future through using the vast data resource that we can exploit in fossil records." Going on to do just that, Willis et al.
focus on "intervals in time in the fossil record when atmospheric CO2 concentrations
increased up to 1200 ppm, temperatures in mid- to high-latitudes increased by greater than
4°C within 60 years, and sea levels rose by up to 3 m higher than present," describing studies
of past biotic responses that indicate "the scale and impact of the magnitude and rate of such
climate changes on biodiversity." And what emerges from those studies, as they describe it, "is
evidence for rapid community turnover, migrations, development of novel ecosystems and
thresholds from one stable ecosystem state to another." And, most importantly in this regard, they report
"there is very little evidence for broad-scale extinctions due to a warming world." In concluding,
the Norwegian, Swedish and UK researchers say that "based on such evidence we urge some
caution in assuming broad-scale extinctions of species will occur due solely to climate
changes of the magnitude and rate predicted for the next century," reiterating that "the fossil
record indicates remarkable biotic resilience to wide amplitude fluctuations in climate."
Food insecurity won’t cause war
Allouche 11 The sustainability and resilience of global water and food systems: Political analysis of the interplay
between security, resource scarcity, political systems and global trade ☆
Development Studies, Brighton, UK
Available online 22 January 2011.
Jeremy Allouche
Institute of
At sub-national scales (i.e. the intra-state level and the local level), the link between scarcity and
conflict is more complex. At the intra-state level, recent research on civil wars shows that countries
suffering from environmental degradation (soil degradation, deforestation and freshwater supply linked to
high population density) were indeed more likely to experiance civil war, but that the magnitude of
the effects was secondary to political and economic factors (see for example [Urdal, 2005] and [Hauge
and Ellingsen, 1998]). The same is true for hunger and food insecurity as a cause of conflict. The
work of Collier and the US State Failure Task Force seems to suggest a possible correlation between food insecurity
and civil wars. Collier found a strong relationship between indicators of deprivation (such as low per capita income;
economic stagnation and decline; high income inequality; and slow growth in food production per capita) and violent civil
strife (Collier, 1999). The US State Failure Task Force found that infant mortality, a surrogate measure of food insecurity
and standard of living, was one of three variables most highly correlated with civil war (Goldstone et al., 2003).
However, a number of specialists have challenged the notion that food insecurity is a proximate
cause of conflict and prefer to emphasize ethnic and political rivalry (Paalberg, 1999). Nonetheless,
most analysts would agree that structural conditions of inequality and hunger are among the underlying causes of
conflict. But again, ‘physical resource scarcity’ is not in most cases the result of insufficient
production or availability but is usually linked to the politics of inequality.
Prohibition
1NC
Agreement already between FARC and Colombia government – currently only
aerial spraying coca plants – legalizing marijuana doesn’t solve
The Economist 5/17 (“The politics of peace,” May 17, 2014)
In the accord announced Friday, the FARC, whose top leaders face extradition to the United States on
drug trafficking charges, vow to sever their ties with the drugs trade, clear landmines, and work with the
government to help farmers substitute their plantations of coca, the raw material used in making
cocaine.The government’s eradication efforts, backed by millions of dollars in US aid, have thus far
centred on aerial fumigation of coca crops. It said it would use forceful eradication only where no accords for voluntary
crop substitution were reached. It also said it would promote an international conference under the auspices of the UN to reconsider
global strategies against drugs. "With this we will eliminate the gasoline that has fuelled the conflict in Colombia—drug trafficking,"
said the government’s lead negotiator, Humberto de la Calle (pictured). Ricardo Vargas, a drug policy expert and political analyst,
said the agreement on drugs was a win for the government. "This is a triumph for the government because there is no change in the
current policies," he says. "What it does is remove the obstacle of the guerrillas to implement them."
Ending marijuana prohibition isn’t sufficient – the US needs to redirect funding
towards helping farmers – no evidence the aff leads to FINANCIAL help which
THEIR AUTHOR says is key. And their card admits the current proposed policy
wouldn’t help shift.
WOLA 14 [The Washington Office on Latin America (Promotes human rights, democracy, and social justice by working with
partners in Latin America and the Caribbean to shape policies in the United States and abroad), “Let Colombia End Its Civil War”
Foreign Policy In Focus, June 3, 2014, pg. http://tinyurl.com/ne8yd7g]
Furthermore, it
calls for the expansion of crop substitution programs, recognizing that many
rural communities rely on coca and opium poppy cultivation for their economic
livelihoods. However, it stipulates that “supportive measures…will be conditioned
to…agreements on substitution and no-replanting,” implying that cultivators would be
required to cede their earnings from crop cultivation before they see the benefits of
alternative crops. Experience in Latin America has shown that conditioning assistance
on total eradication harms the chance of developing lasting alternatives, as cultivators
lack a successful bridge between when the cultivation of crops for the illicit market ends
and alternative livelihoods become sustainable. Not surprisingly in these circumstances, many growers
return to the cultivation of coca and poppy crops. A more effective model would be to offer a phasing out period and/or subsidies to cultivators until meaningful alternative livelihoods are actually in place.
Yet while proper sequencing on reducing crops for the illicit market will need to be reviewed, the parties get it right on local involvement. Opting for what one Colombian analyst described as “building the state
from below,” the development program would rely heavily on and actively engage with local communities to ensure their participation—and hence the program’s sustainability.
The most monumental point came with the government’s concession to de-prioritize—though not entirely retire—the destructive and ineffective aerial herbicide spraying of coca crops, opting first for
alternative development and manual eradication before spraying crops. In more than a decade of its use in Colombia, aerial spraying has served only to disperse coca crops, destroy poor farmers’
livelihoods, and engender local distrust for government authorities, as the only contact many communities have had with the state has been the occasional visit of a plane conducting aerial spraying.
The agreement also addresses drug consumption, an issue generally thought to be outside the purview of the peace talks. While details here are scant, linking this issue to the peace talks will help
continue regional debates on drug policy reform. Recognizing that drug policy should be based on respect for human rights and public health is a valuable contribution.
But a full agreement, if eventually signed, will not be a panacea. Taking the FARC out of the cultivation and trafficking business will not independently solve the drug issue or the associated violence.
As long as there is worldwide demand—and particularly U.S. demand —for drugs, criminal organizations will find a way to supply them. Furthermore, an accord will likely leave a power vacuum in rural
regions of the country as the FARC demobilizes and cedes those territories. There is a good chance that right-wing paramilitary successor groups and criminal gangs will try to fill it. Establishing a positive state
presence and providing basic services will be a major challenge, especially in regions where the armed forces have been the primary face of the state.
Supporting peace from Washington
Because of these continued challenges, the United States has an important role to play in the implementation phase, both in supporting Colombia financially and in granting the Colombia n
government political space to implement the accords—even when they contradict U.S. policy priorities. A State Department communique on the drug policy agreement, which highlights the continuation
of forced eradication, raises questions about whether the United States will help or hinder the advancement of the peace process.
Nearly two of every three aid dollars destined for Colombia goes to the public security
forces. Will the U.S. government be willing to shift aid to build peace rather than
continue war?
Achieving durable reductions in poppy and coca crop cultivation for illicit drug
production will require implementing alternative livelihoods and connecting longforgotten rural areas with the national infrastructure. After decades of waging a largely
ineffective “war on drugs” in Colombia, will the United States allow its longtime ally to break with the
prohibition-focused model and explore alternatives to the current militarized approach ?
Some of the most revolutionary agreements in the accord, such as all but ending aerial spraying ,
would challenge the existing U.S. approach .
the talks progress, will likely dismay hardliners in the
U.S. government who are not ready to shift drug control tactics. But with little progress to show after decades
These questions, and the many more that will be raised as
of violence and billions of dollars spent, the Colombian and FARC negotiators have made an important step toward ending decades
of violence. The
United States should stand ready to support Colombia, both financially and
politically, in the coming months and years—and it should know when to stand down.
Industrialization makes the impact inevitable
Red Orbit ‘9 Red Orbit. “Economic Demands Threaten Amazon”. Ferbuary 19, 2009.
http://www.redorbit.com/news/science/1642296/economic_demands_threaten_amazon/
The Amazon continues to lose more forest due to excess strain from accelerating rates of
industrialized growth in the region, according to a report issued by the United Nations on Wednesday.
Supported by the UN Environment Program and the Amazon Cooperation Treaty Organization (ACTO), the GEO Amazonia
report shows troubling signs of deforestation due to poorly planned human settlements . As of
2005, “857,666 square kilometers of the forest had been transformed, reducing vegetation cover
by approximately 17 percent, equal to two-thirds of Peru or 94 percent of Venezuela,” according to the UN. Since then, the
rate of deforestation has decreased. However, an additional 11,224 square kilometers (4,333 square miles) of forest disappeared in
Brazil in 2007. Deforestation in the region is being driven by foreign markets’ conquests for timber,
cash crops and beef,
and unprecedented levels of pollution, according to the report, which used data from more than
150 experts in eight nearby countries. “Our Amazonia is changing at an accelerated rate with very profound
modifications in its ecosystems,” the eight Amazonian countries declared in the GEO Amazonia report. The region today holds some
35 million people, nearly 65 percent of them in cities, including three with more than one million inhabitants, according to the AFP.
The report recommended that Bolivia, Brazil, Colombia, Ecuador, Guyana, Peru, Suriname and Venezuela should take part in a
coordinated effort for sustainable use of the iconic rainforest’s ecosystems. " If the loss of forests exceeds 30 percent
of the vegetation cover, then rainfall levels will decrease," the report said. "This will produce a
vicious circle that favors forest burning, reduces water vapor release and increases smoke
emissions into the atmosphere."
Aff destabilizes Afghanistan—world market alt cause
Fox 14 [Marlowe Fox, formerly lead counsel at a nationwide foreclosure defense firm with over two hundred attorneys across the
United States, “DRUG CARTELS, TERRORISM, AND MARIJUANA”, GLOBAL, POLITICS JULY 14, 2014,
http://raybounmulligan.com/mexican-drug-cartels-afghanistan-and-marijuana/, \\wyo-bb]
In his recent blog, H.A. Goodman illustrates some of the possible benefits of legalizing marijuana. Goodman
notes that
Afghanistan is the world’s largest supplier of cannabis and legalization would allow Afghans to
realize an immediate revenue stream. Goodman concludes that this revenue would contribute to the overall
stability in the region. However, he does not consider the fact that legalization would remove
barriers of entry for American and international entrepreneurs . Goodman cites Rand Corporation figures that
from around the world
would put their hat into the ring and effectively push Afghan growers out of any new market
Americans spend approximately $40.6 billion a year on marijuana. Hence, entrepreneurs
created by legalization. Thus, the conjectured stabilization in Afghanistan as a result from
marijuana legalization is not likely to happen .
