Round 3—Aff vs Wake HQ
1AC
1AC
The United States should make legal and regulate nearly all prohibited cannabis
sativa L. in the United States.
1AC 1
Contention one is Mexico The war on drugs fails – legalization creates a regulated domestic industry to
displace cartels
Beckley Foundation, 11 [The Beckley Foundation policy programme is dedicated to
improving national and global drug policies, through research that increases understanding of
the health, social and fiscal implications of drug policy, “Legalizing Marijuana: An Exit Strategy
from the War on Drugs,” http://www.beckleyfoundation.org/2011/04/legalizing-marijuana-anexit-strategy-from-the-war-on-drugs/]
There are a few “unknowns” when it comes to the marijuana industry—its effects on productivity and drug-related violence, for example. Experts need to examine these effects, and policymakers must open their
ears to these experts. A government-sponsored marijuana commission is not a new idea; in fact, Nixon established one in 1972 when he formed the National Commission on Marihuana and Drug Abuse. When the
commission opposed Nixon by supporting decriminalization, he ignored their recommendations and instead intensified his efforts on the “War on Drugs” campaign. This tradition of adhering to popular and
personal beliefs instead of scientific facts is still common today. With the U.S. federal debt sky-high and drug-related violence in Mexico mounting, legalization is more relevant than ever and the topic is ripe for
debate. Here we explore the domestic costs and benefits that the legalization of marijuana would incur, how it might affect the marijuana industry in the Americas (particularly in Mexico), and aims to debunk the
multitude of popular falsehoods that surround marijuana. Why Current Policies Are Not Working Despite assurances from the Drug Enforcement Agency (DEA) that the current drug policy is making headway,
there are clear signs that prohibition has not succeeded in diminishing drug supply or demand. Lowering demand for illegal drugs is the most effective way to lower illegal drug production—while vendors may not
respond to the threat of legal repercussions, they certainly respond to market forces. As the largest consumer of Mexican drugs, it is the responsibility of the U.S. to address its own demand for marijuana. But
American demand and accessibility to marijuana are not decreasing. In fact, marijuana use is currently on the rise and, although usage has oscillated in the past decades, the proportion of use among 12th graders
is only a few percentage points below what it was in 1974. Eighty-one percent of American 12th graders said marijuana was “fairly easy or very easy” to acquire in 2010.2 In a 2009 survey, 16.7 million Americans
While the U.S. may be unable to control its own
demand for marijuana, it could stop its contribution to drug cartel revenues by allowing a
domestic marijuana industry to thrive , shifting profits from cartels to U.S. growers. While figures on
over 12 years of age had used marijuana in the past month—that’s 6.6 percent of the total population.3
marijuana smuggling into the U.S. fail to provide conclusive evidence of how much of the drug is entering the country, marijuana seizures have been steady throughout the Americas in the past decade. However,
this says nothing certain about actual production numbers.4 Domestically, the task of restricting U.S. production is becoming more difficult. Indoor crops that use efficient hydroponic systems are becoming more
popular in the U.S. but pose a challenge to law enforcement agencies for a number of reasons. According to the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC), indoor systems: “[have] the benefit of having
lower chances of detection, high yields with several harvests per year with high potency cannabis and elevated selling prices. The equipment, knowledge and seeds for indoor growing have become very accessible…
[and] The costs of building an indoor growing site can be quickly recovered.”5 Cultivating high-quality marijuana is becoming easier, less risky, and more profitable even for the casual grower. The rise of indoor
crops will pose a new obstacle to drug enforcement agencies in stopping marijuana production in the U.S. The UNODC outlines other negative “unintended consequences” that have resulted from the illegality of
when a good is forbidden, a black market inevitably rises. Black markets inherently
lack safety regulations and often finance other criminal activities. A second consequence is that treatment programs are often
underfunded when the bulk of any drug policy budget is spent on law enforcement. Two other consequences have been termed “geographical” and “substance” displacement. Both terms
involve the idea of the “balloon effect”: when an activity is suppressed in one area, it simply
reappears in another area. Geographical displacement can be illustrated by events in Colombia,
the Caribbean, and Mexico: as the U.S. cracked down on Colombian drug trafficking, smuggling
routes were shifted to Mexico and the Caribbean. Drug trafficking was not eliminated, but
simply moved from one site to another. Substance displacement is an even more disturbing repercussion: as availability of one drug is mitigated through
drugs. The first is obvious;
enforcement, consumers and suppliers flock to alternate drugs that are more accessible.6 While marijuana is not a harmless substance, most would agree that it is the least harmful of illicit drugs. Some drug users
may be pushed toward more dangerous substances, or “hard” drugs, because marijuana is too difficult to or dangerous to obtain. Conversely,
marijuana could pull users away from hard drugs.
raising the accessibility of
These ramifications of the current drug control system need to be taken into
account in the debate over legalization. A critical shortcoming of U.S. drug policy is that it treats drug addiction as a crime instead of a health matter. Almost 60 percent of the overall economic cost of drug abuse is
due to expenditures spent on “drug crime”—the sale, manufacture, and possession of drugs.7 There seems to be a wide consensus that at the very least, drug policy must shift its focus to treatment. Tarnishing
someone’s record for drug use makes no sense; it encourages criminal activity by obstructing job opportunities and it does nothing to address the factors that cause drug use. Additionally, treatment is not readily
accessible to those seeking help despite its efficacy in preventing future drug use. In 2009, 20.9 million Americans (8.3 percent of the total population over age 12) who needed treatment for drug or alcohol abuse
did not receive it in a specialty facility—a hospital, a rehab facility, or a mental health facility.8 This is an unacceptably high number. The U.S. overinvests in its prohibition strategy while severely underfunding
treatment options. Marijuana legalization’s potential role in improving treatment options for all drugs will be discussed later in this article; for now, suffice it to say that the status quo is not producing the desired
results and requires modification. Legalization and The Mexican Drug War The issue of legalization has been brought to the forefront in recent years because of numerous calls by Latin American leaders to discuss
the matter as a viable policy option. Presidents Juan Manuel Santos of Colombia and Felipe Calderón of Mexico, while not personally advocating legalization, have publicly called for serious discussion of the
concept. Former Mexican President Vicente Fox, who previously took a hard line against drugs, has altered his public stance and now supports legalization of all drugs, especially marijuana. He argues that
prohibition does not work, that drug production ends up funding criminals, and that it is the responsibility of citizens to decide whether to use drugs or not.9 Former Presidents Fernando Henrique Cardoso of
Brazil, Ernesto Zedillo of Mexico, and César Gaviria of Colombia all supported in a report by The Latin American Commission on Drugs and Democracy that the U.S. decriminalize marijuana use (Colombia and
Mexico have already done so).10 The U.S. has ignored these requests to place drug legalization or decriminalization on the policy agenda. Drug trafficking is not a national problem; it transcends country borders
and needs to be approached from a hemispheric perspective. Therefore, the United States needs to work with its southern neighbors to formulate a comprehensive drug policy. However, it is also telling that every
Latin American leader who has formally supported legalization or decriminalization has done so only after leaving office, indicating that such policies are not politically “safe” stances. The difference between
decriminalization permits drug use while legalization
permits both drug use and production. Those that favor decriminalization maintain that it would enable law enforcement agencies to shift resources from
prosecuting drug users to prosecuting drug suppliers. Decriminalization would also free up resources for effective drug treatment programs. Those that favor legalization go
one step further than decriminalization: in Vicente Fox’s words, “[W]e have to take all the production chain out of the hands of criminals and into
the hands of producers—so there are farmers that produce marijuana and manufacturers that process it and distributors that distribute it, and shops that sell it.”11 Legalization would
include the benefits of decriminalization , while also depriving gangs and cartels of a
lucrative product; if both the supply and demand sides are legitimate, a black market would
become obsolete. Legalizing marijuana in the United States, the largest buyer of Mexican
drugs, could potentially weaken drug cartels by limiting their sources of revenue. The UNODC has acknowledged
that this is a plausible way of reducing gang and cartel profits.12 Mexican and American Marijuana Markets Eliminating the marijuana market share of
decriminalization and legalization is in their degree of leniency towards drugs;
Mexican cartels would hit them especially hard because it serves as a steady, reliable source of
income and carries relatively little risk for them to produce. The percentage of total cartel drug revenues from marijuana is greatly debated—
Mexican and American official figures range from 50-65 percent, but a study by the RAND Corporation suggests closer to 15-26 percent.13 Even the most conservative of
these estimates—roughly a fifth of revenue—would strike a blow to cartel profits if
eliminated. Marijuana is particularly valuable to cartels because they control the entire
production line; they both grow and distribute it themselves, making it more reliable and
less risky . Conversely, cocaine is imported to Mexico mostly from South America, heightening
the risk of smuggling it. More troubling is that cartels are now even growing marijuana on U.S. public lands, mostly throughout national parks and forests, in order to avoid the task of
smuggling drugs across the U.S.-Mexican border.14 If Mexico were to reach the point of legalizing marijuana, the U.S.
could continue to buy the drug legally from south of the border, like many other
consumer goods . But even if Mexico did not implement its own legalization, recent data
indicates that a domestic U.S. industry could fill the role of the supplier and eliminate the need
for Mexican marijuana. The drug is increasingly grown domestically15 and U.S. growers are already posing a threat to Mexican market share. Exact numbers are impossible to assess,
but figures of American domestic marijuana production range from 30-60 percent of the total consumed in the U.S.16 Additionally, a report by the RAND Corporation found that legalizing marijuana in California
alone (and a subsequent rise in state-wide marijuana production) could lower Mexican cartel marijuana revenues by 65-85 percent. This could occur if Californian marijuana were smuggled to the rest of the U.S.
where the drug would still be illegal. The marijuana’s projected high quality and low price would make it an extremely competitive product.17 It seems reasonable to assume that if the drug were legalized in all fifty
states, the domestic market could easily overwhelm the Mexican market share. In terms of tangible effects on Mexican drug violence, the RAND Corporation and UNODC agree that removing U.S. demand for
illegal marijuana would increase violence in the short run because Mexican cartels would be fighting for dominance in a shrinking market.18 But in the long run, once U.S. demand is met by domestic supply,
The U.S. population is by far the largest drug market for
Mexico, making our action necessary for any transnational legalization to be effective. While
cocaine, methamphetamines, and heroin are still funding cartels, drug violence will not be
completely eliminated; but any move to starve their resources is a step forward in
weakening them and, ultimately, saving lives.
cartels would be financially debilitated and, most likely, some of the violence quelled.
Only the plan sufficiently limits cartel power
Carpenter, 11 [Undermining Mexico’s Dangerous Drug Cartels by Ted Galen Carpenter, Ted
Galen Carpenter, a senior fellow at the Cato Institute, is the author of eight books and more than
500 articles and policy studies on international issues. His latest book, The Fire Next Door:
Mexico’s Drug Violence and the Danger to America, is forthcoming in 2012]
unless the production and sale of drugs is also legalized, the black-market premium
will still exist and law-abiding businesses will still stay away from the trade. In other words, drug
commerce will remain in the hands of criminal elements that do not shrink from engaging
in bribery, intimidation, and murder. Wall Street Journal columnist Mary Anastasia O’Grady aptly makes that distinction with respect to the drug-law reform that
Mexico enacted in 2009: Mexican consumers will now have less fear of penalties and, increasingly in the case of marijuana, that’s true in the United States as well. But trafficking will
remain illegal, and to get their product past law enforcement the criminals will still have an
enormous incentive to bribe or to kill. Decriminalization will not take the money out of the
business, and therefore will not reduce corruption, cartel intimidation aimed at democraticgovernment authority or the terror heaped on local populations by drug lords.58 Because of its proximity to the huge
U.S. market, Mexico will continue to be a cockpit for that drug-related violence. By its domestic commitment to prohibition, the United States is
creating the risk that the drug cartels may become powerful enough to destabilize its southern
neighbor. Their impact on Mexico’s government and society has already reached worrisome levels. Worst of all, the
Yet
carnage associated with the black-market trade in drugs does not respect national boundaries. The frightening violence now convulsing Mexico could become a feature of life in American communities, as the
cartels begin to flex their muscles north of the border. When the United States and other countries ponder whether to persist in a strategy of drug prohibition, they need to consider all of the potential societal
costs, both domestic and international. On the domestic front, American’s prisons are bulging with people who have run afoul of the drug laws. Approximately one-third of inmates in state prisons and nearly 60
percent of those in federal prisons are incarcerated for drug trafficking offenses. Most of those inmates are small-time dealers. Prohibition has created or exacerbated a variety of social pathologies, especially in
minority communities where drug use rates are higher than the national average and rates of arrests and imprisonment are dramatically higher. Those are all serious societal costs of prohibition. Conclusion
The most feasible and effective strategy to counter the mounting turmoil in Mexico is to
drastically reduce the potential revenue flows to the trafficking organizations. In other words, the
United States could substantially defund the cartels through the full legalization (including
manufacture and sale) of currently illegal drugs. If Washington abandoned the prohibition model, it is very
likely that other countries in the international community would do the same. The United States
exercises disproportionate influence on the issue of drug policy, as it does on so many other
international issues. If prohibition were rescinded, the profit margins for the drug trade would
be similar to the margins for other legal commodities, and legitimate businesses would become
the principal players. That is precisely what happened when the United States ended its quixotic
crusade against alcohol in 1933. To help reverse the burgeoning tragedy of drug-related violence in Mexico, Washington must seriously consider adopting a similar course today with
respect to currently illegal drugs. Even taking the first step away from prohibition by legalizing marijuana, indisputably the
mildest and least harmful of the illegal drugs, could cause problems for the Mexican cartels. Experts provide a wide range
of estimates about how important the marijuana trade is to those organizations. The high-end estimate, from a
former DEA official, is that marijuana accounts for approximately 55 percent of total revenues. Other experts dispute that figure.