Heroin is 10 times as valuable
BY Reuters Wednesday, March 31, 2010 “Afghanistan now world's top marijuana supplier”
4:15 PM http://www.nydailynews.com/news/world/afghanistan-world-top-marijuana-supplier-article-1.173257 ac 9-17
Afghanistan has now become the top
supplier of cannabis, with large-scale cultivation in half of its provinces, the United Nations said on Wednesday. Between
Long the world's largest producer of opium, the raw ingredient of heroin,
10,000 and 24,000 hectares of cannabis are grown every year in Afghanistan, with major cultivation in 17 out 34 provinces, the U.N.
drug agency (UNODC) said in its first report on cannabis production in Afghanistan. While some countries grow cannabis on more
land, Afghanistan's robust crop yields -- 145 kg of resin per hectare compared to around 40 kg per hectare in Morocco -- make it the
world's largest producer, estimated at 1,500-3,500 tons a year. "This report shows that Afghanistan's drug problem is even more
complex than just the opium trade," said Antonio Maria Costa, head of UNODC in the report. "Reducing Afghanistan's cannabis
supply should be dealt with more seriously, as part of the national drug control strategy." For years Afghanistan has been the world's
largest producer of opium, a paste extracted from poppies and processed into heroin. While land cultivated with poppies fell by 22
percent last year, record yields meant production fell only 10 percent. FUNDING INSURGENTS The illegal opium trade is
said to fuel the insurgency in Afghanistan with the Taliban siphoning off millions of dollars from
the trade by imposing taxes on farmers and smugglers in return for ensuring safe passage of the
drug. "Like opium, cannabis cultivation, production and trafficking are taxed by those who control the territory, providing an
additional source of revenue for insurgents," the report said. As with opium, most cannabis cultivation takes place in the south of the
country where the insurgency is strongest, UNODC said, with more than two-thirds (67 percent) of cannabis farmers also growing
opium. One of the main reasons cannabis is so widely grown, UNODC said, is because of its low labor costs and high returns.
Three times cheaper to cultivate than opium, the net income from a hectare of cannabis is $3,341 compared to $2,005 for opium.
"The entire process is a non-expensive, fast industrial process, which is indeed somewhat worrying," Jean-Luc Lemahieu, head of
UNODC in Afghanistan, told reporters in Kabul. "We have already enough problems with the opium so we don't want to see the
cannabis taking over." Afghanistan
still grows far more opium
than cannabis, however, and Lemahieu said it was unlikely to overtake the poppy crop as it
required a lot of water to grow -- in short supply in Afghanistan -- and had a very short shelf life.
"You can walk around with opium for 10 to 15 years and, perhaps, like the wine it gets better with
the time. For cannabis ... you need to process it really immediately ," said Lemahieu. While cannabis
production in 2009 was valued at an estimated $39-94 million, this is only about 10 -20 percent of the total farmgate value of Afghanistan's opium production, because so much more opium is grown. While some of
the cannabis is consumed within Afghanistan, most of the drug is smuggled abroad following the same routes
as opium , UNODC said. In 2008, 245,000 kg of cannabis was seized in southern Kandahar near to the border with Pakistan.
2NC
CP
CP Amendment Text: The 50 United States state governments should not enforce
their marijuana laws against localities, city councils, or country commissions.
Decrim
Decrim S: Signal
Decrim is sufficient
Watchdog card--Their card says we just need to stop prohibition, not legalize- says that we need a
framework to experiment with decrim—and maybe at some point legalize. Says
any US shift away from prohibition, including decrim is sufficient
Stewart M. PATRICK, Senior Fellow and Director, Program on International Institutions and Global Governance, 14 [April 1,
2014, “The Global Debate Over Illegal Drugs Heats Up,” http://blogs.cfr.org/patrick/2014/04/01/the-global-debate-over-illegal-drugsheats-up/]
long-deferred debate over the “war on drugs” is finally heating up .
dominant paradigm informing U.S. and global policy towards narcotics
has been prohibition. That failed approach is now being challenged by a slew of influential reports, pathbreaking national policies in the Western Hemisphere, and state-level experiments within the United
States. Just how turbulent the debate has become was clear at yesterday’s roundtable on the future of international drug policy,
hosted by the Center for Strategic and International Studies. The United States will need to chart a new policy course
if it hopes to retain credibility and influence as global attitudes toward drugs continue to evolve.
The U.S. law enforcement approach has focused on attacking sources of supply, interdicting
shipments of drugs and incarcerating dealers. It has also targeted demand, imprisoning and fining
addicts and casual users. And yet these repressive efforts have made little dent in the global drug
trade. By artificially inflating profits, prohibition has only incentivized criminal activity. Traffickers
have successfully shifted production sites and transit routes in response to crackdowns . Criminality,
Having been frozen for four decades, a
Ever since the Nixon administration, the
corruption and violence have destabilized vulnerable governments. Prison populations have swollen with addicts and casual users.
And yet drugs are cheaper and more available than ever before.
Fortunately, a
long-deferred debate over how to handle the global drug trade is gaining momentum . The first
cracks in the prohibitionist edifice appeared in 2011, with the publication of the Report of the Global Commission
on Drug Policy. The commission—co-chaired by former Mexican president Ernesto Zedillo, former
Brazilian president Fernando Enrique Cardoso, and former U.S. secretary of state George Shultz, and
including other global luminaries like Kofi Annan, Paul Volcker, and Javier Solana—pulled no punches. The report’s
opening paragraph said it all:
The global war on drugs has failed, with devastating consequences for individuals and societies around the world. Fifty
years after the initiation of the UN Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs, and 40 years after President Nixon launched the
US government’s war on drugs, fundamental reforms in national and global drug control policies are urgently needed.
It was time, the commission concluded, to “break the taboo on debate and reform.” The report
categorically rejected the “repressive” measures that had “clearly failed to effectively curtail supply or consumption.” The
commission endorsed a public health approach to reducing drug use and dependence, an end to incarceration of low-level drug offenders,
and a shift from prohibition to regulation and harm reduction, with ample room for national experimentation—including
decriminalization and even legalization.
The Western Hemisphere has been most receptive to this appeal. The secretary-general of the
Organization of American States, Jose Miguel Insulza, last year released a bracing Report on the Drug Problem
in the Americas, documenting the damage of the war on drugs and endorsing “differentiated
approaches” tailored to national contexts and concerns. In Central America, ravaged by drug-related violence, Guatemalan
President Otto Peréz Molina has insisted that prohibition has failed and that the only solution is “regulation.” In Colombia, which has
received billions of dollars in U.S. counterdrug assistance since 2000, president Juan Manuel Santos has announced, “It’s time to
think again about the war on drugs.” Further south, Uruguay has become the first country in the Americas to legalize the marijuana
trade. Meanwhile, in the United States, Colorado and Washington have legalized recreational use of
cannabis, and eighteen other states and the District of Columbia have decriminalized its use. And at the
federal level, both President Obama and Attorney General Eric Holder have noted the futility and injustice of
continuing to imprison millions of Americans for low-level drug offenses.
The United States, long the watchdog of the global prohibition regime , is facing a new diplomatic
landscape as a result of all this turbulence. Speaking at CSIS, Ambassador William Brownfield, assistant secretary of the State
Department Bureau of International Narcotics and Law Enforcement (INL), called it the most significant “national and global debate
on drug policy” in history. It is one where the United States increasingly finds itself on the defensive, alternately
whipsawed by attacks on its prohibitionist national stance and criticisms of the conduct of its
individual states. Last October, Brownfield found himself before the International Narcotics Control Board, where he was
asked to explain why the United States could claim to be “in compliance” with the obligations of the three main international drug
conventions, given legal and fast-developing cannabis markets in Washington and Colorado.
The diplomatic challenge for the United States is to adjust its prohibitionist stance to new
hemispheric and global realities. And it does not have much time . In 2016 the United Nations General
Assembly will convene a Special Session (UNGASS) on Drug Policy—the first such event in eighteen years. To
move the global debate on drug policy in a constructive direction, the United States has just two
years to go from enforcer to reformer .
At CSIS, Brownfield expressed confidence that the United States can gain international support for a global drug regime based on
four pillars:
Defend the integrity of the three existing international drug conventions. Some aspects of these treaties—the 1961 Single
Convention, the 1971 Expanded Convention, and the 1988 Convention against Drug Trafficking—may be outdated. But
Brownfield insists that it is far easier to “adjust” these instruments than negotiate completely new ones (much less get
Senate approval for ratification).
Allow flexible interpretations of the drug conventions. Like the U.S. constitution, these must be seen as “living documents”
that can be interpreted “as the world changes.”
Tolerate different national strategies and policies: It is inevitable that each UN member state will develop its own approach
to controlling narcotics, based on its cultural and political realities.
Combat organized criminal groups: Whatever one’s position on legalization, all governments must commit to fighting
violent drug traffickers.
Other speakers at the CSIS debate were far more critical of
the United States, arguing that its commitment to
prohibition and repressive drug policies continue to obstruct a new, more realistic global
approach to drugs . What U.S. officials were unwilling to address, argued Global Commission members
Michel Kazatchkine and Ruth Dreifus, was the most fundamental question: “Have we been successful or not (in our
current policies of repression and prohibition)?” “Let’s open an honest debate,” Kazatchkine implored. He noted the “absurdity” that
at the most recent UN Commission on Narcotic Drugs meeting in March in Vienna, the final resolution had not even permitted use of
the phrase “harm reduction,” which the United States, Japan, and some other countries had considered too controversial. Clearly,
the debate over the future of U.S. and global drug policy is only beginning.
Wild ev----decrim is a form of regulating
***Just says US experimenting w/ modes of regulations—that includes decrim.
Specs modes include just a lack of punitive approach
Wild 13—JD from Suffolk University Law School [Joshua D. Wild, “The Uncomfortable Truth about the United States' Role in the
Failure of the Global War on Drugs and How It Is Going to Fix It,” Suffolk Transnational Law Review, 36 Suffolk Transnat'l L. Rev.