Edgardo Buscaglia, who was a research scholar at the conservative Hoover Institution until 2008, provides the low-end estimate, contending that the drug amounts to “less than 10 percent” of total revenues.
the marijuana business is financially
important to the cartels. The Mexican marijuana trade is already under pressure from
competitors in the United States. One study concluded that the annual harvest in California alone equaled or exceeded the entire national production in Mexico, and that output for the
Officials in both the U.S. and Mexican governments contend that it’s more like 20 to 30 percent.59 Whatever the actual percentage,
United States was more than twice that of Mexico.60 As sentiment for hard-line prohibition policies fades in the United States, and the likelihood of prosecution diminishes, one could expect domestic growers,
Legalizing pot would strike a blow against Mexican
traffickers. It would be difficult for them to compete with American producers in the American
market, given the difference in transportation distances and other factors. There would be little
incentive for consumers to buy their product from unsavory Mexican criminal syndicates when
legitimate domestic firms could offer the drug at a competitive price—and advertise how they are honest enterprises. Indeed, for many
both large and small, to become bolder about starting or expanding their businesses.
Americans, they could just grow their own supply—a cost advantage that the cartels could not hope to match. It is increasingly apparent, in any case, that both the U.S. and Mexican governments need to make
drastic changes in their efforts to combat Mexico’s drug cartels. George Grayson aptly summarizes the fatal flaw in the existing strategy. “It is extremely difficult—probably impossible—to eradicate the cartels.
They or their offshoots will fight to hold on to an enterprise that yields Croesus-like fortunes from illegal substances craved by millions of consumers.”61 Felipe Calderón’s military-led offensive is not just a futile,
The most
effective way is to greatly reduce the “Croesus-like” fortunes available to the cartels. And the
only realistic way to do that is to bite the bullet and end the policy of drug prohibition,
preferably in whole, but at least in part, starting with the legalization of marijuana. A failure to move away
from prohibition in the United States creates the risk that the already nasty corruption and violence
next door in Mexico may get even worse. The danger grows that our southern neighbor could
become, if not a full-blown failed state, at least a de-facto narco-state in which the leading drug
cartels exercise parallel or dual political sovereignty with the government of Mexico. We may eventually encounter a situation—if we haven’t already—
where the cartels are the real power in significant portions of the country. And we must worry that the disorder inside Mexico will
spill over the border into the United States to a much greater extent than it has to this point. The fire of drug-related
violence is flaring to an alarming extent in Mexico. U.S. leaders need to take constructive action now, before that fire consumes our neighbor’s home
and threatens our own. That means recognizing reality and ending the second failed prohibition crusade.
utopian crusade. That would be bad enough, but the reality is much worse. It is a futile, utopian crusade that has produced an array of ugly, bloody side effects. A different approach is needed.
Marijuana is the largest revenue source–it directly contributes to wider cartel
influence
Valdez, 09 [Linda Valdez, Linda Valdez has been writing commentary for The Arizona
Republic since 1993. A graduate of the University of Arizona, she worked at The Arizona Daily
Star in Tucson before coming to the Republic. She has won numerous state and national writing
awards. In 2011, she won the Scripps Howard Walker Stone Award for editorial writing, and she
was a finalist for the Pulitzer Prize in 2003. She is author of a book, "A Doctor's Legacy," which
tells the life story of Merlin K. "Monte" DuVal, the man who founded Arizona's first medical
school at the University of Arizona. She has done commentaries on radio and television in
Tucson. - Mar. 15, 2009 12:00 AM, The Arizona Republic, Stem the violence, make marijuana
legal,
http://www.azcentral.com/arizonarepublic/viewpoints/articles/2009/03/14/20090314Valdez1
5-vip.html]
Mexico's drug cartels would continue to be, in the words of the Justice Department's National Drug Threat Assessment for 2009, "the
greatest drug-trafficking threat to the United States." Now, imagine a different weapon. Consider the impact of eliminating the most profitable
product the cartels sell. All we have to do is legalize marijuana. "Marijuana is the (Mexican cartels') cash crop, the cash
cow," says Brittany Brown of the U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration's Washington office, which does not advocate legalizing pot. Marijuana
is cheap to grow and requires no processing. More than a million pounds of it was seized in Arizona in each of the past two years, according
to figures provided by Ramona Sanchez of the DEA's Phoenix office. But those seizures were just a cost of doing business for multibillion-dollar drug lords. Marijuana continued
buying pot is easier than getting cigarettes or booze, says Bill
Some argue that if you
legalize marijuana there would still be a black market. They say that because the product is so cheap to produce, the black market could
to be widely available - and not just to adults. Teens tell researchers that
Piper, director of National Affairs for the Drug Policy Alliance, which does advocate legalizing marijuana. Cannabis vs. alcohol
consider what we know about alcohol. ��First, Prohibition didn't work.
Second, even though alcohol sales are regulated, back-alley or school-yard sales of moonshine is not a billion-dollar
problem. ��Third, alcohol, like its addictive killer-cousin tobacco, is taxed, which helps cover its costs to society. Not
underprice legal pot and sell to kids. But
��
so with marijuana. After decades of anti-pot campaigns, from Reefer Madness to zero tolerance, so many Americans choose to smoke marijuana that the Mexican cartels have
become an international threat to law and order. Instead of paying taxes on their vice, pot smokers are enriching thugs and murderers. "People who smoke pot in the United
drug users help sharpen the knives
that cartel henchmen use to behead their enemies and terrorize Mexican border towns. Even marijuana
States don't think they are connected to the cartels," Brown says. "Actually, they are very connected." American
grown in the United States, increasingly in national parks and on other public lands, is often connected to Mexican cartels, Brown says. According to the Justice Department's
2009 assessment, cartels have "established varied transportation routes, advanced communications capabilities and strong affiliations with gangs in the United States" and
The DEA says cartels are
"poly-drug organizations" that routinely smuggle cocaine, methamphetamine, heroin and precursor
chemicals through our state. "(But) marijuana generates the most profit," Sanchez says. Removing a cash cow Legalizing marijuana
would not stop pushers from selling other, more lethal poisons. But taking away their most profitable product would hurt
criminal organizations that have grown richer, more powerful and better armed during the socalled war on drugs that was first declared by President Richard Nixon. Today's Mexican cartels "are as ruthless and brutal as any terrorist organization," says Sen.
John McCain, R-Ariz., who is opposed to legalizing marijuana. Their brutality is destabilizing Mexico. Several years after Mexican President
Felipe Calder�n bravely decided to take on the cartels, Mexico ranks with Pakistan as "weak and failing states" in a
recent report by the United States Joint Forces Command. Why? Because Mexico's "government,
its politicians, police and judicial infrastructure are all under sustained assault and pressure by criminal gangs and drug
cartels," the report says. While U.S. drug users enrich the cartels, the U.S. government pours huge amounts of money into defeating them. The Bush administration sold
"maintain drug-distribution networks or supply drugs to distributors in at least 230 U.S. cities." Including Phoenix and Tucson.
Congress on the Merida Initiative, a multiyear, $1.4 billion aid package designed to provide training and high-tech assistance to help a besieged Mexican government combat the
cartels. Even in these days of gazillion-dollar bailouts, that's a chunk of change. But consider this: According to a report last fall from the Government Accountability Office, the
United States has provided more than $6 billion to support Plan Colombia since fiscal 2000. The goal of reducing processing and distribution of illicit drugs (mostly cocaine) by
50 percent was not achieved, the GAO found. A GAO report from July 15, 2008, says that since fiscal 2003, the United States has provided more than $950 million to
counternarcotics efforts in the 6 million square-mile "transit zone" that includes Central America, the Caribbean, the Gulf of Mexico and the eastern Pacific Ocean. What did this
buy? "Despite gains in international cooperation, several factors, including resource limitations and lack of political will, have impeded U.S. progress in helping governments
become full and self-sustaining partners in the counternarcotics effort - a goal of U.S. assistance," the report said. Weary of the drug war Our southern neighbors are getting
tired of fighting our drug war. Last month, the Latin American Commission on Drugs and Democracy called for a shift from the "prohibitionist policies based on eradication,
interdiction and criminalization." Former Latin American Presidents Ernesto Zedillo (Mexico), Cesar Gaviria (Colombia) and Fernando Henrique Cardoso (Brazil) said the drug
war has failed. It was a tragically costly failure. In testimony before Congress last June, Peter Reuter of the University of Maryland School of Public Policy and department of
criminology, said, "It is likely that total expenditures for drug control, at all levels of government, totaled close to $40 billion in 2007." He said about 500,000 people are in
prison in the United States for drug offenses on any given day. Piper says 800,000 people a year are arrested on marijuana charges, the vast majority for simple possession.
Now, consider the possibilities of a new approach. In 2005, economist Jeffrey A. Miron put together a report suggesting that if marijuana were taxed at rates similar to alcohol
and tobacco, legal sales would raise $6.2 billion a year. California Assemblyman Tom Ammiano, a Democrat from San Francisco, is trying to get his state to legalize marijuana
for adult use, set up a state licensing system and levy a tax that some say could raise $1 billion a year. Let's be clear: Marijuana can cause dependency. It saps initiative and
energy. It is unhealthful and smelly. I don't use it. But a lot of people do like the effects of this intoxicant, and they believe they can control its addictive properties. This is exactly
why people drink margaritas during happy hour. This is also why a war on drugs is unwinnable. You'd think a country built on capitalism would understand basic laws of supply
and demand. Instead, a failed and irrational national policy blunders forward, costing billions, incarcerating large numbers of people and enriching ruthless crime syndicates.
The cartels are not stagnant. They are growing in power and influence. In Phoenix, Mexican cartels are blamed for a
dramatic rise in kidnapping and other violence. Arizona Attorney General Terry Goddard says it may be only a matter of time before the kind of turf battles that are common in
Mexico erupt along drug-transit corridors in Arizona. Goddard, who does not support legalization, says, "I do support an intelligent dialogue (on legalization)." Brave but
hopeless fight Law enforcement has a smart-bomb approach to eliminating the bad guys. Last month, the DEA announced Operation Xcellerator, a 21-month multi-agency effort
aimed at the Sinaloan cartel. It culminated in more than 750 arrests and the seizure of 23 tons of drugs and $59.1 million in cash. The police work involved was smart and
courageous. After all, cartels torture and kill cops. But while police were putting their lives on the line for the war on drugs, U.S. drug users were helping the cartels make up for
any economic losses.
It's time to hit the bad guys where it really hurts. Take away their cash cow.
Reverse causal—plan weakens cartels beyond return
McCardle, 11 [Megan McArdle is a columnist at Bloomberg View and a former senior editor at
The Atlantic. Her new book is The Up Side of Down. Legalizing Marijuana Could Save
Thousands of Lives Jun 23 2011,
http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2011/06/legalizing-marijuana-could-savethousands-of-lives/240905/]
A recent op-ed in the New York Times by Sylvia Longmire tries to lower expectations for what legalization of
marijuana could accomplish. It's all fine and good and be realistic, but I think the author oversells her pessimism.
Here is her summary of the argument she is attempting to counter: "FOR a growing number of American policy makers, politicians and activists, the best answer to the spiraling
violence in Mexico is to legalize the marijuana that, they argue, fuels the country's vicious cartels and smugglers. After all, according to official estimates, marijuana constitutes
60 percent of cartels' drug profits. Legalization would move that trade into the open market, driving down the price and undermining the cartels' power and influence." There
are several debatable issues here, but she is mostly disagreeing with the notion that the "power and influence" of cartels would be "undermined" by legalization of marijuana.
Her main counterpoints can be summarized as: 1) They will still have 40% of their profits from
other activities. 2) They could enter the legal marijuana market. 3) A growing share of profits come
from other activities. 4) Given these other activities, "it's unlikely that Mexican cartels would close up shop in the event of legalization." The first thing to note is
that all of the above can be true, and we are still very short of showing that the power and influence of drug
cartels would not be weakened, and that killings would decline by a significant amount. Longmire doesn't
debate whether the cartels get 60% of their revenue from Marijuana, but there is a lot of uncertainty regarding this number. A recent Rand study highlights the difficulty here.
They find estimates of U.S. annual marijuana consumption ranging from 1,000 to 5,000 metric tons (MT), with one estimate as high as 9,830 MT. Then, they put the range for
the Mexican share of the U.S. market somewhere between 40% to 67%. Using these and a couple of other estimates, they peg the final Mexican exports to the U.S. as somewhere
between $1.1 billion to $2 billion. The Rand report also cites a range from the NDIC of $3.9 billion to $14.3 billion, so clearly the is much uncertainty here. In the end Rand
one could image the U.S. legalization
leading to Mexican cartels losing both their domestic market as well as the Canadian market,
which would have a larger impact. The Rand report helps Longmire's case, and I don't point it out as an argument against her. But since Longmire
doesn't stop to question this number, I'm sort of--but not completely--going to sidestep the issue and grant that she is correct and the revenues are 60%. In any case
marijuana revenues mean a lot of money to cartels, but we don't have a very good idea how much. Moving on to her argument,
Longmire's second point strikes me as her weakest. Sure, cartels could enter the legal U.S. marijuana market, just as they could
enter the U.S. market for alcoholic beverages and tobacco. Likewise they could enter the market for
diapers, ballet shoes, or any product or services. Yet the major profit center for the cartels she lists are all illegal: kidnaping, oil theft, pirated goods, extortion.
concludes the revenues from marijuana in the U.S. are around 15% to 26% of cartel revenues. Of course
If cartels are capable of competing in legal markets against legitimate firms, she hasn't provided any examples. It's hard to see why this would be the case for marijuana. So if I'm
right and they won't be getting into the legal market, how would a revenue reduction of as much as 60% impact cartels operations? Longmire is skeptical it would do much,
it's hard to imagine
being sanguine about the long-term viability of any "legitimate company" in the face of losses
approaching 60% of revenues. Apple, for instance, get's around 50% of it's revenues from the iPhone. If this market were to evaporate, would it be fair
to say that it would probably "hinder" their "long-term economics"? Like cartels, it's probably true that Apple has a lot of other activities that represent profit
centers, and they would be unlikely to "close up shop" in the event of losing the iPhone market. But it is a far walk from
here to concluding that their "power and influence" (or whatever the comparable measures are for a legal company, maybe market cap?)
would not be severely weakened. I guess my question for Longmire is this: if a 60% decline in revenues wouldn't represent a significant blow to the
arguing: "Cartels are economic entities, and like any legitimate company the best are able to adapt in the face of a changing market." But
power and influence of cartels, what percentage would? 70%? 90%? Another important way cartels are similar to Apple is that there likely economies of scope and scale for
A decrease in marijuana revenues will take away resources they were using to build their
distribution networks and buy political and legal influence, both of which probably exhibit
economies of scale and are inputs for cartels in the production of their other elicit goods.