423, Summer 2013]
A. A Starting Point for Review: Taking Accountability
The War on Drugs' demise started when the bellicose analogy was created. n77 The correct classification of the global drug
problem was and still is as a set of interlinked health and social challenges to be managed, not a war to be won. n78 The U.S. has
worked strenuously for the past fifty years to ensure that all countries adopt its rigid, prohibitionist approach to drug policy,
essentially repressing the potential for alternative policy development and experimentation. n79 This was an expensive mistake that
the U.S. unfortunately cannot take back. n80 The current emergence from the economic recession of 2008-2009 has set the
stage for a generational, political and cultural shift, placing the U.S. in a unique moment in its history; the necessary
sociopolitical context to revoke its prohibitionist ideals and replace them with more modern policies grounded in health, science
and humanity. n81 The U.S. can remedy its mistake by using its considerable
diplomatic influence and
international presence to foster reform in other countries. n82 One way to do this is by capitalizing [*438] on this
unique moment in its existence and experimenting with models of
legal regulation , specifically with marijuana because
nearly half of U.S. citizens favor legalization of it. n83 This will help
redeem our image internationally and help
repair foreign relations because the monumental scope of the international marijuana market is largely created by
the exorbitant U.S. demand for the drug which partially stems from the illegality of the market. n84
B. Step 1: Recognize the Ineffectiveness of The Global War on Drugs and Consider Alternatives
An objective way to gauge the effectiveness of a drug policy is to examine how the policy manages the most toxic drugs and the
problems associated with them. n85 With that in mind, at the global level, having one in five intravenous drug users have HIV and
one in every two users having Hepatitis C is clearly an epidemic and not the result of effective drug control policies. n86 The threat
of arrest and punishment as a deterrent from people using drugs is sound in theory, but in practice this hypothesis is tenuous. n87
Countries that have enacted harsh, punitive laws have higher levels of drug use and related problems than countries with
more tolerant approaches. n88 Additionally, the countries that have experimented with forms of legal regulation outside of
punitive approaches have not seen rises in drug use and dependence [*439] rates. n89 Therefore, one
in placing this issue back into a manageable position is for national governments to encourage
sensible first step
other governments to
experiment with models of legal regulation of drugs which fit their context. n90 This will in turn, undermine the
criminal market , enhance national security, and allow other countries to learn from their application. n91
1. Easier to Say Than Do - A Suggestion for Overcoming Difficulties Associated With Legal Regulation
For this movement to be successful and effectively manage the epidemic at hand there must be a broad consensus around the
world that the current drug control policies are morally harmful. n92 This consensus however is precluded by the stigma and fear
associated with more toxic drugs such as heroin. n93 This note does not propose that heroin and other toxic drugs should be
legalized but instead suggests that society and drug policies tend to consolidate and classify all illicit drugs as equally dangerous.
n94 This in turn restrains any progressive debate about experimenting with the regulation of different drugs under different
standards. n95
[*440] Regardless of these false dichotomies, which often restrain progressive debate, it is difficult not to give credence to the idea
of marijuana being socially acceptable when it has been by far the most widely produced and consumed illicit drug. n96 There is
between 125 and 203 million users worldwide and no indication of that number declining. n97 With this many users, it is reasonable
to conclude that if the international community could reach a consensus about the moral noxiousness of any drug control policy, the
repression of marijuana would likely be it. n98
Marijuana, arguably socially acceptable, represents a simple mechanism to enter into the experimentation process with the
legal regulation of drugs. n99 Without advocating for the UN to adopt new commissions or encouraging drastic moves such as the
decriminalization of all illicit substances, the global decriminalization of marijuana would be a relatively minor adjustment compared
to the monumental impact. n100 If national governments were to decriminalize marijuana, the scope of this movement would
essentially
eradicate the public health problem of marijuana abuse and the associated criminality because of
its illegal status. n101 Public health problems can be remedied because it will afford governments the ability to regulate
the market and control the quality and price of the drug, essentially
that will diminish an illegal market. n102 This will in turn
removing toxic impurities and setting a price
diminish the criminal market [*441] by eradicating the
need for users to commit crimes to procure marijuana and removing the economic incentive for other countries to get
involved in the drug's market. n103 Without arguing that this is the panacea for the global war on drugs, proponents of
legalization can aptly point to the archaic drug control policies in place and this macro approach as an effective way to tackle the
problem now. n104
C. Step 2: Real Reform - the U.S. Needs to Stand at the Forefront of Drug Policy Reformation
The U.S. wields considerable influence over the rest of the world, so it is no surprise that its call for the
development and maintenance of prohibitive, punitive drug policies resulted in a majority of the international community
following. n105 Conversely, if the
U.S. leads the call for the development and maintenance of more tolerant drug policies
grounded in health, humanity and science, a majority of the international community will also follow. n106 Cultural shifts do not
take place overnight, and the idea of complete U.S. drug policy reformation is too aggressive and stark in contrast to succeed
against modern bureaucracy and political alliances. n107 On the other hand, a more moderate, piecemeal approach could
effectively
act as a catalyst for this transformation while simultaneously serving as a case study for opponents
of legal regulation. n108
[*442] If the U.S. is serious about
addressing the ineffectiveness of the War on Drugs , then the federal
government must remove marijuana from its list of criminally banned substances. n109 The tone of the Obama
administration is a significant step in this direction. n110 President Obama has explicitly acknowledged the need to treat drugs as
more of a public health problem, as well as the validity of debate on alternatives, but he does not favor drug legalization. n111 This
progressive rhetoric is a significant step in the right direction, but until there is some real reform confronting the issue, reducing
punitive measures and supporting other countries to develop drug policies that suit their context, there is still an abdication of policy
responsibility. n112
1. Starting Small - Potential Positive Effects of Regulation and Taxation of Marijuana in the U.S.
If marijuana was legal in the U.S., it would function similarly to the market of legal substances such as liquor, coffee and
tobacco. n113 Individual and corporate participants in the market would pay taxes, increasing revenues and saving the
government from the exorbitant cost of trying to enforce prohibition laws. n114 Consumers' human rights would be promoted
through self-determination, autonomy and access to more accurate information about the product they are consuming. n115
Additionally, case studies and research suggest that the decriminalization or legalization [*443] of marijuana
reduces the
drugs' consumption and does not necessarily result in a more favorable attitude towards it. n116
The legal regulation of marijuana would relieve the current displaced burden the drug places on law enforcement,
domestically and internationally. n117 In the U.S., law enforcement could refocus their efforts away from reducing the marijuana
market per se and instead towards reducing harm to individuals, communities and national security. n118 Abroad, U.S.
international relations would improve because of the reduced levels of corruption and violence at home and afar.
n119 The precarious position repressive policies place on foreign governments when they have to
destroy the
livelihoods of agricultural workers would be reduced. n120 Additionally, legalization and regulation would provide
assistance to governments in regaining some degree of control over the regions dominated by drug dealers and
terrorist groups because those groups would lose a major source of funding for their organizations. n121
2. Health Concerns? - Marijuana in Comparison to Other Similar Legal Substances
The federal government, acknowledging the risks inherent in alcohol and tobacco, argues that adding a third substance to that mix
cannot be beneficial. n122 Adding anything to a class of [*444] dangerous substances is likely never going to be beneficial;
however marijuana would be incorrectly classified if it was equated with those two substances. n123 Marijuana is far less toxic and
addictive than alcohol and tobacco. n124 Long term use of marijuana is far less damaging than long term alcohol or tobacco use.
n125 Alcohol use contributes to aggressive and reckless behavior, acts of violence and serious injuries while marijuana actually
reduces likelihood of aggressive behavior or violence during intoxication and is seldom associated with emergency room visits. n126
As with most things in life, there can be no guarantee that the legalization or decriminalization of marijuana would lead the U.S. to a
better socio-economical position in the future. n127 Two things however, are certain: that the legalization of marijuana in the U.S.
would dramatically reduce most of the costs associated with the current drug policies, domestically and internationally,
and [*445] if the U.S. is serious about its objective of considering the costs of drug control measures, then it is vital and rational for
the legalization option is considered. n128
D. Why the Time is Ripe for U.S. Drug Policy Reformation
The political atmosphere at the end of World War I and II was leverage for the U.S., emerging as the dominant political, economic
and military power. n129 This leverage allowed it to shape a prohibitive drug control regime that until now has remained in
perpetuity. n130 Today, we stand in a unique moment inside of U.S. history. n131 The generational, political and cultural shifts that
accompanied the U.S. emergence from the "Great Recession" resulted in a sociopolitical climate that may be what is necessary for
real reform. n132 Politically, marijuana has become a hot issue; economically, the marijuana industry is bolstering a faltering
economy and socially, marijuana is poised to transform the way we live and view medicine. n133 The public disdain for the
widespread problems prohibition caused in the early 20th century resulted in the end of alcohol prohibition during the Great
Depression. n134 If history does actually repeat itself than the Great recession may have been much more telling than expected.
n135
V. Conclusion
The U.S. and its prohibitionist ideals exacerbated the failure of both the international and its own domestic drug policies.
n136 As a result, the U.S. should accept accountability for its mistakes by reforming its drug policies in a way that will help
[*446] place the global drug market back into a manageable position. n137 Marijuana is an actionable, evidence based
mechanism for constructive legal and policy reform that through a
domino effect can transform the global drug
prohibition regime . n138 The generational, political and cultural shifts that accompanied the U.S. emergence from the
"Great Recession" have resulted in a sociopolitical climate ready for real reform. n139 The U.S. will capitalize on this unique
moment by removing marijuana from the list of federally banned substances,
setting the stage for future
international and domestic drug policies that are actually effective. n140
Hemp S: Farm Income / Small Farms
Ag IL—farm income
BRATTLEBORO REFORMER, editorial, “The Net Agricultural Boon?” 2—1—14, lexis.
The American Farm Bureau Federation has been lobbying on a national level for the legalization of
industrial hemp. "At a time when small farms are innovating and diversifying to remain, competitive, we
should provide every opportunity to increase farm incomes and allow the next generation the
ability to continue living off the land as their families have for generations," state Kyle Cline, policy adviser for the
bureau. "Industrial hemp is one such opportunity that may work for some farmers in certain regions. Furthermore,
industrial hemp will allow the U.S. farmer to share in income that is currently going overseas." It
makes economic sense to exploit this versatile crop and allow American farmers to profit from the
increased demand for hemp products. Vermont is well-positioned to take advantage of the rapidly changing legal
landscape related to hemp production. The University of Vermont conducted a study in 1996 to investigate the viability of industrial
hemp and found it would provide a number of economic benefits to Vermont farmers. In addition, Vermont farmers have proven to
be quite savvy in exploiting niche markets. The growth of hemp in the rugged farmland of Vermont could prove to be another
venture the Green Mountain State's entrepreneurial spirit could excel at. All we are asking is give us a chance to prove it.
Family farms
Doug Fine, journalist, “A Tip for American Farmers: Grow Hemp, Make Money,” NEWS & OBSERVER, 6—28—14,
http://www.newsobserver.com/2014/06/28/3970452/a-tip-for-american-farmers-grow.html, accessed 8-21-14.
Farmers I’ve interviewed from Oregon to Ohio have gotten the memo. In a Kansas-abutting corner of eastern Colorado, in the town
of Springfield, 41-year-old Ryan Loflin wants to save his family farm with hemp. “It takes half the water
that wheat does,” Loflin told me, scooping up a handful of drought-scarred soil so parched it evoked the Sahara, “and
provides four times the income. Hemp is going to revive farming families in the climate-change
era.” From an agronomic perspective, American farmers need to start by importing dozens of hemp
varieties (known as cultivars) from seed stock worldwide. This is vital because our own hemp seed stock, once the
envy of the world, was lost to prohibition. This requires diversity and quantity because North Dakota’s soil and climate are different
from Kentucky’s, which are different from California’s. Also, the broad variety of hemp applications requires distinct cultivars.
Legally, farmers and researchers doing pilot programs in the 15 states that have their own hemp legislation (including California)
now have the right to import those seeds. The point of the research authorization in the farm bill is explicitly to rebuild our seed
stock. Such research is how the modern Canadian hemp industry was kick-started in 1998.
/Hemp S: Warming
Hemp solves warming—multiple mechanisms
Becca Wolford, entrepreneur, “Global Warming—Is Hemp the Solution?” WAKING TIMES, 11—2—12,
www.wakingtimes.com/2012/11/02/global-warming-is-hemp-the-solution/, accessed 8-9-14.
This week the eastern U.S. coast had a visitor by the name of Sandy. She came through with a wide path of destruction, and left
quite a mess in her wake, including devastating flooding. The news stations and internet were inundated with photos of her
impressive size. Is this a sign of what is to be the norm, due to global warming?
The scenes in New York were also a reminder of a film I saw years ago, “The Day After Tomorrow.” It was quite frightening, yet I
was riveted. Will it come to this? I certainly hope not.
Steps must be taken NOW to stop the devastation, and the practices that contribute to global
warming, which include CO2 emissions from fossil-fueled power plants, CO2 emissions from methane, CO2 emissions from
fossil-fueled vehicles, deforestation, and increased levels of chemical fertilizers, pesticides, and herbicides on commercial and largescale crops.
I pulled up a blog article I wrote earlier this year, and I believe it is apropos to bring it up again, in light of Hurricane Sandy.
“In the past decade global warming has come to the forefront. This isn’t something new; the earth’s climates have always fluctuated
throughout the centuries and millenia. What makes global warming more of an ‘issue’ now is the fact that people are becoming more
aware of some of the practices that are not HELPING the global warming situation; it is said that the past 10 years have seen the
fastest moving temperature changes.
What causes global warming? One cause is the buildup of CO2 (carbon dioxide) in the atmosphere, which holds the sun’s heat and
causes the warming. Fossil fuels are the main culprits; coal burning plants and automobiles are 2 of the biggest contributors to the
blanket of CO2 in the atmosphere.
CO2 emissions are at an all-time high; extensive removal of forests is adding to the problem, since
CO2 is neutralized by plants and trees. The Amazon rainforest is being destroyed at a very quick pace. At over a billion acres, it is
one of the planet’s most treasured ‘air cleaners’. Destruction of the rainforest is contributing to the warming we see today, as well as
loss of habitat for animals and increased land erosion.
So, what is the remedy for halting or even reversing global warming? One way to counter the effects of global warming is growing
hemp – on a global scale.
Industrial hemp uses photosynthesis to remove the CO2 from the atmosphere and convert it to oxygen. The
hemp plant can convert huge amounts of CO2, more than most plants. Not only does it remove the CO2 from the air,
it also deposits the CO2 into the soil, enriching it and causing it to be more fertile. Hemp is one of
the very few crops that does NOT deplete the soil after it is grown and harvested.
There is a move to replace fossil fuels in automobiles with biofuels and hemp fuels. Homes are being built
with hemp materials (making the hemp homes carbon neutral and in some cases carbon negative). Products typically made with
petroleum and timber are being made with hemp. The move to green consumption is growing.
It is unfortunate that the US cannot legally grow hemp at this time. But steps are being taken, people are
making their voices heard. We are inching toward the day when hemp can be farmed in the United States – and we can contribute
to making our planet clean, green, and fresh again.”
Cartels uq
Drug war violence declining
By Karla Zabludovsky covers Latin America for Newsweek. “Murders in Mexico Down From Height of the Drug War, But
Violence Persists” Filed: 7/23/14 at 6:42 PM http://www.newsweek.com/murders-mexico-down-height-drug-war-violence-persists260990
Some of the Mexican states where drug war–related violence has been most intense, like
Coahuila, Guerrero and Tamaulipas, showed a decreased homicide rate . In Durango, part of the
Mexican “golden triangle,” an area notorious for drug trafficking, homicides decreased by nearly
half in 2013 as compared to the previous year.¶ ADVERTISEMENT¶ It is unclear what percentage of recorded
homicides are related to organized crime since the government modified the classification in October, doing away with a separate
category for drug war–related deaths, instead lumping them all together.¶ Aware of the war weariness felt among
many in Mexico, Pena Nieto ran on the promise that, if elected, his government would shift the
focus from capturing drug kingpins, like Calderon had, to making daily life for ordinary Mexicans
safer.¶ "With this new strategy, I commit myself to significantly lowering the homicide rate, the number of kidnappings in the
country, the extortions and the human trafficking," wrote Pena Nieto in a newspaper editorial during his presidential campaign.¶
Since taking office in December 2012, Pena Nieto has largely eliminated talk of security from his
agenda except when large outbreaks of violence have forced him otherwise, focusing instead on
the economy and his legislative reforms , including sweeping overhauls to education and energy. And while the
country appears to be less violent now than during Calderon’s war on drugs, the climate of press freedom, according to the
Committee to Protect Journalists, remains “perilous.”
Drug cartel containment is working now, even with limited legalization
Elish 14
Yale Globalist Notebook blogger covering Latin American politics and culture Paul, “21 Drugs –Legalization,
Marijuana, and Cartels.” Yale Globalist, 2014, http://tyglobalist.org/onlinecontent/blogs/21-drugs-legalization-marijuana-and-cartels/
An article from The Washington Post about “How marijuana legalization will affect Mexico’s cartels, in charts” is
also a useful resource on the subject, especially if one is seeking evidence downplaying the effect on cartels. The article cites a
Stanford expert’s pie chart that shows marijuana representing 17% of cartel revenues. The chart makes it evident that cartels don’t
live on pot alone, so cocaine, methamphetamines, and non-drug activities (e.g. human smuggling and kidnapping) could help them
weather legalization. What’s more, Colorado and Washington hardly put a dent in marijuana cash flow
compared to “bigger” places like Texas. Ultimately, the wait-and-see approach appears to be the order of the day
with reference to the consequences of legalizing pot in the U.S. and abroad, and with reference to
the changing dynamics of the War on Drugs. At the moment, things generally seem to be on the
up-and-up . Mexican President Peña Nieto is triumphantly tweeting about the capture of El Chapo and resulting possibilities for
smaller-scale cartels, Colorado Governor John Hickenlooper is getting psyched about extra dough rolling in from pot taxes, and I’m
contenting myself with my unquestionably legal, questionably advisable escapades in New Haven’s bar scene. Even so, I, along
with many policy-makers, will be interested to see what we’re saying on the subject of drug reform in the near and distant future.
New energy reform in Mexico boosts economy tremendously
The Hill 9/17, September 17, 2014, “Comprehensive energy reform is a new dawn for Mexico” acc 9/18, By Peter Schechter
and Jason Marczak, The Hill, http://thehill.com/blogs/congress-blog/energy-environment/217898-comprehensive-energy-reform-is-anew-dawn-for-mexico
Last year, when the young president took the first steps toward modernizing the nation’s energy sector, he raised
hopes but also invited questions about whether Mexico’s leaders would have the craft and political bravery to follow through on this
historic reform. The December constitutional amendments offered a promising start; working with Mexico’s rival political parties to
translate that vision into legislative reality was an altogether different challenge. With the president signing into law implementing
legislation in mid-August, Mexico has met that challenge and then some. The reform is an impressive political high-wire act. While it
does not privatize Mexico’s energy resources, it will for the first time since 1938 open Mexico’s energy sector to outside investment.
This will promote an influx of outside capital and resources that will increase energy output, reduce
gas and electric bills and create an estimated 2.5 million jobs by 2025. The centerpiece of the energy
reform is a restructuring of the state-owned energy company, PEMEX. For over three-quarters of a century, PEMEX held a
PEMEX lacked the technology and financial capacity to
profitably extract more complicated shale and deepwater deposits. This led to depressed production and economic
monopoly over these resources. Nonetheless,
stagnation. Yet, the reforms don’t only restructure the oil industry; the natural gas and electricity sectors have been radically
changed as well. Here is where the president’s political acumen is in full display. Thedomestic political fortunes of energy reform will
succeed mainly on the government’s ability to deliver cheaper electricity. In Mexico, electricity costs about 25 percent more than in
the United States. Cheaper power attracts manufacturing and industry and raises competitiveness. It
will bring greater prosperity, and inevitably boost trade across a US–Mexico border that already generates a billion dollars
in daily business. Private companies—foreign and domestic—will now be able to participate in Mexico’s energy sector through a
range of contracts, which range from service provider contracts to licenses for private firms to explore and drill. PEMEX will remain
an active participant in Mexico’s energy market but will be reformed into a modern and more profitable state enterprise. Reform
will not only create jobs and increase economic growth, but will generate enormous additional
revenues for the government. These revenues will endow a new sovereign fund that will direct investments in
infrastructure, research and social spending.