This means a decrease in marijuana revenue should decrease raise costs and thus decrease
profits in their other markets. This is in the same way that if the iPhone went away it would hurt Apple's sales of it's computers and software, and
cartels.
generally diminish its brand. Longmire ends her piece by listing reasons why marijuana should be legalized: "We need to stop viewing casual users as criminals, and we need to
treat addicts as people with health and emotional problems. Doing so would free up a significant amount of jail space, court time and law enforcement resources. What it won't
Say the higher end estimate of marijuana revenues from the Rand corporation is correct, and legalizing would reduce
cartel revenue by 26%, or that the 60% number is correct and they will make back an implausibly high 50% of their lost revenue in other activities. This means
do, though, is stop the violence in Mexico."
something like a 30% decrease in lost revenues. If this leads to a proportional decrease in long-run drug related murders in Mexico, then based on the 15,273 drug related deaths
there would be 4,580 fewer deaths each year. That's a huge gain in welfare even if it falls short of the quixotic goal of
The end of alcohol prohibition in the U.S. did not mean an end to the mafia, but it did lead
to a significant decline in murders and in their power. Longmire has not presented a convincing case
that the same would not be true in Mexico.
in 2010,
"killing the cartels".
Cartel violence increasing now and efforts are failing
Paul Kan 14, Associate Professor of National Security Studies and the Henry L. Stimson Chair
of Military Studies at the US Army War College, “The Year of Living Dangerously: Peña Nieto’s
Presidency of Shadows”, 1/6/14, Small Wars Journal,
http://smallwarsjournal.com/jrnl/art/the-year-of-living-dangerously-pe%C3%B1anieto%E2%80%99s-presidency-of-shadows
Outgoing New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg, who has a notorious thirst for information and statistics, reportedly tormented
his staff with the slogan, “In God We Trust. Everyone Else Bring Data.” There are several interesting and
contradictory pieces of data to apply to an assessment of Mexican President Enrique Peña
Nieto’s efforts to tackle drug violence during his first year in office. The Sistema Nacional de Seguridad
Publica (SNSP) reports that homicides fell in 2013 compared to the peak numbers in 2012. Official figures show that there were
nearly 6000 fewer killings between January and October of this year as compared to last year—15,350 homicides versus 21,700.
There were also the notable arrests of several cartel leaders of Los Zetas, the Gulf cartel, the Tijuana cartel, and even the Sinaloa
cartel. ¶ Yet these seeming successes cannot cast a strong enough shadow over more ominous data.
The decline in reported homicides was in sharp contrast to the rise in extortion, which was
up 10 percent , and the rise
in kidnappings, which were up 33 percent . The number of disappearances also shows no signs of abating. The key
arrests of some cartel leaders have not been matched with equal vigor in prosecutions or
extraditions. Few high level cartel members have been prosecuted and sentenced in Mexico over the
past year and extraditions to the US are stalled.¶ Also stalled was the plan to reduce the military’s activity in favor of building a
national gendarmerie. There are no fewer troops on the street and the gendarmerie’s rollout has been diluted and
delayed. What was to be a force of 40,000 will now be 5,000 to be deployed sometime next year .
The continuing weakness of Mexican law enforcement and judiciary has undermined the already fragile confidence that civil society
has in the government to provide security. The result has been that many Mexicans have taken public safety into their own hands.
While there are no firm numbers, there has been the noticeable emergence of numerous vigilante groups
and ad hoc militias, especially in the states of Michoacan and Guerrero. The internet hacktivist collective, Anonymous, has
created franchises in Mexico who act as “cyber-vigilantes” to expose the collusion between drug cartels, business owners and
politicians.¶ What has been most obscured in darkness is a coherent strategy to fight organized crime in the country. The explicit
promise by Peña Nieto to reduce drug fueled violence in Mexico has not evolved into a plan for action
with clear goals and measurements for success. Initially, it appeared that the new administration was attempting a
violence reduction strategy to be focused on community building by offering more education, jobs, parks, and social activities while
sweeping up lower level criminals and not focusing on removing kingpins. However, what has emerged is not a violence
reduction strategy, but a “violence perception management” strategy . The management of perceptions of
drug violence has the goal of reducing drug killings from the headlines of national and international news so that PRI can focus on
its larger reform package of economic and social policies like tackling education, energy, and telecommunication. ¶ Drug violence is
an unwelcomed distraction from the grander plans of the PRI and President Peña Nieto. By intention or by default, their organized
crime strategy in this first year has sought to drape a veil of shadows across the country’s drug violence by bringing to light other
economic and social efforts.¶ Adding to this enveloping shadow is the growing lack of accessible
information about drug violence in Mexico. The country remains the deadliest place in Latin America for journalists
and one of the most dangerous in the world. This has severely affected the ability to check the government’s crime
statistics, which have been notoriously manipulated over the years. A recent post on insightcrime.org
demonstrates the unevenness of government crime statistics, “Some newspapers, which began counting the organized crime-related
murders during Calderon’s administration, continue their own homicide tallies. Reforma said in mid-March that the “drug-related”
homicides were higher in the first three months under Peña Nieto than the last three months of Calderon. Milenio had numbers that
were consistent with the current administration’s. La Jornada registered significantly lower levels than the others but said there was
an upward trend.” The shadow on information has also swallowed government agencies—the Procudaria General de la Republica
(PGR) has not developed a reliable database to track kidnappings and disappearances. ¶ However, the most revealing piece of data
comes from Mexican citizens themselves. According to the Instituto Nacional de Estadística y Geografía (INEGI) 2013 victimization
survey, the net result of the past twelve months is that Mexicans say they feel more unsafe than in
previous years. The darkness of drug violence appears to have grown only deeper .
Cartel influence determines the likelihood of state failure
Pedigo, 12 [David, “The Drug War and State Failure in Mexico” The Johns Hopkins University
- Paul H. Nitze School of Advanced International Studies (SAIS) Beloit College Universidad San
Fransisco de Quito Cumbayá The Drug War and State Failure in Mexico David Pedigo Beloit
College]
State failure is an imminent threat in Mexico but it is not inevitable. Even failed cities
are not unavoidable realities.
This goal must be to reduce the power of cartels so that the Mexican state
can gain a monopoly on the use of legitimate force throughout its territory. This monopoly
cannot be fully achieved through policies that aim to stop the flow of drugs or reduce short term
violence
indeed
characterize its border region
,
the
that have begun to
It is necessary, however, for policies to have the appropriate goals in mind, as well as a clear understanding of how those goals can be realistically
accomplished, before the current situation can be reversed.
; these are merely symptoms of cartel power. While statistics such as homicide rates and levels of drug trafficking are certainly indicative of cartel activity, they are not necessarily accurate indicators of cartel power. Indeed, over the short term,
spikes of violence may even signify the desperate attempts of cartels to assert their power when it is being threatened. While it may be more difficult to measure, a more relevant indicator of cartel power may be the frequency with which state actors such as mayors,
police chiefs, governors, etc. are forced out of their post or bribed by cartels. Bribery is never likely to stop outright, but it is not overly ambitious to aim to create a Mexico where cartels can no longer influence high ranking public officials by violence and
intimidation. Higher arrests and conviction rates would also be indicative of the state’s regained monopoly on the use of force. To put this in perspective, while the arrest rate in the United States is in the 90th percentile and the conviction rate is over 50 percent,102
the arrest rate in Mexico is 22 percent and the conviction rate is 1.5 percent.103 Mexico should by no means be expected to match these rates of its much more developed neigh bor to the north, but this comparison shows that a dramatic increase is certainly needed.
This is no small task, and Mexico cannot do it alone; it will require substantial assistance from the United States. This means more than financial assistance; the United States must own up to its role in the drug war through implementing effective policies. U.S.
nothing
would more significantly impact the drug war in Mexico than the full legalization
of
drugs
it would completely change the dynamics of the drug trade and weaken the cartels
in a way that perhaps nothing else could.
cartel power is the principle threat to the
Mexican state,
intelligence networks in the DEA and other law enforcement bodies are much better established than their Mexican counterparts, and these networks will continue to be useful in the pursuit of cartel members in the future. However,
in the United States
at least some
. As mentioned earlier,
It should also be noted that while
reducing this power will not solve all of Mexico’s ills, and crime and violence will most likely persist even after cartels are weakened. In Jamaica, for example, local gang bosses, or “dons” have continued to draw influence from
urban communities and engage in turf battles even after the shift of major drug flows to the Central American corridor. The dons in Jamaica are able to maintain their power networks because of a lack of alternative economic opportunities to crime.104 Undermining
the power of drug cartels in Mexico may help to avoid state failure, but the persistence of crime itself is an economic problem at heart. However, this is an entirely separate issue. Crippling the cartels in Mexico may also cause the drug trade to relocate once more, just
as it did after Plan Colombia. In fact, this has already begun to happen in Central America, which is now seeing increased levels of violence, with Honduras and El Salvador exhibiting the highest national homicide rates in the world (more than 60 murders a year per
every 100,000 people). 105 Unfortunately, given the history of the drug trade, this may simply be an unavoidable consequence. From the U.S. perspective, this at least means relocating the violence away from the border, but once again, this is a separate issue
The cartels of Mexico have created a
system that undermines the rule of law,
robs the Mexican state of its monopoly on the use of force, and threatens to turn Mexico into a
failed state.
doing nothing may create a failed state in Mexico
would have catastrophic results for both the United States and Mexico.
entirely.
n incredibly complex and dangerous
Destroying this power structure will be equally complex. It will take years, cost billions of dollars and thousands of lives, and may ultimately be an incomplete victory. Just as the drug trade will never be completely stopped, drug
traffickers will never completely lose power. Though it may seem to be a thankless struggle,
have both observed,
, which, as Mearsheimer and David
The impact is oil shocks
Moran, 09 [Michael Moran, Policy Analyst at the Council on Foreign Relations, 7-31-2009,
“Six Crises, 2009: A Half-Dozen Ways Geopolitics Could Upset Global Recovery”
http://afghanistanwar.edublogs.org/2009/07/31/rge-six-crises-2009-a-half-dozen-waysgeopolitics-could-upset-global-recovery/]
Risk 2: Mexico Drug Violence: At Stake: Oil prices, refugee flows, NAFTA, U.S. economic stability A story receiving more attention in the American media than Iraq these days is the horrific drug-related
violence across the northern states of Mexico, where Felipe Calderon has deployed the national army to combat two thriving drug cartels, which have compromised the national
police beyond redemption. The tales of carnage are horrific, to be sure: 30 people were killed in a 48 hour period last week in Cuidad Juarez alone, a city located directly across
the Rio Grande from El Paso, Texas. So far, the impact on the United States and beyond has been minimal. But there also isn’t much sign that the army is winning, either, and
The CIA’s worst nightmare during the Cold War (outside of an administration which forced
was the radicalization or collapse of Mexico. The template then was communism, but
narco-capitalism doesn’t look much better. The prospect of a wholesale collapse that sent
millions upon millions of Mexican refugees fleeing across the northern border so far seems remote. But
Mexico’s army has its own problems with corruption, and a sizeable number of Mexicans regard Calderon’s razor-thin 2006 electoral victory over a
leftist rival as illegitimate. With Mexico’s economy reeling and the traditional safety valve of illegal immigration to America dwindling, the potential for
serious trouble exists. Meanwhile, Mexico ranks with Saudi Arabia and Canada as the three
suppliers of oil the United States could not do without. Should things come unglued there and
Pemex production shut down even temporarily, the shock on oil markets could be profound, again,
sending its waves throughout the global economy. Long-term, PEMEX production has been sliding anyway, thanks to
that raises a disturbing question: What if Calderon loses?
transparency on it, of course)
oil fields well-beyond their peak and restrictions on foreign investment. Domestically in the U.S., any trouble involving Mexico invariably will cause a bipartisan demand for more security on the southern border, inflame
anti-immigrant sentiment and possibly force Obama to remember his campaign promise to “renegotiate NAFTA,” a pledge he deftly side stepped once in office.