Economy improving long term
Democracy Lab 14,
“Mexico on the Brink” Shannon K. O’Neil, This article is an abridged version of the Legatum Institute's
longer case study, "Mexico on the Brink.", FEBRUARY 19, 2014, acc 9/18,
http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2014/02/19/mexico_on_the_brink
The macroeconomic impact of the growth of the middle class can be seen in the public's willingness (and
ability) to spend on consumer goods. Indeed, over the past six years of turbulence in the global
economy, private consumption has been one of the most stable components of Mexico's GDP
growth. Household investment in education has played a role in powering growth, too. The ongoing investment in human capital
may prove decisive in allowing Mexico to escape the "middle-income trap," a common phenomenon among developing economies
in which the growth rate slows before living standards reach the level of the highly industrialized countries of Europe, North America,
and East Asia. The economic middle has also begun to flex its political power. It was pivotal in voting out the
long-ruling PRI in 2000. Middle-class voters are no longer in any one party's pocket, and theories abound about how their growth
will affect future politics. Most scholars see them as the rock on which a stable, responsive democracy can be built. The role of
global supply chains in manufacturing has become a pivotal element powering Mexico's growth.
Mexico is stable and is improving economically
Goldstein and Gonzalez 9/8, (Sean Goldstein is a New York–qualified partner based in Mexico City who concentrates
on project finance, bank finance and equipment leasing transactions, primarily in Latin America.), “Mexico: New Opportunities in Oil
and Gas”
September 8, 2014 Sean Goldstein & Hernan Gonzalez, Oil and Gas Monitor
In the past few years, Mexico has been changing rapidly. The second-largest economy in Latin America,
Mexico has a stable
political and business environment, access to global markets andvast natural oil and gas
resources. In addition, recent legal reforms open the door for private investors to participate in
sectors that previously were government monopolies. These reforms, combined with a newly revamped energy
sector, are creating huge openings for private investment and development in Mexican oil and gas. As a recent multi-billion dollar
financing project shows, enticing opportunities may now be found throughout Mexico’s energy supply chain for those who know how
to take advantage of them.
L
Cartels are strengthened long term by taking over the informal economy- but
have massive short term lashout
By: Vanda Felbab-Brown senior fellow with the Center for 21st Century Security and Intelligence in the Foreign Policy
program at Brookings September 23, 2010 “Why Legalization in Mexico is Not a Panacea for Reducing Violence and Suppressing
Organized Crime” Brookings, http://www.brookings.edu/research/opinions/2010/09/23-mexico-marijuana-legalizationfelbabbrown?rssid=mexico&utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3a%2bBrookingsRSS%2ftopics%
2fmexico%2b(Brookings%3a%2bTopics%2b-%2bMexico ac 6-21
But, even
if legalization did displace the DTOs from the marijuana production and distribution
market in Mexico, they can hardly be expected to take such a change lying down . Rather, they may
intensify the violent power struggle over remaining hard-drug smuggling and distribution.
(Notably, the shrinkage of the U.S. cocaine market is one of the factors that precipitated the
current DTO wars .) Worse yet, the DTOs could intensify their effort to take over other illegal
economies in Mexico, such as the smuggling of migrants and other illegal commodities,
prostitution, extortion, and kidnapping, and also over Mexico’s informal economy – trying to
franchise who sells tortillas, jewelry, clothes on the zócalo -- to mitigate their financial losses.
They are already doing so. If they succeed in franchising the informal economy and organizing
public spaces and street life in the informal sector ( 40% of Mexico’s economy), their political
power over society will be greater than ever .
Long term violence too
Chad Murray et al 11, Ashlee Jackson “Mexican Drug Trafficking Organizations and Marijuana: The Potential Effects of U.S.
Legalization” Amanda C. Miralrío, Nicolas Eiden Elliott School of International Affairs/Inter-American Drug Abuse Control
Commission: Capstone Report April 26, 2011
The Sinaloa cartel and Tijuana cartel would likely expand into the cocaine, heroin, and
methamphetamine networks. Several experts agree that if marijuana were no longer a
profitable enterprise for the Sinaloa cartel and Tijuana cartel they would shift towards trafficking
in other profitable drugs.126 What is less clear, however, is how this type of transition
would affect violence. As mentioned earlier in this paper, the Gulf Cartel, La Familia,
and the Juarez cartel are already heavily committed to the cocaine, heroin, and
methamphetamine industries to various extents. These other DTOs might respond violently
to any attempts by the Sinaloa cartel or Tijuana cartel to take any of their shares of the trafficking
market. Given that its revenue streams were disrupted, there is also the possibility that the
Sinaloa cartel would make a deal with its allies, the Gulf Cartel and La Familia, rather than
fight them. The implications of this are unclear. If this occurs then the legalization of marijuana
will have brought few security dividends. ¶ Long-term effects on Mexican DTOs and Security
Implications ¶
The Sinaloa cartel and Tijuana cartel could collapse . The cartels could collapse
and be either absorbed into other DTOs or destroyed by the Mexican government forces.
This is
only possible if virtually everything goes wrong for these two groups, and the authorities
on both sides of the border properly exploit the short-term opportunities. This second
scenario is more unrealistic than the first given the current landscape. ¶ The Sinaloa
cartel and Tijuana cartel could survive, but in a weaker form . The authorities have much to
gain from this third scenario as the groups will not be as strong financially, and thus not
as well armed. This may affect their ability to carry out bold attacks on the military and police,
but it will not cause them to implode in a violent and chaotic fashion either. If the Sinaloa cartel
and the Tijuana cartel have fewer financial resources, this would make it much harder for them
(especially the Sinaloa cartel) to keep up its huge network of police and government
informants. This network is vital, because its absence would make them, and especially
their leadership, much more vulnerable to raids by the authorities.127 ¶ Violence could
increase . The most important long-term indicator by which to measure the effects of legalization
on Mexican DTOs is the level of violence. While expert testimony throughout our project made
it clear that in the short term violence would probably increase this is not necessarily true for the
medium or long term. If the loss of marijuana revenue legalization would cost the Sinaloa
cartel enough to prevent it from continuing its aggressive policy of expansion across
Mexico this would certainly be a positive development, as it would lead to less clashes
with other DTOs over transport corridors into the United States and perhaps a return to
the truces that were largely in effect for much of the 1990s and early 2000s among the
major DTOs. However, it must be acknowledged that any predictions about the future,
despite the testimony to support such predictions are in their very nature mere speculation. It is
impossible to predict whether the legalization of marijuana will have a definite effect on these two
DTOS with any certainty. However if the history of drug trafficking tells us anything it is that you
cannot remove a revenue source that supplies as much as half of an organizations income
without having a major effect on that organization. The question is will the Mexican and American
governments ¶ be able to exploit these effects quickly or will these DTOs simply regroup and
continue trafficking other drugs. In any event the legalization of marijuana will, according to
numerous experts, force these DTOs to stop trafficking by making it unprofitable to do so . Thus,
the question policymakers may want to ask is “if we can deny traffickers the ability to
profit off the sales of marijuana, how can we take advantage of that opportunity?”
Legalization increases profits long term and causes turf wars to spread into the
US
Charles D. “Cully” Stimson 10 is a Senior Legal Fellow in the Center for Legal & Judicial Studies at The Heritage Foundation.
Before joining The Heritage Foundation, he served as Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense; as a local, state, federal, and military
prosecutor; and as a defense attorney and law professor. “Legalizing Marijuana: Why Citizens Should Just Say No” Legal
Memorandum #56 on Legal Issues September 13, 2010. http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2010/09/legalizing-marijuanawhy-citizens-should-just-say-no ac 6-18
Violent, brutal, and ruthless, Mexican DTOs will work to maintain their black-market profits at the expense of
American citizens’ safety. Every week, there are news articles cataloguing the murders, kidnappings, robberies, and other thuggish
brutality employed by Mexican drug gangs along the border.
It is nonsensical to argue that these gangs will
simply give up producing marijuana when it is legalized; indeed, their profits might soar ,
depending on the actual tax in California and the economics of the interstate trade. While such profits
might not be possible if marijuana was legalized at the national level and these gangs were undercut by mass production, that is
unlikely ever to happen. Nor does anyone really believe that the gangs will subject themselves to state and local regulation,
including taxation. And since the California ballot does nothing to eliminate the black market for marijuana—quite the opposite, in
fact—legalizing
marijuana will only incentivize Mexican DTOs to grow more marijuana to feed the
demand and exploit the black market. Furthermore, should California legalize marijuana, other
entrepreneurs will inevitably attempt to enter the marketplace and game the system . In doing so,
they will compete with Mexican DTOs and other criminal organizations. Inevitably, violence will
follow ,
and unlike now, that violence will not be confined to the border as large-scale growers seek to
protect their turf —turf that will necessarily include anywhere they grow, harvest, process, or sell
marijuana. While this may sound far-fetched, Californians in Alameda County are already
experiencing the reality of cartel-run marijuana farms on sometimes stolen land,[54] protected by
“guys [who] are pretty heavily armed and willing to protect their merchandise.”[55] It is not
uncommon for drugs with large illegal markets to be controlled by cartels despite attempts to roll
them into the normal medical control scheme. For instance, cocaine has a medical purpose and can
be prescribed by doctors as Erythroxylum coca, yet its true production and distribution are controlled
by drug cartels and organized crime.[56] As competition from growers and dispensaries authorized
by the RCTCA cuts further into the Mexican DTOs’ business, Californians will face a real
possibility of bloodshed on their own soil as the cartels’ profit-protection measures turn from
defensive to offensive . Thus, marijuana legalization will increase crime, drug use, and social
dislocation across the state of California—the exact opposite of what pro-legalization advocates promise.
Small farms
small farms D
Small farms don’t solve sustainability
Hurst 09 (Blake, farmer in Missouri. The American, Journal of the American Enterprise Institute, 7/30,
http://www.american.com/archive/2009/july/the-omnivore2019s-delusion-against-the-agri-intellectuals)
The most delicious irony is this: the parts of farming that are the most “industrial” are the most likely to be owned by the kind of
family farmers that elicit such a positive response from the consumer. Corn farms are almost all owned and managed by small
family farmers. But corn farmers salivate at the thought of one more biotech breakthrough, use vast amounts of energy to increase
production, and raise large quantities of an indistinguishable commodity to sell to huge corporations that turn that corn into
thousands of industrial products. Most livestock is produced by family farms, and even the poultry industry, with its contracts and
vertical integration, relies on family farms to contract for the production of the birds. Despite the obvious change in scale over time,
family farms, like ours, still meet around the kitchen table, send their kids to the same small schools, sit in the same church pew,
and belong to the same civic organizations our parents and grandparents did. We may be industrial by some definition, but not our
own. Reality is messier than it appears in the book my tormentor was reading, and farming more complicated than a simple morality
play.
Squo solves vertical farming adoption---irreversible trends
Henry Gordon-Smith 14, Founder, www.agritecture.com, Spring 2014, “VERTICAL FARMING TECHNOLOGY TRENDS,”
Agritecture, http://agritecture.com/post/87002187837/spring2014
overwhelmingly, city-dwellers crave and seek a connection to the
natural environment they have become so removed from. Local food is an ideal opportunity to re-engage residents whilst maintaining a thriving urban culture. I am fascinated and
amazed by just how many ideas and business have developed in 2014 to improve food security and how rapidly new ones are
I believe that while not everyone wants to be an urban farmer,
arriving on the scene. The current food system fails to efficiently grow and distribute the food we consume where we consume it. It is exciting that there is a movement that is trying to connect the farm with the city
and the city with farm. They, like me, imagine future cities where buildings and open spaces are treated as productive urban landscapes. At present, this movement is largely a technology one, driven by social
What follows is a brief overview of the emerging
trends in vertical farming since 2014 began. If you are new to agritecture and want to see previous posts, look back through the archive. 2014 VERTICAL
FARMING TRENDS The growing importance of sensors and data: Low cost sensors for PH, temperature, DO, air quality, nutrient uptake, are in demand and here are the
entrepreneurs and inventors who seek new ways of producing the food we need to feed the 9 billion.
companies getting in on the action: EdenWorks is a Brooklyn-based aquaponic greenhouse business with plans to integrate sensors throughout its vertical growing systems and develop quadrants of data. Data
can then be used to optimize inputs and increase production output whilst improving quality. Edenworks has almost finished its first rooftop greenhouse that will be gathering data and the test bed for their sensorintegrated urban growing vertically-integrated solutions. The high-density local food movement has found its way into the MIT Media Lab where the MITCityFarm project seeks to test out the most popular
MIT
researchers are testing NFT, raft, and aeroponic systems and working hard to optimize vertical growing versions of these
methods. Data is king with their operation as well: a primary goal is to share their findings with the world through the Open
Agriculture Information Initiative. With their farm at Media Lab well on its way and mirror labs
being set up in other parts of the world , MITCityFarms could change both food production itself and the way we share industry data. Growing food in the home,
growing food in the city: Urban food production also saw further development in 2014 which a focus on integration into buildings and consumer
controlled-environment agriculture methods in a façade-greenhouse that responds to the indoor and outdoor environment and provides additional lighting and cooling accordingly. Specifically,
products for homes and small businesses. Agrilution, a startup out of Munich is developing a prototype for growing food near-effortlessly in the home. Their refrigerator-like growing product utilizes aeroponics, a
highly-efficient method of growing food through spraying exposed plant roots with nutrients. When realized, Agrilution will allow people to grow food using pre-set “recipes” that define ideal growing conditions.
Imagine an oversized microwave with a “basil” button rather than “defrost”. Furthermore, recipes can be customized through Agrilution’s online platform. Original Equipment Manufacturers (OEM) for Vertical
Farming: Every controlled-environment agriculture project has different requirements. Scalable solutions are in demand and manufacturers are responding. Indoor Harvest Corp. is a design-build, value added
reseller and original equipment manufacturer of commercial grade aeroponic fixtures, for use in Controlled Environment Agriculture (“CEA”) and Building Integrated Agriculture (“BIA”). By consulting to the vertical
farming industry and providing license free, low cost, commercial grade equipment they have become one of the first in the industry to offer an OEM approach to vertical farming. Substrates Reconsidered:
With more vertical systems on the market and an increasing focus on vertical growing , substrates
have had to evolve: Agricel has received distribution rights for a thin film that can actually provide a substrate to grow almost any plants. Essentially, nurtrient-rich water is stored below the
film, which functions as a substrate and supports the roots stronger than you would expect. This film allows for unparalleled flexibility in greenhouse design and plant management because it is lightweight and
easy to dispose of or reuse. Met at the Global Forum for Innovations in Agriculture (GFIA): These honorable mentions met to talk agritecture at the global forum on innovations in agriculture in Abu Dhabi (January
2014). Evolve Growing Solutions is an experienced greenhouse consulting team out of the UK that invests in projects and innovations that they believe are sustainable, efficient, and profitable. These enthusiastic
self-named “three amigos” were by far the most popular booth at the Global Forum for Innovations in Agriculture (GFIA) held in Abu Dhabi in January. Their enthusiasm and experience made for a great
environment for learning about hydroponics, aquaculture, and innovative greenhouse materials like ETFE. Ben Greene of the Farmery was also at the GFIA conference and gave a rousing speech on how
disillusioned he was by the backwards food system and especially the waste that occurs as a result. His vision: grow food where its bought and bring small-scale modular “Farmerys” to supermarkets where
customers can see, touch, smell, and taste food when they buy it. In a world of urban dwellers and rising obesity it is surely a powerful message and mission. We love this idea. Why Collaboration in Vertical
Farming Matters Technological innovation is not enough to achieve the critical mass and economic feasibility needed for vertical farming’s widespread implementation. We need more new ideas to improve urban
resilience to climate change and guarantee food security. We need transparency in everything from yields data to failures in business and proven distribution models. Just this past January, the first commercial
urban vertical farm in North America, Local Garden, announced it was going bankrupt after being in operation for two years. Why did this happen? What can we learn from this? A year ago, I teamed up with Max
Loessl, founder of the Association for Vertical Farming to gather data to map the urban farms (vertical and not) around the world. It amazed me how few business decision makers were willing to share what they
grow, how they grow it, and how much of it they grow. We didn’t give up. Finally, Max and I met for the first time in January and launched the first map of its kind on the association’s site. This map, does more
than just place urban farms for the public to see but also tells them what growing technologies the farmers are using and if their construction was a retrofit or a design-build. The AVF has also developed a
glossary for the purposes of bringing consistency to the industry and clearing up the complexities of growing methods to outsiders of urban agriculture. There are so many exciting opportunities and challenges in
this emerging industry that a map, forum, and glossary like the AVF has developed, can truly help unite growers and inventors across the globe and improve food security in a way that has not been achieved
vertical farming are common and while some of their criticisms are warranted (artificial lighting energy costs are still a major
2014 trends demonstrate that this industry will continue to grow and change the
way we grow and eat our food dramatically . We are entering a new stage of the local food movement where technology, design, architecture, education, and
business are uniting to bring fresh food closer to cities globally. Innovation and collaboration will be the describing words for vertical
farming in 2014. We have already seen an increasing interest of business, research and
governmental initiatives of a willingness to share and collaborate. AVF is a great example of this. Within less than a year we have
before. Join the Association for Vertical Farming here! Skeptics to
barrier to high-density farming), these
managed to gather members from 5 continents including universities, the German Aerospace Center, companies and non-profits initiatives.
1NC 4 Ext
Status quo solves – the number of small farms is increasing now.
Wanjek 09 (Christopher, LiveScience's Bad Medicine Columnist, author of the books "Bad Medicine" and "Food At Work," 2/10,
http://www.livescience.com/culture/090210-bad-small-farms.html)
When the economy gets tough, it seems that the tough get farming. Tens of thousands of small farms were created since 2002,
according to new data from the Census of Agriculture. The farming forecast isn't entirely sunny. But packed with a cornucopia of
surprise findings — such as large increases in the number and percentage of Asian, Hispanic, Black and female farmers, and a
coup staged by the frigid state of Wisconsin to become the second-leading vegetable producer, behind California — the census
brings promising news to those interested in reducing obesity and improving the environment. What's the connection? More small
farms brings greater diversity of crops, more fresh and local foods, less dependency on chemical fertilizers, less concentration of
manure, and less emphasis on cheap corn to make unhealthy, industrially produced beef, pork and chicken. And if Wisconsin can
grow vegetables with its yearly average temperature of 43 degrees, nearly every state can become self-sufficient vegetable
producers; only seven states are colder. Back to basics "I find it hopeful that the number of farms in this country has increased," said
newly appointed Secretary of Agriculture Tom Vilsack at the Feb. 4 debut of agricultural census data, held in Washington. "I don't
think it is a statistical anomaly that small farms have increased in number... a result of farm programs we have instituted at the
USDA to encourage organic farming" and other environmentally benign practices, he said.
Food Scarcity--No War 2NC
No war—robust studies prove nations cooperate over scarcity—when wars do
happen its because of underlyng political and economic tensions—that’s
Allouche
Food scarcity doesn’t cause war
Salehyan, 08 – Department of Political Science, University of North Texas (Idean, “From Climate Change to Conflict?
No Consensus Yet,” Journal of Peace Research, May, palgrave)
For every
potential exampleof an environmental catastrophe or resourceshortfall that leads to
violence, there aremany more counter-examples in which con-flict never occurs. But
popular accounts typ-ically do not look at the dogs that do notbark. Darfur is frequently cited as a
casewhere desertification led to food scarcity,water scarcity, and famine, in turn leading tocivil
war and ethnic cleansing.5Yet, foodscarcity and hunger are problems endemic tomany
countries – particularly in sub-Saharan
First, the deterministic view has poor pre-dictive power as to where and when conflictswill break out.
marked
Africa – but
similar problems elsewhere havenot led to large-scale violence. According tothe
shortages and mal-nutrition affect more
than a third of the popu-lation in Malawi, Zambia, the Comoros,North Korea, and
Tanzania,6although noneof these countries have experienced full-blown civil war and
state failure. Hurricanes,coastal flooding, and droughts – which areall likely to intensify as the climate warms –are
Food and Agriculture Organization ofthe United Nations, food
frequent occurrences which rarely lead toviolence. The Asian Tsunami of 2004,although caused by an oceanic
earthquake,led to severe loss of life and property, flood-ing, population displacement, and resourcescarcity, but it did
not trigger new wars inSoutheast Asia. Large-scale migration has thepotentialto provoke conflict in receiving areas(see
Reuveny, 2007; Salehyan & Gleditsch,2006), yet most migration flows do notleadto conflict, and, in this regard, social
inte-gration and citizenship policies are particularlyimportant (Gleditsch, Nordås & Salehyan,2007). In short, resource
scarcity, naturaldisasters, and long-term climatic shifts areubiquitous, while armed conflict is rare;therefore,
environmental conditions, bythemselves, cannot predict violent outbreaks.