Oil shocks cause nuclear war
Townsend 13—private investor based in Hong Kong
(Erik, “Why peak oil threatens the International Monetary System”, http://www.resilience.org/stories/2013-01-07/commentarywhy-peak-oil-threatens-the-international-monetary-system, dml)
While the
use of nuclear weapons in an offensive capacity might seem unthinkable today, the USA has
yet to endure significant economic hardship. $15/gallon gasoline from the next Peak Cheap Oil price shock
coupled with 15% treasury yields and a government operating in crisis mode just to hold off systemic
financial collapse in the face of rampant inflation would change the mood considerably.¶ All the USA has
to do in order to secure an unlimited supply of $50/bbl imported oil is to threaten to nuke any country refusing to
sell oil to the U.S. for that price. Unthinkable today, but in times of national crisis, morals are
often the first thing to be forgotten. We like to tell ourselves that we would never allow economic hardship to cause us to
lose our morals. But just look at the YouTube videos of riots at Wal-Mart over nothing more than contention over a limited supply of
boxer shorts marked down 20% for Black Friday. What we’ll do in a true crisis that threatens our very way of
life is anyone’s guess.¶ If faced with the choice between a Soviet-style economic collapse and abusing
its military power, the USA just might resort to tactics previously thought unimaginable. Exactly
what those tactics might be and how it would play out are unknowable. The point is, this is a very complex problem, and a wide array
of factors including military capability will play a role in determining the ultimate outcome.
Cartel power shatters heg and causes arms races
Haddick, 10 [Robert , is an independent contractor at U.S. Special Operations Command,
"This Week at War If Mexico Is at War Does America Have to Win It", Foreign policy,
http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2010/09/10/this_week_at_war_if_mexico_is_at_war
_does_america_have_to_win_it]
Clinton said, "We face
an increasing threat from a well-organized network, drug-trafficking threat that is, in some cases,
morphing into, or making common cause with, what we would consider an insurgency." Mexico's foreign minister
While answering a question on Mexico this week at the Council on Foreign Relations, U.S. Secretary of State Hillary
Patricia Espinosa was quick to dispute this characterization, arguing that Mexico's drug cartels have no political agenda. But as I have previously
discussed, the cartels, evidenced by their attacks on both the government and the media, are gradually becoming political insurgents as a means of
defending their turf.¶ I note that Clinton used the phrase "We [the United States] face an increasing threat ...," not "they [Mexico]." The cartels are
transnational shipping businesses, with consumers in the United States as their dominant market. The
clashes over shipping routes
and distribution power -- which over the past four years have killed 28,000 and thoroughly corrupted Mexico's police and judiciary -could just as well occur inside the United States. Indeed, growing anxiety that southern Arizona is in danger of becoming a
"no-go zone" controlled by drug and human traffickers contributed to the passage of Arizona's controversial immigration enforcement statute earlier
this year.¶ Both Clinton and Mexican officials have discussed Colombia's struggle against extreme drug violence and corruption, revealing concerns
about how dreadful the situation in Mexico might yet become and also as a model for how to recover from disaster. Colombia's long climb from the
abyss, aided by the U.S. government's Plan Colombia assistance, should certainly give hope to Mexico's counterinsurgents. But if the United States and
Mexico are to achieve similar success, both will have to resolve political dilemmas that would prevent effective action. Clinton herself acknowledged as
much when she remarked that Plan Colombia was "controversial ... there were problems and there were mistakes. But it worked."¶ Isolating
Mexico's cartel insurgents from their enormous American revenue base -- a crucial step in a
counterinsurgency campaign -- may require a much more severe border crackdown, an action that would be highly
controversial in both the United States and Mexico. Plan Colombia was a success partly because of the long-term presence of U.S. Special Forces
advisers, intelligence experts, and other military specialists inside Colombia, a presence which would not please most Mexicans. And Colombia's long
counterattack against its insurgents resulted in actions that boiled the blood of many human rights observers. ¶ Most significantly,
a
strengthening Mexican insurgency would very likely affect America's role in the rest of
the world. An increasingly chaotic American side of the border, marked by bloody cartel wars,
corrupted government and media, and a breakdown in security, would likely cause many in the United States
to question the importance of military and foreign policy ventures elsewhere in the world.¶
Should the southern border become a U.S. president's primary national security concern,
nervous allies and opportunistic adversaries elsewhere in the world would no
doubt adjust to a distracted and 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.
Heg is good
Ikenberry, et al 13 [Stephen, Associate Professor of Government at Dartmouth College, John
Ikenberry is the Albert G. Milbank Professor of Politics and International Affairs at Princeton
University in the Department of Politics and the Woodrow Wilson School of Public and
International Affairs, William C. Wohlforth is the Daniel Webster Professor in the Department
of Government at Dartmouth College “Don’t Come Home America: The Case Against
Retrenchment,” International Security, Vol. 37, No. 3 (Winter 2012/13), pp. 7–51]
A core premise of deep engagement is that it prevents the emergence of a far more dangerous global security environment.
For one thing, as noted above, the United States’ overseas presence gives it the leverage to restrain partners from taking
provocative action. Perhaps more important, its core alliance commitments also deter states with aspirations to regional hegemony
from contemplating expansion and make its partners more secure, reducing their incentive to adopt solutions to their security problems that threaten
others and thus stoke security dilemmas. The contention that engaged U.S. power dampens the baleful effects of anarchy is consistent with
influential variants of realist theory. Indeed, arguably the scariest portrayal of the war-prone world that would emerge absent the “American Pacifier” is provided in the works of
Mearsheimer, who forecasts dangerous multipolar regions replete with security competition,
arms races, nuclear proliferation and associated preventive war temptations, regional rivalries, and even runs at regional hegemony and full-scale great
power war. 72 How do retrenchment advocates, the bulk of whom are realists, discount this benefit? Their arguments are complicated, but two capture most of the
John
variation: (1) U.S. security guarantees are not necessary to prevent dangerous rivalries and conflict in Eurasia; or (2) prevention of rivalry and conflict in Eurasia is not a U.S.
interest. Each response is connected to a different theory or set of theories, which makes sense given that the whole debate hinges on a complex future counterfactual (what
would happen to Eurasia’s security setting if the United States truly disengaged?). Although a certain answer is impossible, each of these responses is nonetheless a weaker
argument for retrenchment than advocates acknowledge. The first response flows from defensive realism as well as other international relations theories that discount the
conflict-generating potential of anarchy under contemporary conditions. 73 Defensive realists maintain that the high expected costs of territorial conquest, defense dominance,
and an array of policies and practices that can be used credibly to signal benign intent, mean that Eurasia’s major states could manage regional multipolarity peacefully without
the American pacifier. Retrenchment would be a bet on this scholarship, particularly in regions where the kinds of stabilizers that nonrealist theories point to—such as
democratic governance or dense institutional linkages—are either absent or weakly present. There are three other major bodies of scholarship, however, that might give decisionmakers pause before
making this bet. First is regional expertise. Needless to say, there is no consensus on the net security effects of U.S. withdrawal. Regarding each region, there are optimists and pessimists. Few experts expect a
return of intense great power competition in a post-American Europe, but many doubt European governments will pay the political costs of increased EU defense cooperation and the budgetary costs of increasing
Europe that is incapable of securing itself from various threats that could be
destabilizing within the region and beyond (e.g., a regional conflict akin to the 1990s Balkan wars), lacks capacity for global security missions in which U.S. leaders
military outlays. 74 The result might be a
might want European participation, and is vulnerable to the influence of outside rising powers. What about the other parts of Eurasia where the United States has a substantial
Israel,
Egypt, and Saudi Arabia—might take actions upon U.S. retrenchment that would intensify security
dilemmas. And concerning East Asia, pessimism regarding the region’s prospects without the American pacifier is pronounced. Arguably the principal concern
expressed by area experts is that Japan and South Korea are likely to obtain a nuclear capacity and increase their military commitments,
which could stoke a destabilizing reaction from China. It is notable that during the Cold War, both South Korea and Taiwan moved
military presence? Regarding the Middle East, the balance begins to swing toward pessimists concerned that states currently backed by Washington— notably
to obtain a nuclear weapons capacity and were only constrained from doing so by a still-engaged United States. 75 The second body of scholarship casting doubt on the bet on
defensive realism’s sanguine portrayal is all of the research that undermines its conception of state preferences. Defensive realism’s optimism about what would happen if the United
States retrenched is very much dependent on its particular—and highly restrictive—assumption about state preferences; once we relax this assumption, then much of its basis for optimism vanishes.
Specifically, the prediction of post-American tranquility throughout Eurasia rests on the assumption that security is the only relevant state preference, with security defined
narrowly in terms of protection from violent external attacks on the homeland. Under that assumption, the security problem is largely solved as soon as offense and defense are
clearly distinguishable, and offense is extremely expensive relative to defense.
Burgeoning research across the social and other sciences,
undermines that core assumption: states have preferences not only for security but also for prestige,
status, and other aims, and they engage in trade-offs among the various objectives. 76 In addition, they define security not just in terms of territorial
however,
protection but in view of many and varied milieu goals. It follows that even states that are relatively secure may nevertheless engage in highly competitive behavior. Empirical
studies show that this is indeed sometimes the case. 77 In sum, a bet on a benign postretrenchment Eurasia is a bet that leaders of major countries will never allow these
nonsecurity preferences to influence their strategic choices. To the degree that these bodies of scholarly knowledge have predictive leverage, U.S. retrenchment would result in a
significant deterioration in the security environment in at least some of the world’s key regions.We have already mentioned the third, even more alarming body of scholarship.
the withdrawal of the American pacifier will yield either a competitive regional multipolarity
complete with associated insecurity, arms racing, crisis instability, nuclear proliferation, and the like, or bids for regional
Offensive realism predicts that
hegemony, which may be beyond the capacity of local great powers to contain (and which in any case would generate intensely competitive behavior, possibly including regional
great power war). Hence it is unsurprising that retrenchment advocates are prone to focus on the second argument noted above: that avoiding wars and security
dilemmas in the world’s core regions is not a U.S. national interest. Few doubt that the United States could survive the return of insecurity and conflict among Eurasian powers,
but at what cost? Much of the work in this area has focused on the economic externalities of a renewed threat of insecurity and war, which we discuss below. Focusing on the
pure security ramifications, there are two main reasons why decisionmakers may be rationally reluctant to run the retrenchment experiment. First, overall higher levels of
one would see overall higher levels of
proxy wars and arming of client states
conflict make the world a more dangerous place. Were Eurasia to return to higher levels of interstate military competition,
military spending and innovation and a higher likelihood of competitive regional
—all of which would be
concerning, in part because it would promote a faster diffusion of military power away from the United States. Greater regional insecurity could well feed proliferation cascades,
Egypt, Japan, South Korea, Taiwan, and Saudi Arabia all might choose to create nuclear
forces. 78 It is unlikely that proliferation decisions by any of these actors would be the end of the game: they would likely generate pressure locally for more proliferation. Following
Kenneth Waltz, many retrenchment advocates are proliferation optimists, assuming that nuclear deterrence solves the security problem. 79 Usually carried out in dyadic terms, the debate
over the stability of proliferatio changes as the numbers go up. Proliferation optimism rests on
assumptions of rationality and narrow security preferences. In social science, however, such assumptions are inevitably
probabilistic. Optimists assume that most states are led by rational leaders, most will overcome organizational problems and resist the temptation to preempt before
feared neighbors nuclearize, and most pursue only security and are risk averse. Confidence in such probabilistic assumptions declines if the world
were to move from nine to twenty, thirty, or forty nuclear states. In addition, many of the other dangers noted by analysts who are
concerned about the destabilizing effects of nuclear proliferation—including the risk of accidents and the prospects that some new nuclear
powers will not have truly survivable forces—seem prone to go up as the number of nuclear powers grows. 80 Moreover, the risk of
“unforeseen crisis dynamics” that could spin out of control is also higher as the number of nuclear powers increases. Finally, add to these
as states such as
concerns the enhanced danger of nuclear leakage, and a world with overall higher levels of security competition becomes yet more worrisome. The argument that maintaining
Eurasian peace is not a U.S. interest faces a second problem. On widely accepted realist assumptions, acknowledging that U.S. engagement preserves peace dramatically narrows
the difference between retrenchment and deep engagement. For many supporters of retrenchment, the optimal strategy for a power such as the United States, which has
attained regional hegemony and is separated from other great powers by oceans, is offshore balancing: stay over the horizon and “pass the buck” to local powers to do the
dangerous work of counterbalancing any local rising power. The United States should commit to onshore balancing only when local balancing is likely to fail and a great power
appears to be a credible contender for regional hegemony, as in the cases of Germany, Japan, and the Soviet Union in the midtwentieth century. The problem is that China’s rise
The United States will have to play
a key role in countering China, because its Asian neighbors are not strong enough to do it by themselves.” 81 Therefore, unless China’s rise stalls, “the
puts the possibility of its attaining regional hegemony on the table, at least in the medium to long term. As Mearsheimer notes, “
United States is likely to act toward China similar to the way it behaved toward the Soviet Union during the Cold War.” 82 It follows that the United States should take no action
that would compromiseits capacity to move to onshore balancing in the future. It will need to maintain key alliance relationships in Asia as well as the formidably expensive
military capacity to intervene there. The implication is to get out of Iraq and Afghanistan, reduce the presence in Europe, and pivot to Asia— just what the United States is doing.
the argument that U.S. security commitments are unnecessary for peace is countered by a lot of
scholarship, including highly influential realist scholarship. In addition, the argument that Eurasian peace is unnecessary for U.S. security is weakened by the potential
83 In sum,
for a large number of nasty security consequences as well as the need to retain a latent onshore balancing capacity that dramatically reduces the savings retrenchment might
bring. Moreover, switching between offshore and onshore balancing could well be difªcult. Bringing together the thrust of many of the arguments discussed so far underlines the
the case for retrenchment misses the underlying logic of the deep engagement strategy. By supplying
the United States lowers security competition in the world’s key regions, thereby
preventing the emergence of a hothouse atmosphere for growing new military capabilities. Alliance ties dissuade partners
degree to which
reassurance, deterrence, and active management,
from ramping up and also provide leverage to prevent military transfers to potential rivals. On top of all this, the United States’ formidable military machine may deter entry by
potential rivals. Current great power military expenditures as a percentage of GDP are at historical lows, and thus far other major powers have shied away from seeking to match
top-end U.S. military capabilities. In addition, they have so far been careful to avoid attracting the “focused enmity” of the United States. 84 All of the world’s most modern
militaries are U.S. allies (America’s alliance system of more than sixty countries now accounts for some 80 percent of global military spending), and the gap between the U.S.
military capability and that of potential rivals is by many measures growing rather than shrinking. 85
It filters probability for every impact—and solves China war
Keck 14—Managing Editor of The Diplomat
(Zachary, “America’s Relative Decline: Should We Panic?”, http://thediplomat.com/2014/01/americas-relative-decline-should-wepanic/, dml)
on balance, the U.S. has been a positive force in the world, especially for a unipolar power. Certainly,
it’s hard to imagine many other countries acting as benignly if they possessed the amount of relative power
Still,
America had at the end of the Cold War. Indeed, the British were not nearly as powerful as the U.S. in the 19th Century and they
incorporated most of the globe in their colonial empire. Even when it had to contend with another superpower, Russia occupied half
a continent by brutally suppressing its populace. Had the U.S. collapsed and the Soviet Union emerged as the Cold War victor,
Western Europe would likely be speaking Russian by now. It’s
difficult to imagine China defending a rule-
based, open international order if it were a unipolar power, much less making an effort to
uphold a minimum level of human rights in the world.