Second, even if local skirmishes overaccess to resources arise, these do not
alwaysescalate to open warfare and state collapse.While interpersonal violence is more
or lesscommon and may intensify under resourcepressures, sustained armed conflict on amassive
scale is difficult to conduct. Meier,Bond & Bond (2007) show that, undercertain circumstances, environmental
condi-tions have led to cattle raiding among pas-toralists in East Africa, but these conflictsrarely escalateto
sustained violence. Martin(2005) presents evidence from Ethiopia that,while a large refugee influx and
populationpressures led to localized conflict over naturalresources, effective resource managementregimes were able to
ameliorate these ten-sions. Both of these studies emphasize therole of localdispute-resolution regimes andinstitutions –
not just the response of centralgovernments – in preventing resource con-flicts from spinning out of control.
Martin’sanalysis also points to the importance ofinternational organizations, notably the UNHigh Commissioner for
Refugees, in imple-menting effective policies governing refugeecamps. Therefore, local hostilities need
notescalate to serious armed conflict and can bemanaged if there is the political will to
do so.
Food wars are a myth – there’s zero empirical evidence
Salehyan 7 (Idean, Professor of Political Science – University of North Texas, “The New Myth About Climate
Change”, Foreign Policy, Summer, http://www.foreignpolicy.com/story/cms.php?story_id=3922)
First, aside
from a few anecdotes, there islittle systematic empirical evidencethat resource
scarcityand changing environmental conditions lead to conflict. In fact, several studies have shown
that an abundance ofnatural resources is more likely to contribute to conflict. Moreover, even
as the planet has warmed, the number of civil wars and insurgencies has decreased dramatically. Data collected by
researchers at UppsalaUniversity and the International Peace Research Institute, Oslo shows a steep decline in the
number of armed conflicts around the world. Between 1989 and 2002, some 100 armed conflicts came to an end,
including the wars in Mozambique, Nicaragua, and Cambodia. If global warming causes conflict, we should not be
witnessing this downward trend. Furthermore, if famine and drought led to the crisis in Darfur, why have scores of
environmental catastrophes failed to set off armed conflict elsewhere? For instance, the U.N. World Food Programme
warns that 5 million people in Malawi have been experiencingchronic food shortages for
several years.
But famine-wracked Malawi has yet to experience a major civil war.Similarly, the
in 2004 killed hundreds of thousands of people, generated millions of environmental refugees, and
led to severe shortages of shelter, food, clean water, and electricity. Yet the tsunami, one of the most
extreme catastrophes in recent history, did not lead to an outbreak of resource wars. Clearly then, there
is much more toarmed conflict than resource scarcityand natural disasters.
Asian tsunami
Farc
2NC Agreement Now
FARC and Colombia joining fighting drug trafficking now
WSJ 5/16 (“Colombia Agrees With Rebels to Jointly Fight Trafficking”)
Colombia's government reached an agreement with drug-trafficking rebels to join forces to fight the
cocaine trade, officials said, a fundamental shift for a country that has received billions of dollars in U.S. antidrug aid. In the most
contested point in President Juan Manuel Santos's ongoing peace talks with the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia, or
FARC, the two sides agreed on Friday to work in tandem to eradicate coca, the plant used to make cocaine, and combat cocaine
trafficking in rural regions under rebel sway, government officials and people close to the negotiations said. Once applied in a vast
countryside, it would be a sea change in how the war on drugs is fought in the Andes, epicenter of the world's cocaine trade.
"The FARC have promised to effectively contribute, in different and practical ways, to the definitive
solution to the problem of illicit drugs," President Juan Manuel Santos said in a televised speech Friday evening.The two
sides reached the deal after a difficult cycle of talks in Havana, where they have been working to sign a peace accord on five major
points by the year's end to halt a simmering half-century conflict. Mr. Santos, who has made peace with the FARC the centerpiece
of his center-right government, is running for re-election on May 25.
The president told The Wall Street Journal last week that reaching an agreement on drug trafficking would be "a major
breakthrough.""Instead of protecting the coca fields and the labs, they become allies with the government against the drugtrafficking business and allies with the government in crop substitution," the president said of the FARC during a visit to a poor
region buffeted by drug violence. "This would make the work of the government much, much easier."
Alt cause – aerial spraying designed to target cocaine production, not marijuana
The Tico Times 5/17 (“Drug trafficking accord with FARC rebels stirs debate among Colombia
experts”)
Bruce Bagley, a University of Miami scholar who specializes in Latin American affairs, said aggressive
spraying and fumigation efforts by the Bogotá government have forced Colombian cocaine production
down while production is rising in neighboring Peru. Today, the two Andean nations are roughly on par, he said, with each
accounting for about 44 percent of world production; Bolivia produces the remaining 12 percent. That’s a sharp reversal from 2005,
when Colombia grew an estimated 90 percent of the world’s coca leaves . Much of Colombia’s cocaine production is
controlled by the Fuerzas Armadas Revolucionarias de Colombia (FARC), a guerrilla group that’s been
battling the Bogotá government for 50 years. Peace talks that began in 2012 seek a negotiated end to the
FARC insurgency, which has cost more than 200,000 lives since fighting began in 1964.
Not key to oxygen—forest consumes as much as it releases—that's Howard
No impact or scenario for Amazon collapse
Wigmore 5– quoting biogeography professor at London University who edits the Journal of Biogeography and a
Canadian co-founder of Greenpeace (6/9, Barry, New York Post, Posted at Cheat Seeking Missiles, date is date of post,
http://cheatseekingmissiles.blogspot.com/2005/06/stop-global-whining-2.html)
the rainforests have only been around for between
12,000 and 16,000 years. That sounds like a very long time but, in terms of the history of the earth, it's
hardly a pinprick. "Before then, there were hardly any rainforests. They are very young. It is just a big mistake
that people are making. "The simple point is that there are now still - despite what humans
have done - more rainforests today than there were 12,000 years ago." "This lungs of the
earth business is nonsense; the daftest of all theories," Stott adds. "If you want to put forward
"One of the simple, but very important, facts is that
something which, in a simple sense, shows you what's wrong with all the science they espouse, it's that image of the
lungs of the world. "In fact, because the trees fall down and decay, rainforests actually take in
slightly more oxygen than they give out. "The idea of them soaking up carbon dioxide
and giving out oxygen is a myth. It's only fast-growing young trees that actually take up carbon dioxide," Stott
says. "In terms of world systems, the rainforests are basically irrelevant. World weather is
governed by the oceans - that great system of ocean atmospherics. "Most things that happen on
land are mere blips to the system, basically insignificant ," he says. Both scientists say the
argument that the cure for cancer could be hidden in a rainforest plant or animal - while
plausible - is also based on false science because the sea holds more mysteries of life than
the rainforests. And both say fears that man is destroying this raw source of medicine are
unfounded because the rainforests are remarkably healthy. "They are just about the
healthiest forests in the world. This stuff about them vanishing at an alarming rate is a
con based on bad science," Moore says.
Afghan
Cooperation solves stability
Hadar 11—former prof of IR at American U and Mount Vernon-College. PhD in IR from American U (1 July 2011, Leon,
Saving U.S. Mideast Policy, http://nationalinterest.org/commentary/saving-us-policy-the-mideast-5556)
Indeed, contrary to the warning proponents of U.S. military intervention typically express, the withdrawal
of American troops
from Iraq and Afghanistan would not necessarily lead to more chaos and bloodshed in those countries. Russia,
India and Iran—which supported the Northern Alliance that helped Washington topple the
Taliban—and Pakistan (which once backed the Taliban) all have close ties to various ethnic and tribal groups
in that country and now have a common interest in stabilizing Afghanistan and containing the
rivalries.
1NR
CP – Ev
Only CP solves- agribiz shuts the traditional model down
Parker, 13 -- Institute for Agriculutre and Trade Policy [John "Food democracy: Rule of the people or corporations? - See more
at: http://www.iatp.org/blog/201310/food-democracy-rule-of-the-people-or-corporations#sthash.4bl2ZXFM.dpuf"
www.iatp.org/blog/201310/food-democracy-rule-of-the-people-or-corporations]
Agribusinesses have been subverting the democratic process from Washington D.C. to state legislatures across the country to ensure that
people know less and less about how their food is produced and distributed. Moreover, they have engaged in a determined effort to obstruct opportunities for citizens and
legislators to engage in the democratic process. Consider the following to illustrate the point. Having failed to pass a Farm Bill in June, House GOP leadership brought forward a
new bill in July with a radical change that would repeal permanent agriculture laws form 1938 and 1949. The House Agriculture Committee never debated such a provision, not
once in two years of hearings. GOP leadership placed the provision into the 600-page Farm Bill late on a Wednesday night; they did not allow for debate or amendments and
forced the House to vote on it the next day. What happens if Congress replaces permanent law with the Farm Bill they pass this year? Instead of allowing for review and reform
every five years, this current Farm Bill would be permanent and very difficult to change. Rep. Peterson’s (D-Minnesota) reaction sums it up, “I think that repealing permanent law
all but ensures that we’ll never write a Farm Bill again. If you’re concerned about conservation, fruits and vegetables, research, these other areas, there’s never going to be
[another] Farm Bill if we [pass] this.” Speaking of sneaking provisions into legislation, Monsanto scored a similar victory earlier this year. After the House Appropriations
Committee defeated a provision on genetically modified foods, Monsanto asked for help from Senator Blunt (R-Missouri) who, in March, quietly attached Monsanto’s policy onto
a budget bill written to avert a government shutdown. Most members of Congress were unaware it was even there. There was no debate. The policy, by the way, prevents
federal courts from halting the planting or sale of GMOs due to health issues or pending litigation. Almost entirely in secret, the U.S. is currently negotiating trade agreements
with Europe and countries included in the Trans-Pacific Partnership. Leaked details of the negotiations reveal that lowering standards affecting health, the environment and
consumer labeling are on the negotiating table. This could affect things like chemical safety, the use of technologies such as genetic engineering and nanotechnology in food
production as well as the use of antibiotics in animal production. If approved, these trade deals will make it more difficult for individual countries to reform standards in the future.