Regardless of your opinion on U.S. global leadership over the last two decades, however, there is good reason to fear its
relative decline compared with China and other emerging nations. To begin with, hegemonic transition
periods have historically been the most destabilizing eras in history . This is not
only because of the malign intentions of the rising and established power(s). Even if all the parties have benign,
peaceful intentions, the rise of new global powers necessitates revisions to the “rules of the
road.” This is nearly impossible to do in any organized fashion given the anarchic nature of
the international system, where there is no central authority that can govern interactions between states.
We are already starting to see the potential dangers of hegemonic transition periods in the AsiaPacific (and arguably the Middle East). As China grows more economically and militarily powerful, it has
unsurprisingly sought to expand its influence in East Asia. This necessarily has to come at the expense
of other powers, which so far has primarily meant the U.S., Japan, Vietnam and the Philippines. Naturally, these powers
have sought to resist Chinese encroachments on their territory and influence, and the situation
grows more tense with each passing day. Should China eventually emerge as a global power, or should nations in
other regions enjoy a similar rise as Kenny suggests, this situation will play itself out elsewhere in the years and decades ahead.
All of this highlights some of the advantages of a unipolar system. Namely, although the U.S. has
asserted military force quite frequently in the post-Cold War era, it has only fought weak powers and thus
its wars have been fairly limited in terms of the number of casualties involved. At the same time,
America’s preponderance of power has prevented a great power war , and even
restrained major regional powers from coming to blows. For instance, the past 25 years
haven’t seen any conflicts on par with the Israeli-Arab or Iran-Iraq wars of the Cold War. As the
unipolar era comes to a close, the possibility of great power conflict and especially major
regional wars rises dramatically . The world will also have to contend with
conventionally inferior powers like Japan acquiring nuclear weapons to protect their interests against
their newly empowered rivals.
But even if the transitions caused by China’s and potentially other nations’ rises are
managed successfully, there
are still likely to be significant negative effects on international relations. In today’s “globalized” world, it
is commonly asserted that many of the defining challenges of our era can only be solved through
multilateral cooperation. Examples of this include climate change, health pandemics, organized crime and
terrorism, global financial crises, and the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction,
among many others.
A unipolar system, for all its limitations, is uniquely suited for organizing effective global action on
these transnational issues. This is because there is a clear global leader who can take the initiative
and, to some degree, compel others to fall in line. In addition, the unipole’s preponderance of power
lessens the intensity of competition among the global players involved. Thus, while there are no
shortages of complaints about the limitations of global governance today, there is no question that global governance has
been many times more effective in the last 25 years than it was during the Cold War.
The rise of China and potentially other powers will create a new bipolar or multipolar order. This, in
turn, will make solving these transnational issues much more difficult. Despite the optimistic
rhetoric that emanates from official U.S.-China meetings, the reality is that Sino-American competition is
likely to overshadow an increasing number of global issues in the years ahead. If other countries
like India, Turkey, and Brazil also become significant global powers, this will only further dampen
the prospects for effective global governance.
China war goes nuclear
Goldstein, 13 – Avery, David M. Knott Professor of Global Politics and International Relations, Director of the Center for the
Study of Contemporary China, and Associate Director of the Christopher H. Browne Center for International Politics at the
University of Pennsylvania (“First Things First: The Pressing Danger of Crisis Instability in U.S.-China Relations,” International
Security, vol. 37, no. 4, Spring 2013, Muse //Red)
Two concerns have driven much of the debate about international security in the post-Cold War era. The first is the potentially deadly mix of nuclear
proliferation, rogue states, and international terrorists, a worry that became dominant after the terrorist attacks against the United States on September
11, 2001.1 The second concern, one whose prominence has waxed and waned since the mid-1990s, is the potentially disruptive impact that China will
have if it emerges as a peer competitor of the United States, challenging an international order established during the era of U.S. preponderance.2
Reflecting this second concern, some analysts have expressed reservations about the dominant post-September 11 security agenda, arguing that China
could challenge U.S. global interests in ways that terrorists and rogue states cannot. In this article, I raise a more pressing issue, one to which not
enough attention has been paid. For
at least the next decade, while China remains relatively weak, the gravest danger in
Sino-American relations is the possibility the two countries will find themselves in a crisis that
could escalate to open military conflict. In contrast to the long-term prospect of a new great power rivalry between the
United States and China, which ultimately rests on debatable claims about the intentions of the two countries and uncertain forecasts about big shifts in
their national capabilities, the
danger of instability in a crisis involving these two nuclear-armed states is a
tangible, near-term concern.3 Even if the probability of such a war-threatening crisis and its escalation to the use of significant military
force is low, the potentially catastrophic consequences of this scenario provide good reason for
analysts to better understand its dynamics and for policymakers to fully consider its implications. Moreover, events since
2010—especially those relevant to disputes in the East and South China Seas—suggest that the danger
of a military confrontation in the Western Pacific that could lead to a U.S.-China standoff
may be on the rise. In what follows, I identify not just pressures to use force preemptively that pose the most serious risk should a SinoAmerican confrontation unfold, but also related, if slightly less dramatic, incentives to initiate the limited use of force to gain bargaining leverage—a
second trigger for potentially devastating instability during a crisis.4 My discussion proceeds in three sections. The first section explains why, during
the next decade or two, a serious U.S.-China crisis may be more likely than is currently recognized. The
second section examines the features of plausible Sino-American crises that may make them so dangerous. The third section considers general features
of crisis stability in asymmetric dyads such as the one in which a U.S. superpower would confront an increasingly capable but still thoroughly
overmatched China—the asymmetry that will prevail for at least the next decade. This more stylized discussion clarifies the inadequacy of focusing onesidedly on conventional forces, as has much of the current commentary about the modernization of China's military and the implications this has for
potential conflicts with the United States in the Western Pacific,5 or of focusing one-sidedly on China's nuclear forces, as a smaller slice of the
commentary has.6 An
assessment considering the interaction of conventional and nuclear forces
indicates why escalation resulting from crisis instability remains a devastating
possibility. Before proceeding, however, I would like to clarify my use of the terms "crisis" and "instability." For the purposes of this article, I
define a crisis as a confrontation between states involving a serious threat to vital national interests for both sides, in which there is the expectation of a
short time for resolution, and in which there is understood to be a sharply increased risk of war.7 This definition distinguishes crises from many
situations to which the label is sometimes applied, such as more protracted confrontations; sharp disagreements over important matters that are not
vital interests and in which military force seems irrelevant; and political disputes involving vital interests, even those with military components, that
present little immediate risk of war.8 I define instability as the temptation to resort to force in a crisis.9 Crisis stability is greatest when both sides
strongly prefer to continue bargaining; instability is greatest when they are strongly tempted to resort to the use of military force. Stability, then,
describes a spectrum—from one extreme in which neither side sees much advantage to using force, through a range of situations in which the balance of
costs and benefits of using force varies for each side, to the other extreme in which the benefits of using force so greatly exceed the costs that striking
first looks nearly irresistible to both sides. Although the incentives to initiate the use of force may not reach this extreme level in a U.S. China crisis,
the capabilities that the two countries possess raise concerns that escalation pressures will exist
and that they may be highest early in a crisis, compressing the time frame for diplomacy to
avert military conflict.
1AC 2
Contention two is The Pharmaceutical Industry—
Pharma companies are facing a cliff of patent expiration—this decks the entire
industry
Ahmed 14—Triple Helix
(Rizwan, “The Patent Cliff: Implications for the Pharmaceutical Industry”, http://triplehelixblog.com/2014/07/the-patent-cliffimplications-for-the-pharmaceutical-industry/, dml)
The pharmaceutical industry is a trillion dollar international market, dominated by only a few major
companies that create and supply the most important prescription drugs available. The top fifteen
pharmaceutical companies consist of nearly half the total revenue in the industry in 2008 [1], inspiring a preconceived notion that
the pharmaceutical industry was an oligopoly with nearly impossible barriers to entry. However, over the last three years
major pharmaceutical companies have lost tens of billions of dollars to smaller companies for
one primary reason: the patent cliff – a series of patent expirations of important prescription
drugs. This phenomenon has led to the mass production of generic versions of major drugs by
small pharmaceutical companies, causing steep revenue losses for big pharmaceuticals. In the
coming years, many prescription drugs that make up many large pharmaceutical companies’ profits, known as blockbuster drugs,
are set to expire as intellectual property. This will create a gateway for small companies to flood the market
with generics. With hundreds of billions of lost revenue projected, the patent cliff has the
opportunity to change the face of the pharmaceutical industry in the consumer perspective,
as well as the back-end research, development, and business standpoints of major
pharmaceutical companies in the years to come.
The first major instance to display the severity of patent expiration came in 2011 after Pfizer lost
exclusivity to their blockbuster drug Lipitor. The drug was released for prescription in 1998 and became an instant success,
propelling Pfizer to become the world’s premier pharmaceutical company by the early 2000s. By 2011, Lipitor generated $115 billion
in revenue since its release, and comprised about forty percent of total profits for Pfizer in 2005. [2] Pfizer attempted to
minimize the inevitable profit loss that would follow the patent’s expiration by completing a
licensing agreement with the Indian pharmaceutical company Ranbaxy, which provided the India-based
generic drugs producer 180 days of exclusive production of the generic version of Lipitor. However, profit losses for
Pfizer were still very steep. After the patent for Lipitor expired in 2011, Pfizer instantly suffered
from losing exclusivity; by the end of the first fiscal quarter after Lipitor’s patent expiration, global sales
of Lipitor fell by forty two percent and Pfizer’s total profit declined by nineteen percent. [3] While
analysts predicted drops in revenue, nobody expected Pfizer to fall so steeply. The result from
Pfizer’s loss of patent exclusivity over Lipitor was a warning sign for many other pharmaceutical companies,
shareholders, competitors, payers, and consumers.
Although Lipitor was the largest blockbuster drug faced patent expiration in 2011, the patent cliff for other blockbuster drugs did not
end with Pfizer. Major pharmaceutical companies like Novartis experienced losses after the patent for their blood-pressure-reducing
drug Diovan expired in 2012. Merck had a similar issue with Singulair in the same year; Bristol-Myers Squibb with Plavix in 2011;
and Sanofi-Aventis with Lovenox in 2012. [4] Even looking onwards, the patent cliff does not end for blockbuster drugs by large
pharmaceutical companies. Nexium, a drug produced by AstraZenica that produced over $4.9 billion in sales in 2010, faces patent
expiration in 2014. Eli Lilly’s Cymbalta, which grossed $4 billion in global sales in 2011, will face a similar fate in 2014. [5] Pfizer,
Allergan, GlaxoSmithKline, and many other major pharmaceutical companies will have patents for many
drugs expiring within the next three years. Losses in revenue for major pharmaceutical
companies will be tremendous, with projections showing the pharmaceutical industry will
lose upwards to $127 billion in brand spending by 2016 due to patent expiration and cheaper
generics in the market (Figure 1). [6]
Due to the staggering losses in profits big pharmaceutical companies will face in the coming years, it is
evident the patent cliff will have serious implications on the future of the
pharmaceutical industry . Apart from obvious implications for the consumer, such as cheaper drug options and overthe-counter accessibility, the pharmaceutical companies will face a great deal of change from the
current model of the industry. The major changes will come in the research and development
(R&D) sector
of companies. Innovation in drug discovery over the last decade has been
considerably slower than before [7], and the necessity for a differentiable drug is imperative for sustained success
among large pharmaceutical companies. In addition, as a result of generic destroying prescription drug
dominance in various areas of treatment, pharmaceutical companies will be forced to focus
research to specific areas exclusive to prescription drugs. Consequently, considerable spending will
go towards R&D of specialty medicines, such as oncologics, immunostimulants, and antivirals. It is also very
likely that spending will be slowed, or even decreased, over the next few years for general therapy drugs
such as lipid regulators and anti-ulcerants (Figure 2). [6] The lack of funding and drive for innovation in these
areas are primarily due to patent expirations of prescription drugs and a genericsdominated market.
Another change that pharmaceutical companies will have to face due to the patent cliff is a
change in the development phase, particularly in market segmentation and brand development. The result of the
patent cliff on many significant drugs in the pharmaceutical industry will lead to a decrease in
blockbuster drugs, since it is clear that relying on a single drug for the majority of company
revenue can lead to very sudden and steep losses after the patent expires. As a result, there will be a
greater need to create a multitude of drugs that are specific and differentiable for patenting purposes and portfolio diversity for a
company. Creating a much more detailed drug leads to a more specific group of consumers that the drug must be targeted to, which
can lead to different techniques and marketing strategies to appeal to smaller target groups. [7] This was rarely the case before due
to the blockbuster drugs and the resulting companies’ single-drug portfolios, which required only a single market to focus onto.