Interestingly, the U.S. Trade Representative (USTR) has allowed certain corporations into the talks, but so far, members of Congress and the public are in the dark. What we do
know is the USTR wants to eliminate all “local barriers to trade” which could potentially include farm-to-school programs. On the state and local levels, agribusiness and
lawmakers are colluding to silence those reporting on these issues, while at the same time limiting the ability of communities to create policy. This summer, Kansas authorities
arrested famed National Geographic photographer George Steinmetz for taking aerial photos of an animal feedlot. On assignment for National Geographic, Steinmetz and his
assistant ran afoul of an “Ag-Gag” law when they were paragliding across Kansas taking photos. The law prohibits individuals from photographing animal facilities and feedlots.
These so called “Ag-Gag” laws are designed to keep secret the practices and treatment of animals housed in concentrated animal feeding operations. Eleven states introduced
similar legislation this year. Utah authorities arrested and filed charges against a woman in April under similar legislation only to drop the charges due to massive public
backlash. This past spring, Mississippi passed a law preventing cities, counties, towns and villages within the state from regulating or restricting the sale of food based on
nutritional information. A month later, Kansas and Missouri introduced legislation to ban the “use of public funds to promote or implement sustainable development.” Alabama
passed similar legislation last year. The effort is in reaction to a non-binding United Nations sustainability plan. Thankfully, there are many exceptions to the trend. Notably, 193
food councils across the U.S. are reinvigorating local democratic decision-making. When it comes to policies affecting the food system as a whole, however, we appear to be a
democracy in name only. What does it mean for a state like Vermont to require GMO labeling, if agribusinesses can secretly influence trade agreements that strip away the right
of states to enact such legislation? What does it mean for a food council to create a farm-to-school program if agribusinesses buy legislation to eliminate such programs as
“barriers to trade”? U.S. food and agriculture policy seems to be built on secret provisions snuck into bills at the 11th hour with little opportunity for debate, or trade negotiations
taking place behind closed doors. The result is government rigged against farmers and workers who want to have a say in policies affecting their livelihoods, against
Democracy means rule
of the people, not rule of the corporations. We need to move beyond this flawed mess, redefine what democratic participation means and act on it. It is no longer
enough to call your Senator or write a letter to your local newspaper. We need to begin the work of reclaiming authentic participation in democratic
communities who want to protect their natural resources and against parents who want to know what is in the food they feed to their children.
decision-making.
Otherwise, we will continue to watch agribusiness steal the game and tell us all to
shut up.
Competitive alternative CP solvency advocate
O’Hear 04 (Michael, Assistant Professor, Marquette University Law School. J.D., Yale Law School, 1996; B.A., Yale College,
1991, April 2004, “Federalism and Drug Control” Vanderbilt Law Review, 57 Vand. L. Rev. 783, Lexis)
Turning from the empirical to the normative, the Article next considers how federal-state relations ought to be structured. It will be
assumed here that a legislature could reasonably choose any of a range of policies, from mandatory treatment for addicts to
legalization to more intensive enforcement and heavier penalties. n19 The question here is not which substantive
policy should be adopted, but who should get to choose.
Under a leading reform proposal (the so-called "Constitutional Alternative"), the federal government would
essentially get out of the drug policy business, leaving the basic regulatory decisions to the
states. n20 This proposal promises to enhance the accountability of state governments, promote innovation, and bring important
policy decisions closer to the people. Yet, the Constitutional Alternative has several important drawbacks,
particularly in its effects on states and localities that would like to continue (or even expand) the war
on drugs within their borders. n21 In particular, proponents have not fully appreciated the importance
of the federal government's broad criminal jurisdiction as a form of in-kind aid to state and local
law enforcement.
This Article suggests a different reform agenda, termed here the "Competitive Alternative." Like the
Constitutional Alternative, [*789] this agenda would seek to decentralize drug control policy, but
would focus not on the states, but on local units of government. Localities that wished to continue
fighting the federally led war on drugs with federal support could continue to do so, but localities
that wished to develop and implement alternative drug control strategies would have more
freedom to go their own way. The proposal is termed "competitive" to emphasize a key difference
from the Constitutional Alternative: while the Constitutional Alternative would create a state
monopoly in drug policy, the Competitive Alternative would, in effect, give local communities a
choice between state and federal policies. Put differently, state and federal approaches would
compete for the allegiance of local communities. Achieving reform along these lines requires
several distinct changes to federal law, including (1) reducing the federal distortion of drug policy
debates at the state and local level; (2) subjecting federal drug enforcement decisions to a greater
degree of local political control; and (3) increasing the accountability of local law enforcement to
local political institutions.
United States includes the federal government and the states
Power, 13 – Centre for Disability Law & Policy researcher
[Andrew, PhD, Janet Lord, and Allison deFranco, Active Citizenship and Disability, google books, p88, accessed 7-25-14]
The United States has a unique political and geographical landscape which provides a complex territorial system of administration of
disability support policy. It has an intricate federal-state level relationship, with different institutions and actors who can shape
disability support policy in many different ways and at various different scales. At the federal level, the United States is a
constitutional republic in which the president, Congress and judiciary share powers reserved for the national government, and the
federal government shares sovereignty with the state governments. With the separation of powers (between executive,
legislative and judicial branches), the role of the executive branch, which is headed by the president and various executive offices, is
to enforce the laws. The legislative branch is vested in the two chambers of Congress: the Senate and the House of
Representatives. The legislative branch can set national legislation, under certain powers granted to it in the Constitution. These
include education, family law, contract law and legislation on most crimes. ¶ Meanwhile, the judicial branch comprising the Supreme
Court and lower federal courts exercises judicial power, and its function is to interpret the US Constitution and federal laws and
regulations. This includes resolving disputes between the exec- utive and legislative branches. The Supreme Court cannot pass
legislation which makes budget decisions for US states, but it has the power to decide what congressional laws mean and how they
apply in specific cases (this has become particularly relevant in some instances, such as the Olmslead case* detailed later in the
chapter), The president can introduce executive orders as a response to Supreme Court judge- ments affirming the United States'
Constitution to new judicial interpretations.
UN DA
Plan violates UN convention
Violating treaty norms shreds cooperation on every other issue – prevents
solving terrorism, prolif, disease and environmental collapse
Moss, 10 - LAWRENCE C. MOSS is a member of UNA‐USA’s Task Force on Human Rights. He most previously was a counselor
at Human Rights Watch, where Moss represented the organization in the General Assembly negotiations to create the new UN
Human Rights Council and in the formulation of its procedures (“Renewing America’s Commitment To International Law”
academia.edu)
US adherence to the international treaty regime is essential to America’s ability to induce other
nations to join in the cooperative action necessary to address the great many global problems that are
far beyond our ability to solve alone. Crime, terrorism, weapons proliferation, epidemic disease, human
trafficking, economic dislocations, climate change and other environmental degradation require
strong norms of adherence to agreed rules for controlling them. The US cannot choose to reject so many
widely accepted rules without weakening the entire international legal structure on which our security
depends. The international legal order is not merely a soft‐power alternative to harder unilateral means, but in many
areas it is the only real power we have to address the many transnational problems we face in this century. A
comprehensive effort to ratify outstanding treaties and demonstrate America’s renewed commitment to a rules‐based international
order is not an exercise to win the approval of international lawyers, but it is a vital part of securing American interests.
Their evidence assumes Bush-era unilateralism and that did threaten the treaty
system – the only reason it didn’t collapse was Obama’s election – and the plan
wrecks Obama’s credibility to maintain the commitment to multilateralism
Bewley-Taylor, 12 - Department of Political and Cultural Studies, College of Arts and Humanities, Swansea University, UK (David,
International Drug Control: Consensus Fractured, p. 315-316)
Another strategy would be for Parties to simply ignore the treaties or certain parts of them. In this way, they could institute
any policies deemed to be necessary at the national level, including for example the regulation of the cannabis market and the
introduction of a licensing system for domestic producers. Disregarding all or selected components of the treaties, however, raises
serious issues beyond the realm of drug control . The possibility of nations unilaterally ignoring
drug control treaty commitments could threaten the stability of the entire treaty system . As a
consequence states may be wary of simply opting out. Drawing on provisions within the 1969 Vienna Convention on the Law of
Treaties, some international lawyers argue that all treaties can naturally cease to be binding when a fundamental change of
circumstances has occurred since the time of signing or when an ‘error’ of fact or situation at the time of conclusion has later been
identified by a party.89 Both are lines of reasoning pursued in 1971 by Leinwand in relation to removing cannabis from the Single
Convention.
Bearing in mind the dramatic changes in circumstances in the nature, extent and understanding of the ‘world drug problem’ since
the 1960s, the fundamental change of circumstances approach could be applied to the drug conventions or parts thereof. It has
been noted how this doctrine of rebus sic stantibus has largely fallen into misuse, probably due to the general availability of the
option to denounce. That said, the case for both this and ‘error’ at time of founding may be useful rationales for reform-minded
states to note when pursuing the denunciation option. Once again the selective application of such principles alone would
call into question the validity of many and varied treaties. This remains an area of concern for many, particularly
European, states that in general maintain a high regard for international law.
This stands in stark contrast to the selective approach towards international
law displayed by the
generated an
atmosphere within which reformist states may have been able to defend a simple disregard for parts of
the drug control treaties. As the most capable and energetic supporter of the GDPR, the USA was still best placed to
administration of George W. Bush, particularly during its first term. Such disdain for multilateralism
enhance the benevolent appeal of the control system and where necessary dispense costs for defection beyond those of the
reputational variety. Nonetheless, such a position would have been difficult to sustain when defecting states could justify action on
the grounds that they were merely emulating the habits of a hegemony. The likelihood of any significant state simply disregarding
the international legal framework for the control of drugs has always been slim. Yet the election of Barack Obama and a
resultant
re-engagement with the UN made this possibility even slimmer. In an effort to rebuild
bridges with the organization, the Obama administration has in many ways attempted to reverse the policies of
its predecessor.90