The patent cliff in the upcoming years has implications on more than just the
pharmaceutical industry. Apart from drug discovery research and drug marketing, the
current healthcare system will also face new challenges in coverage, while physicians and
hospitals must provide adequate care with diminished specialty therapy. While these academic
institutions, hospitals, and corporations operate very differently, each institution has the same underlying mission of improving the
lives of people in need. With this mission statement in mind, the patent cliff provides an important opportunity for these health
systems to collaborate and reinvent the current model of drug research, development, and distribution for the future.
State marijuana reforms have drawn interest—but full on legalization unlocks new
pharma patent and research potential
Becker 14—Business Cheat Sheet
(Sam, “Is Big Pharma Ready to Jump Into the Marijuana Market?”, http://wallstcheatsheet.com/business/is-big-pharma-ready-tojump-into-the-marijuana-market.html/?a=viewall, dml)
The pharmaceutical market has become an ever-evolving industry that, at times, has a similar feeling
to the wild west. As biotech companies grow and manufacturers continue to find promising
treatments, a new market that may unlock a host of new possibilities has opened up. With much
fanfare from other industries, and with quiet curiosity from Big Pharma, the birth of the legal marijuana
market may yield a fertile new place to develop new commodities.
While the medicinal properties of marijuana have thus far been commoditized by small
operations, usually operating in some sort of gray legal area, the new legal markets and increased public
acceptance of cannabis are offering bigger companies an opportunity to take a serious look into the possibilities
marijuana offer. With a myriad of existing products, from topical treatments to oil capsules, the medical marijuana industry has
already been a source of incredible innovation and research. Cannabis has been shown to
successful treat ailments as diverse as multiple sclerosis to nausea experienced by cancer patients going through chemotherapy.
So what interest do pharmaceutical companies like AstraZeneca (NYSE:AZN) or Pfizer Inc. (NYSE:PFE) have in
an opening legal cannabis market? For starters, it has patents that are set to expire in the near future.
With the long list of treatable ailments by marijuana, the answer is fairly obvious.
The adoption of cannabis-based medications and products could be the future
of the pharmaceutical industry . While marijuana has been designated as a Schedule 1 controlled
substance at the federal level, many
states have gone ahead to pass bills making medical marijuana use
legal for certain ailments. Now with two states passing legislation enabling full legalization,
entrepreneurs have the chance to jump into the new industry. The problem for many national and
international companies is that it does not want to be exposed to legal backlash in areas where
prohibition is still in place.
Companies like Novartis have started divesting in reaction to the rapid changes in the biotech
industry. With businesses willing to take aggressive moves like this, seeking out new avenues to invest in is most
likely in the industry’s best interest . One example of a company taking the leap is Earth Science Tech, Inc.
(QB:UNOV.PK), who recently announced its entrance into a variety of different cannabis-based industries, including legal medical
marijuana, cannabinoid and legal hemp.
Earth Science Tech, Inc.’s CEO Dr. Harvey Katz laid out his company’s reasoning behind the move, with perfectly sound reasoning.
“We’re a health and wellness company, and we will continue to be a health and wellness company with our new entry into the Legal
Cannabis and Medical Marijuana Industry. A growing proportion of the medical community believes that
Medical Marijuana and, more specifically cannabinoids, have the potential to help patients who are
suffering from a variety of conditions and disorders,” he said.
What future does cannabis have in pharmaceuticals? It will depend on when and how it is
adopted by Big Pharma. In the meantime, small businesses and science-savvy entrepreneurs will
continue to drive innovation and introduce new products and medications to the market. Some
companies, like Earth Science Tech, Inc. are putting its foresight to work, and it will probably pay off.
In a turbulent industry, pharmaceutical heavy-hitters will do what it needs to stay afloat.
If embracing cannabis as a new source of revenue and innovation is the next step, expect to
see some big names throwing money toward the battle to end prohibition.
The plan is key—
---one, federal prohibition tanks investor confidence—across-the-board
legalization’s key
Becker 14—Business Cheat Sheet (Sam, "Why Marijuana is the Most Innovative Market in
America". 8/2/14. wallstcheatsheet.com/business/why-marijuana-is-the-most-innovativemarket-in-america.html/?a=viewall, TD)
Despite heavy protests from lobbying groups and certain segments of big business (who feel threatened, more than anything),
marijuana looks like it will see sweeping regulatory changes around the country over the coming
years. Already made fully legal by voters in two states, medical marijuana markets have been alive and thriving for many years in
areas around the country. Inside of these secluded, often maligned industries , people have gotten
to work creating new products and devising new ways to use the cannabis plant.¶ ADVERTISEMENT¶ Learn about the
New AMEX Everyday Card¶ ¶ The results are already hitting the markets, in the form of more-refined concentrates, extensive lines of
edibles, and more targeted pharmaceutical uses. In fact, this is just the beginning. Wait until hemp makes a
comeback to the market. The industrial advantages will be immense.¶ Marijuana¶ The
world of marijuana can be
appropriately compared to the wild west; there is little in the way of infrastructure for entrepreneurs to lean on, and
the entire industry is being pretty much welded together as things progress. For those looking to break into the
industry at the ground level, it can be difficult. There are few — if any — banks or creditors
willing to work with those involved in the cannabis industry, as it is scared of opening itself up to
liability as dealing with the plant is still in breach of federal law (ironic, considering how many big
banks have been more than willing to launder money for drug cartels.) The same goes for many delivery services, like UPS or FedEx,
which risks violating drug trafficking laws by engaging with the industry.¶ Watch: Get Help to Avoid Bad Trades¶ ¶ Up until Colorado
and Washington passed voter-backed legalization initiatives, the entire industry had been operating in a sort of legal gray zone; in
many places, the medical marijuana guidelines were not clearly defined by state or local governments, and as a result, access points
and grow operations — although not operating outside of the law — were subject to raids and shutdowns by the Drug Enforcement
Agency or local police. Essentially, getting involved in cannabis put people at risk of being arrested, whether they actually use the
plant personally, or view it as a commodity.¶ But times are certainly changing. People are recognizing the immense profit potential in
the marijuana game, and even politicians and governments are starting to shift their thinking. Although there has been a longtime
social stigma against cannabis and its use, most of the common talking points — such as the inherent danger that comes along with
marijuana use or the fact that buying a bag of marijuana funds terrorist organizations — are simply falling flat. These and many
other moot points simply lack any kind of substance or merit, and they have for years.¶ As a result, the games have begun for those
willing to take the risk of jumping into the industry while it’s still in its infancy. The room for growth is truly huge, and the
applications are incredibly widespread.¶ Source: Chris Hondros/Getty Images¶ Chris Hondros/Getty Images¶ In addition to
marijuana-based products, like edibles, concentrates, and even new strains, entire support sectors are popping up to support the
industry. Marketing companies, businesses offering merchant services, even courier companies are all laying down its roots, so to
speak, in an effort to help propel the cannabis trade from the backwaters to the mainstream. These companies are being founded not
by some guy with dreadlocks and a Phish t-shirt, but by investors with big money — including former executives from giant tech
companies.¶ Businesses are even taking models from other areas and reapplying them to the marijuana market, as in the case of
websites like Leafly. The tech industry is ripe for a marijuana revolution as well, as the amount of mobile phone applications and
websites that can cater not only to marijuana users, but also businesses, is set to grow rapidly.¶ Of course, each state has their own
regulator pitfalls or advantages, depending on how you want to look at them. For instance, Colorado and Washington have taken
vastly different approaches to implementing the legal marijuana retail system, with Washington far-more focused on enacting stiff
regulations through licensing systems, and ensuring that any harvested product from approved growers is taxed in the appropriate
manner, and sold as such as well. Colorado has taken a less stiff approach, and the results have been quite impressive.¶ Colorado is
taking a more of a free market approach, and it is paying off in spades in the form of tax revenue and happy citizens. Others states
are taking notice, and watching closely at how both Colorado and Washington are handling things. So far, it seems that Colorado’s
‘free-er’ market stance is the superior method.¶ Of course, this is how things are supposed to work. In America, the system is
designed to foster new ideas, and promote the growth of new industries. Marijuana is in prime position to assume the mantle as the
next great American industry, and with proposed uses for recreation, medicine, the industrial sector and many other areas, it’ll be
hard to deny it.¶ Right now, the U.S. is seeing merely the tip of the proverbial iceberg when it comes
to cannabis. But as soon as legislators and investors starting coming on board en masse, the
free market will be awash in new innovation and ideas.
---two, hostile regulatory climate impedes cannabis research and patents
Armentano 08—deputy director of the National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana
Laws (Paul, "Big Pharma Is in a Frenzy to Bring Cannabis-Based Medicines to Market". 7/4/08.
AlterNet. www.alternet.org/story/90469/big_pharma_is_in_a_frenzy_to_bring_cannabisbased_medicines_to_market, TD)
One of the more popular theories seeking to explain the Feds' seemingly inexplicable ban on medical pot goes like this: Neither
the US government nor the pharmaceutical industry will allow for the use of medical marijuana
because they can't patent it or profit from it. ¶ It's an appealing theory, yet I've found it to be neither accurate
nor persuasive. Here's why.¶ First, let me state the obvious. Big Pharma is busily applying for -- and has already received -- multiple
patents for the medical properties of pot. These include patents for synthetic pot derivatives (such as the oral THC pill Marinol),
cannabinoid agonists (synthetic agents that bind to the brain's endocannabinoid receptors) like HU-210 and cannabis antagonists
such as Rimonabant. This trend was most recently summarized in the NIH paper (pdf), "The endocannabinoid system as an
emerging target of pharmacotherapy," which concluded, "The growing interest in the underlying science has been matched by a
growth in the number of cannabinoid drugs in pharmaceutical development from two in 1995 to 27 in 2004." In other words, at the
same time the American Medical Association is proclaiming that pot has no medical value, Big Pharma is in a frenzy to
bring dozens of new, cannabis-based medicines to market.¶ Not all of these medicines will be synthetic pills
either. Most notably, GW Pharmaceutical's oral marijuana spray, Sativex, is a patented standardized dose of natural cannabis
extracts. (The extracts, primarily THC and the non-psychoactive, anxiolytic compound CBD, are taken directly from marijuana
plants grown at an undisclosed, company warehouse.)¶ Does Big Pharma's sudden and growing interest in the research and
development of pot-based medicines mean that the industry is proactively supporting marijuana prohibition? Not if they know
what's good for them. Let me explain.¶ First, any and all cannabis-based medicines must be granted
approval from federal regulatory bodies such as the US Food and Drug Administration -- a
process that remains as much based on politics as it is on scientific merit. Chances
are that a government that is unreasonably hostile toward the marijuana plant will also be
unreasonably hostile toward sanctioning cannabis-based pharmaceuticals.
---three, only standardized regulations create an industry
Bostwick 12—Department of Psychiatry and Psychology, Mayo Clinic
(J. Michael, “Blurred Boundaries: The Therapeutics and Politics of Medical Marijuana”, Mayo Clin Proc. Feb 2012; 87(2): 172–186,
dml)
Meanwhile, in
the legal arena, the federal government pits itself against increasing numbers of
states—16 plus the District of Columbia—with regulations permitting botanical cannabis use for certain
chronically or critically ill patients that contradict federal law.10 A consequence of the discrepancies
between federal and state statutes is that users and purveyors of botanical cannabis for any
purpose can be arrested and charged with federal crimes, even in states where possessing small
quantities or growing one's own stash for medical use is legal. In the absence of an overarching
federal approach, these states lack consensus on what constitutes physician authorization, which
patients qualify for treatment, and how they can acquire their botanical cannabis, creating what
is essentially a “regulatory vacuum.”3,15 Possession limits, for example, range from 1 oz and 6 plants in Alaska
and Montana to 24 oz and 24 plants in Oregon.108 Some state laws are remarkably lax. For example, when California became the
first American state to legalize botanical cannabis in 1996, it allowed wide latitude for its use, permitting physicians to prescribe it
not only for serious medical illnesses but also “for any other illness for which marijuana provides relief,” including such emotional
conditions as depression and anxiety, a state of affairs that has “maximally broaden(ed) the range of allowable indications.”26
Moreover, no provision of the law defines what constitutes a bona fide patient-physician
relationship.15 An estimated 250,000 to 300,000 Californians have garnered physician approval, a number that belies
botanical cannabis being provided only to the seriously ill and dying. A new industry has arisen around cultivating
and dispensing medical marijuana to the hundreds of thousands of individuals authorized to use
it.
Organized medicine continuing to condemn the federal government for its stance toward
medical marijuana drives the ongoing legislative and scientific chaos. The American Medical Association,
the Institute of Medicine, and the American College of Physicians contend that the “patchwork of state laws” do little
to “establish clinical standards for marijuana use”3 and have called for reclassification of cannabis as a Schedule
II controlled substance so researchers can follow “the principles that are used to evaluate all other pharmacotherapies [that] have
largely been ignored for medical marijuana.” These principles include pharmaceutical companies petitioning
the FDA for the right to put new compounds through a battery of tests in animals and humans that ensure
that the drug's benefits outweigh its risks,79 determining precise dosing regimens, seeking FDA approval for the proposed new drug,
and manufacturing unadulterated active drug to high standards. Until this change occurs, a redesignation that would
acknowledge not only its abuse risks but also its therapeutic benefits, the
“rigorous scientific evaluation” that
underpins pharmaceutical regulation in the United States cannot proceed.3
Conclusions
Given cannabis' worldwide use for thousands of years for medical and spiritual purposes, the contemporary American tumult over medical marijuana seems peculiar and misguided. Despite cannabis being part of
the US pharmacopeia through much of the 19th and early 20th centuries, a federal government deeply suspicious of mind-altering substances began imposing restrictions on its prescription in the late 1930s,
culminating in 1970 when the US Congress classified it as a Schedule I substance, illegal, without redeeming qualities.
Despite its illegality, cannabis has in the latter half of the 20th century become the most abused illicit substance in the United States. For most individuals, recreational cannabis use is essentially harmless, a rite of
passage ending as young people settle into careers and adult intimate relationships.20,109,110 For 10%, however, the drug becomes addictive, its relaxing properties transforming into a constant need that
interferes with interpersonal and occupational advancement. For an even smaller proportion—those with a predisposition toward psychotic illness—it may abet the earlier emergence of psychosis and a rockier
illness course if use persists.
Prohibition notwithstanding, cannabis' recognized medical uses never went out of favor in alternative medicine circles. Its therapeutic properties have been particularly favored by former recreational users
familiar with its psychoactive effects, some of whom blur boundaries by continuing to use it recreationally. In the 1980s, it was found effective for treating severe nausea induced by cancer chemotherapy and
cachexia in AIDS patients. The first cannabinoid-based pharmaceuticals—dronabinol and nabilone—came into medical use in 1985. Without an understanding of how these medications worked, they were
prescribed empirically. As the mysteries of the endocannabinoid system were unraveled during ensuing decades, however, a rationale for both its recreational and sweeping medical effects has emerged.
The natural next step—pharmaceutical development—has been thwarted by the federal
government's seeming unwillingness to have new scientific discovery supplant long-standing
ideology. Bureaucratic hurdles not erected for other potential pharmaceuticals continue to
interfere with legitimate cannabis research. The federal government instituted its 1970 ban in the
absence of scientific evidence supporting its position. It maintains the ban, despite scientific
evidence suggesting that cannabis could have positive effects on the many organ systems
endocannabinoid activity modulates.
Although remaining at risk of arrest on federal charges, medical users have increasing latitude
as more and more states endorse botanical cannabis. In defiance of a federal ban that appears
increasingly irrational, 16 states and the District of Columbia have legalized botanical cannabis'
medical use. Without a federal umbrella, regulations lack any state-to-state uniformity about
what constitutes acceptable indications, appropriate prescriber-patient relationships, or
legitimate means of acquiring botanical cannabis. In such states, physicians who prescribe
medical marijuana are susceptible to prosecution under the same statutes as drug dealers.111 Public approval and
political expediency rather than scientific data drive the continued implementation of these state laws.
Like alcohol imbibers during the prohibition era in the United States, recreational users continue
to smoke
cannabis illicitly, as they have always done. Because of this modern-day prohibition, opportunities to further
study marijuana's risks and benefits and develop new pharmacotherapies are squandered. In
passing their own regulations endorsing medical marijuana use, states defy the federal
government. In each of these instances, boundaries among the legal, social, and medical realms
blur. Depending on context, marijuana can thus be panacea, scourge, or both.
Scenario 1 is the economy
Fixing the pharma crisis ensures sustainable growth in the US and prevents
collapse
Sullivan 11 (Thomas Sullivan, founder of Rockpointe Inc., former political consultant, “Study
Shows Importance of Biopharmaceutical Jobs For US Economy,” Policy and Medicine, July 12,
2011, http://www.policymed.com/2011/07/study-shows-importance-of-biopharmaceuticaljobs-for-us-economy-for-every-20-billion-loss-in-revenue.html)
Biopharmaceutical research companies produce the highest-value jobs, the types of jobs Americans want in the 21st
century economy, the kinds of jobs that can drive future economic growth. No other sector has the
ability to drive innovation, create high-quality jobs and provide new life-saving medicines for
patients. According to a recent report from the Battelle Technology Partnership Practice (TPP),
“nationwide, the biopharmaceutical sector supported a total of 4 million jobs in 2009, including nearly 675,000
direct jobs. Battelle is the world’s largest non‐profit independent research and development
organization, providing innovative solutions to the world’s most pressing needs through its four global businesses. TPP has
an established reputation in state‐by‐state assessment of the biopharmaceutical sector, and has recently undertaken
major impact assessment projects for the Human Genome Project, the nation’s biotechnology sector, and major bioscience
organizations such as Mayo Clinic. TPP has also been active in provision of analysis to industry organizations, including the Council
for American Medical Innovation, PhRMA and BIO‐the Biotechnology Industry Organization. Each job in a
biopharmaceutical research company supported almost 6 additional jobs in other sectors, ranging from
manufacturing jobs to construction and other building service jobs to contract researchers and child care providers. Together,
this biopharmaceutical sector‐related workforce received $258 billion in wages and benefits in
2009. “Battelle also found that across all occupations involved in the biopharmaceutical sector, the average wage is higher than
across all other private sector industries, due to the sector’s role as a ‘high value-added sector.” Specifically, the annual average
personal income of a biopharmaceutical worker was $118,690 in 2009 as compared to $64,278 in the overall economy. Additionally,
the biopharmaceutical sector’s total economic output (including direct, indirect and induced impacts) was
$918 billion in 2009. The sector generated an estimated $85 billion tax revenues in 2009—$33 billion in state and local and
more than $52 billion in federal. This impact comprises $382 billion in direct impact of biopharmaceutical businesses and $535
billion in indirect and induced impacts (an output multiplier of 2.4—meaning that every $1 dollar in output generated by
the biopharmaceutical sector generates another $1.4 in output in other sectors of the economy). To
put this export volume
into perspective, 2010’s total biopharmaceutical exports of $46.7 billion compares favorably to
other major U.S. exports including: automobiles ($38.4 billion in 2010 exports); plastics and rubber products ($25.9
billion); communications equipment ($27 billion) and computers ($12.5 billion). In addition, the U.S. Congressional Budget Office
noted that, “the
pharmaceutical industry is one of the most research‐intensive industries in the
United States and that pharmaceutical firms invest as much as five times more in research and
development, relative to their sales, than the average U.S. manufacturing firm.” At over $105,000 in biopharmaceutical R&D
per employee, the sector is way ahead of the average across all U.S. manufacturing which stands at about $10,000 per employee—
and is far ahead of the second and third ranked sectors of “communications equipment” and “semiconductors, which respectively
spend $63,000 and $40,000 per employee in R&D annually. PhRMA Statement on Battelle Report Consequently, Pharmaceutical Research and
Manufacturers of America (PhRMA) President and CEO John J. Castellani issued a statement discussing the results from this report and the biopharmaceutical research sector’s
impact on jobs and the American economy. Castellani asserted that, “at a time when the U.S. is facing a jobs crisis, evidenced by the terrible employment numbers from last
Friday, it is critical that our policymakers embrace dynamic and innovative business sectors such as the biopharmaceutical research sector and refrain from stifling job growth
through shortsighted proposals such as government-mandated price controls in Medicare Part D.” Specifically, the PhRMA CEO pointed to a new paper from the Battelle
Technology Partnership Practice, which underscored the pharmaceutical sector’s tremendous contribution to America’s economy. Castellani recognized that, “startling potential
job losses would result from undermining the business foundations of biopharmaceutical companies.” He noted that the Battelle report estimated “that a $20 billion per year
reduction in biopharmaceutical sector revenue would result in 260,000 job losses across the U.S. economy” and a $59 billion reduction in U.S. economic activity. As a result,
Castellani recognized that, “as the President and Congressional leaders negotiate an important agreement on the debt ceiling and the future of the nation’s economy, it is critical
that the jobs crisis is not exacerbated.” For example, Castellani noted how “the President and some in Congress have proposed including government-mandated rebates in
Medicare Part D as part of a debt ceiling agreement.” However, he recognized that “such a provision would have a dramatic negative effect on the economy and patients, and
could undermine the success of the Part D program, which has very high beneficiary satisfaction and has cost far less than original government projections.” He pointed to the
“Battelle numbers, which clearly demonstrated that reducing the biopharmaceutical sector’s annual revenue by $20 billion would be a serious blow to employment.” Castellani
added that, “while the research is not specific to any one policy or event, proposals being considered, such as government-mandated Part D rebates, would be expected to have
revenue impact of this magnitude.” Moreover, he noted that, “Part D is an unparalleled success, providing unprecedented access to life-saving medicines for seniors.”
Accordingly, Castellani asserted that PhRMA does not “believe policies that discourage R&D and cutting-edge science and that will inevitably slow the development of needed
The Battelle Report
quantifies the economic impact of the biopharmaceutical sector on the U.S. economy and jobs
using input/output analysis, measures the direct and indirect impacts of the biopharmaceutical sector, and
quantifies the economic impacts that would occur if biopharmaceutical revenues increase or
decrease from significant changes in the business operating environment. The report also highlights some of the
new medicines are fair for seniors waiting for new treatments against our most challenging and costly diseases.” Battelle Report
functional impacts of the sector—the wide‐ranging benefits provided through the biopharmaceutical sector’s contributions to
enhancing human health, improving life spans and sustaining the high quality‐of‐life that Americans enjoy—and assesses the
contributions of the biopharmaceutical sector to key areas of importance to our
economy— innovation, product exports and quality of jobs produced. The Battelle Report starts by
recognizing that the
biopharmaceutical sector has all of the characteristics for an ideal industry for
economic growth and sustainability in the U.S. Specifically, the biopharmaceutical sector:
Grows in output and employment even in tough economic times
Provides high wage, good quality jobs
Is innovative and deploys high‐technology to generate comparative advantage for U.S. companies
Generates significant exports that boost the U.S. economy
Has a strong supply chain that drives further economic growth across the economy
through “multiplier effects”
Builds on America’s long‐standing strengths and investment in fundamental and applied research
Encourages capital flows to sustain growth, and is profitable to provide funds for
reinvestment into the research and development (R&D) cycle;
Generates federal, state and local taxes and other economic contributions that support public services
Is sustainable and not a major drain on global resources
Is geographically dispersed, providing opportunities for job creation and economic growth
across many areas of the nation, not just a few selected places
Produces a product of value to society, something that improves the quality of life for humankind, including Improved
life spans (personal longevity) Improved productivity resulting from prevention and effective management
of disease and chronic conditions; and Reductions in unnecessary hospitalizations resulting in
potential cost‐offsets elsewhere in the health care system.
Fundamental to major progress in human longevity, reducing the marginalization of individuals from disease and disability, and
generally improving our quality‐of‐life, biopharmaceuticals are a unique contributor to societal and individual well‐being. Moreover,
the output of the biopharmaceutical sector is highly valued by society because the sector develops and manufactures a broad‐range
of unique products to treat disorders and diseases that, were they to go untreated, can ruin individual quality of life, personal
abilities and productivity. In many instances, biopharmaceuticals are central to helping to prevent and treat
a range of public health issues, address pandemic risk and thereby support national economic security. For example,
innovation in the biopharmaceutical sector, combined with the diagnostic and treatment skills of U.S. healthcare
professionals, has contributed to a lengthening of the average life span of Americans. In 1900, the expected life
span of an American at birth was just 47.3 years. With the advent of more modern medicines and advanced medical knowledge, life
expectancy at birth has seen a steady increase rising to 69.7 years in 1960, and 77.9 years in 2007. In fact, the National Bureau of
Economic Research reports that “there is a highly statistically significant relationship between the
number of new molecular entities [drugs] approved by the FDA and increased longevity.”
Furthermore, Lichtenberg found in a study of FDA data that "approval of priority‐review drugs—those considered by the FDA to
offer significant improvements in the treatment, diagnosis, or prevention of a disease—has a significant positive impact on
longevity.” Additionally, the American Hospital Association (AHA) notes that “advances in medicine contribute to
national economic growth by helping Americans recover more quickly from injury and illness,
avoid lost or ineffective work time due to flare‐ups of chronic conditions, and live longer with higher quality of
life.” Without effective medicines and treatments for illnesses, injuries, pain and chronic conditions, the
productivity of the U.S. economy would clearly be greatly impaired. Biopharmaceuticals are a
key contributor to a more productive and healthy America and U.S. economy. Beyond direct
employment in biopharmaceutical companies, the biopharmaceutical sector is the foundation upon which
one of the United States’ most dynamic innovation and business ecosystems is built. A large part of the
modern biomedical economy is built upon a robust foundation of biopharmaceutical companies that perform and
support advanced biomedical and technological R&D, and act as the funnel and distribution
engine for getting life‐saving and quality‐of‐life‐sustaining therapeutics to the marketplace. Providing R&D
impetus and funding, capital resources, technology licensing opportunities, and a sophisticated market
access and distribution system, the biopharmaceutical sector is of central importance to the
much broader biomedical and life sciences economy. Fueled by private investment capital, venture capital
investments, and public/private collaborations, and enabled by the U.S. open market system, the nation has been able to
advance biomedical innovation, which in turn has led to new start‐up companies, business
growth and exports across the world. Conclusion Despite the tremendous success in the biopharmaceutical industry,
emerging infectious diseases continue to present new challenges and a substantial volume of long‐standing diseases such as cancer,
diabetes, neurodegenerative diseases, psychiatric diseases, immunological diseases, etc. continue to demand novel treatments and
improved therapeutics. There are millions of people suffering from diseases and disorders for which a therapy has yet to be found.
The need for ongoing biopharmaceutical research and development is simply enormous. The only way the U.S. economy can stay
ahead of international competition is by using advanced R&D and innovation to drive the growth of high value‐added industries. By
leveraging investment in federal lab, university and industry R&D, our nation is able to produce high‐value, typically technologically
advanced products that the rest of the world values highly. In recent decades, life sciences have come to the fore as a
leading driver of U.S. technological innovation and competitive advantage, and the biopharmaceutical
sector is a key foundation of the life sciences innovation ecosystem. The Unites States’
biopharmaceutical industry produces products that save, sustain and improve lives, and the sector has a large and
significant economic impact, affecting many other key areas of the U.S. economy. Gains
or losses in biopharmaceutical sector revenues will be reflected in gains and losses across a
broad range of additionally important U.S. economic sectors that have robust supply
chain relationships with the biopharmaceutical sector.
Lagging industry strength ensures a downturn
Barnard 13—President of the Research Institute at Nationwide Children's Hospital (John,
"Thw United States at Risk of Losing Research Leadership". 10/20/13. The Columbus Dispatch.
www.dispatch.com/content/stories/science/2013/10/20/1-united-states-at-risk-of-losingresearch-leadership.html, TD)
One of Leshner’s major themes was the increasing globalization of research. The
epicenter of scientific research and
innovation used to be in North America and Europe, but it is steadily moving from the West to
Asia.¶ This movement can be quantified. For example, research-and-development expenditures in Asia now exceed spending in the
United States.¶ And the gap is widening. From 2012 to 2013, U.S. research-and-development
spending decreased by 5 percent while expenditures in China increased by 15 percent. The
annual number of research publications is growing faster in Asia than elsewhere in the world.¶
Simply put, U.S. dominance is fading after a decade of federal research funding stagnation. Growth of research funding
by the U.S. pharmaceutical industry also lags other countries.¶ With the national debate about the
government shutdown, these collective observations got me thinking about the implications if the United States loses its leadership
position in research. Is the loss of U.S. eminence, which will certainly happen if trends continue, so terribly bad? ¶ Subra Suresh,
former director of the National Science Foundation, recently wrote that “good science anywhere is good for science everywhere.”
From a humanitarian viewpoint, this seems true. Humankind benefits from an expanding global-research enterprise.¶ In support of
this optimistic interpretation of trends, Leshner pointed out in his speech that authors of nearly half of the research published in the
journal Science are from more than one country. This implies that the world’s best research involves collaborative teams comprised
of the top scientific minds on the planet.¶ My view is this: Even though the world benefits from globalization of research and
development, there is certain harm in the United States’ losing its dominant position as a research-
and-development leader.¶ A significant fraction of the U.S. scientific work force includes trainees and career scientists from
the international community. Historically, these talented scientists come to the United States to train with the best and the brightest.
And they remain in U.S. industry and at our universities because our facilities and resources are currently the most advanced in the
world.¶ But
should recent trends continue, foreign scientists will not have to come to the
United States to realize their career dreams, and established American scientists will move
abroad. In fact, most of us know colleagues who have moved abroad or have strongly considered doing so. The result is a
vicious cycle of brain drain that will unwind a U.S. innovation economy that has
dominated the global scene for more than a century.¶ At the time this column was written, the National Institutes of Health, the
National Science Foundation and other federal research programs had been closed for more than two weeks. This adds insult to
injury and hardly seems the right path to restore U.S. global leadership in research and innovation.¶ As a society,
we should celebrate and embrace global progress in research. At the same time, Congress should aggressively reinvigorate our
country’s investment in research so that we lead the world as we have for so long.¶
Our economic future depends
on it.
Nuclear war
Lieberthal and O’Hanlon 12 - *Director of the John L. Thornton China Center at Brookings AND Director of Research and Senior
Fellow Foreign Policy (Kenneth and Michael, “The Real National Security Threat: America's Debt”, The Brookings Institute,
7/10,http://www.brookings.edu/research/opinions/2012/07/10-economy-foreign-policy-lieberthal-ohanlon) EL
Lastly, American
economic weakness undercuts U.S. leadership abroad. Other countries sense our
weakness and wonder about our purported decline. If this perception becomes more widespread, and the
case that we are in decline becomes more persuasive, countries will begin to take actions that reflect
their skepticism about America's future. Allies and friends will doubt our commitment and may pursue nuclear
weapons for their own security, for example; adversaries will sense opportunity and be less restrained in throwing
around their weight in their own neighborhoods. The crucial Persian Gulf and Western Pacific regions will likely
become less stable. Major war will become more likely.
scenario 2 is disease
pharmaceutical industry solves it
Lo, Progressive Media Reporter, 2014,
(Chris, "Drug prices: profits before patients?" Progressive Media, 6-9, PAS) Accessed on
LexisNexis 9-10-14
A new UCL report questioning the use of off-label drugs to save money has been criticised for propping up an unfair status quo in the pharma industry.
Pharma companies charge high premiums for patented medications to recover costs, maximise
profits and help fund new R&D, but is there another way of funding high-risk research while avoiding budget-busting prices at the
other end of the pipeline?¶ The pharmaceutical industry has been responsible for a host of medical
miracles over the past century, from disease-eradicating vaccines to revolutionary new
treatments for a wide range of cancers and long-term chronic conditions like diabetes. Research
undertaken by private pharmaceutical companies and bio-tech firms, alongside public research institutions, has
improved the length and quality of millions of lives.¶ In light of the industry's achievements, it's natural to think of it
as something of a sacred cow, a special case that should, to a certain extent, be given extra leeway to ensure it can continue bankrolling life-saving
medical innovations. That status also makes it easy to forget the price tag that comes with many of these innovations - a price tag that has been rising
steadily over time.¶ In the US, for example, annual cancer care costs are expected to rise from $104bn in 2006 to $173bn in 2020, according to the
American Society of Clinical Oncology. A major component of that increase is the rising number of cancer diagnoses along with other factors, but with
data from the Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center showing that 15 cancer treatments launched in the last five years cost more than $10,000 a
month, and many existing drugs getting pricier every year, the fact remains that the cost of innovative, patent-protected drugs is becoming increasingly
difficult for patients and cash-strapped health systems to cover.
Extinction
Clapper 13 – Director of National Intelligence (James R., “Worldwide Threat Assessment of the US Intelligence Community
Senate Select Committee on Intelligence”, 3/12/13; <www.intelligence.senate.gov/130312/clapper.pdf>)//Beddow
Scientists continue to discover previously unknown pathogens in humans that made the “jump”
from animals—zoonotic diseases. Examples are: a prion disease in cattle that jumped in the 1980s to cause variant
Creutzeldt-Jacob disease; a bat henipavirus that in 1999 became known as the human Nipah Virus; a bat corona virus that jumped to
humans in 2002 to cause Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome (SARS); and another SARS-like corona virus recently identified in
individuals who have been in Saudi Arabia, which might also have bat origins. Human and livestock population
growth and encroachment into jungles increase human exposure to crossovers. No one can
predict which pathogen will be the next to spread to humans, or when or where
such a development will occur, but humans will continue to be vulnerable to
pandemics, most of which will probably originate in animals. An easily
transmissible, novel respiratory pathogen that kills or incapacitates more than
one percent of its victims is among the most disruptive events possible. Such an
outbreak would result in a global pandemic that causes suffering and death in
every corner of the world, probably in fewer than six months. This is not a
hypothetical threat. History is replete with examples of pathogens sweeping populations that
lack immunity, causing political and economic upheaval, and influencing the
outcomes of wars—for example, the 1918 Spanish flu pandemic affected military operations
during World War I and caused global economic disruptions. The World Health Organization has described
one influenza pandemic as “the epidemiological equivalent of a flash flood.” However, slow-spreading pathogens, such as HIV/AIDS,
have been just as deadly, if not more so. Such a pathogen with pandemic potential may have already
jumped to humans somewhere; HIV/AIDS entered the human population more than 50 years before it was recognized
and identified. In addition, targeted therapeutics and vaccines might be inadequate to keep up with
the size and speed of the threat, and drug-resistant forms of diseases, such as tuberculosis,
gonorrhea, and Staphylococcus aureus, have already emerged.
Specifically cannabis solves drug-resistant diseases
Kusari et al 14—Department of Biochemical and Chemical Engineering, TU Dortmund
(Parijat, with Michael Spiteller, Oliver Kayser and Souvik Kusari, “Recent Advances in Research on Cannabis sativa L.
Endophytes and Their Prospect for the Pharmaceutical Industry”, R. N. Kharwar et al. (eds.), Microbial Diversity and
Biotechnology in Food Security, Springer, dml)
In the last decade, discovery
and intensive in- vestigation of plant-associated microorganisms, termed
led to the possibility of exploring the potential benefits of
these promising organ- isms in agriculture, medicinal, and pharmaceuti- cal sectors. Endophytes can be
endophytic microorganisms (or endophytes) have
defined, in a gen- eralist manner, as a group of microorganisms that infect the internal tissues of plant without caus- ing any immediate symptom of
infection and/or visible manifestation of disease, and live in mu- tualistic association with plants for at least a part of their life cycle (Bacon and White
2000; Kusari and Spiteller 2011, 2012; Kusari et al. 2012c). Endophytes are ubiquitously existent in almost every plant tissue examined till date (Guerin
1898; Redecker et al. 2000; Strobel 2002; Stan- iek et al. 2008). With
the increasing enormity of global health
problems, and the incidence of drug- resistant microorganisms and new diseases, it has
become clear that faster and effective pursuits for drug discovery and sustainable production
must be made. This cumulative crisis has already led to the discovery and characterization of
potent endophytes which can produce bioactive natural products, occasionally mimetic to their associ- ated host plants (Puri et al. 2005,
2006; Eyberger et al. 2006; Kour et al. 2008; Kusari et al. 2008, 2009a, b, c, 2011, 2012b; Shweta et al. 2010). Endophytes are also known to produce a
diverse range of biologically active secondary metabo- lites (Strobel and Daisy 2003; Strobel et al. 2004; Zhang et al. 2006; Gunatilaka 2006; Staniek et
al. 2008; Suryanarayanana et al. 2009; Aly et al. 2010; Kharwar et al. 2011) that are known to contribute to host plant tolerance against vari- ous
environmental stress herbivory, heat, salt, disease, and drought (Stone et al. 2000; Redman et al. 2002; Arnold et al. 2003; Rodriguez et al. 2004,
Even with such colossal
amounts and breadth of successful discoveries of potentially beneficial endophytes, it has still
not been possible to utilize them commercially for the “sustained production” of the desired
phar- maceutically valuable compounds (Kusari et al. 2012c, 2013b). Therefore, understanding of the multitude of endophyte
2008; Waller et al. 2005; Márquez et al. 2007; Rodriguez and Redman 2008; Porras-Alfa- ro and Bayman 2011).
relationships with host plants needs more attention and investigation in various related aspects such as the endophyte– plant interactions, multispecies
crosstalk, and links with herbivores and predators.
Endophytic Microorganisms Associated with C. sativa L.
Our work on the investigation of endophytic mi- crobial community harbored in C. sativa L. was
based on the recent advancements made in devis- ing various strategies of discovering
endophytes based on the rationale of their cost–benefit rela- tionship with their hosts in order to exploit their potential
beneficial efficacies. Since this plant is protected by national and international legisla- tions and
regulations, we sampled and imported the C. sativa L. plants from the legal farmer Bedrocan BV Medicinal Cannabis (The Neth-
erlands) with the permission of the Federal In- stitute for Drugs and Medical Devices (Bundes- institutfür Arzneimittel und
Medizinprodukte, BfArM), Germany under the license number 458 49 89. Plant specimens have been depos- ited at the Bedrocan
BV with voucher numbers (A1)05.41.050710. We then isolated a plethora of endophytes (Fig. 1.2) and subjected
them to various culture conditions and parameters and even challenged them (dual-culture antagonistic assays of the fungal isolates) with two major phytopahogens of the Cannabis plant, namely B. cinerea and T. roseum,
which are potent green- house threats for the cultivars and known to cause disasters at epidemic scales (Barloy and Pelhate 1962;
Bush Doctor 1985). Our target was to evaluate the endophytes within the ecological and biochemical
contexts, especially focusing on their biocontrol potential to thwart the host- specific
phytopathogens. This led us towards the identification of potent endophytes that not only
proved to be promising biocontrol agents against the specific phytopathogens, but also
demonstrat- ed qualities of being a natural reservoir of bioac- tive secondary metabolites
(Kusari et al. 2013a). To the best of our knowledge, this work was the first to report the incidence, diversity
analysis, and qualitative biocontrol potential of endophyt- ic fungi harbored in C. sativa L.
plants. Eleven different kinds of antagonistic interactions are observed when the endophytes were challenged with the
phytopathogens in five different media, namely Sabouraud agar (SA), nutrient agar (NA), potato dextrose agar (PDA), malt extract
agar (MEA), and water agar (WA), respectively. This highlights the fact that endophytes are ca- pable of producing
different compounds under varying conditions which are otherwise “cryptic” metabolites . All the
endophyte isolates showed antagonistic potency to some extent against ei- ther one or both of the phytopathogens in vary- ing the
media, but three of the isolates proved to exhibit prominent complete inhibition (Kusari et al. 2013a). Many endophytes started
sporulat- ing in NA, as expected, revealing their response to the unfavorable condition while countering the confronting pathogen.
Interestingly, the same en- dophyte isolates showed various other interesting inhibition patterns such as formation of a clear halo
(inhibition zone), release of exudates with- out even physical contact of mycelia, and change of mycelia color among others, which
accompa- nied the inhibitions.
Plant–fungal associations are always accom- panied by various physical and chemical inter- actions thereby establishing them either
in a localized and/or systemic manner (Kusari et al. 2012c). The varying assortment of antagonisms demonstrated by the
endophytes against the host phytopathogens indicates that their efficacies are either due to the production of secondary metabolites
or the immediate intermediates in the biosynthetic pathway of those metabolites, triggered upon pathogen challenge. The interactions were in complete agreement with the well- known “one strain many compounds (OSMAC)” approach (Kusari et al. 2012c),
thereby revealing that endophytes are capable of producing cryptic metabolites when elicited under certain selec- tive interacting
conditions apart from the normal metabolites produced under normal fermentation conditions. Our work not only reports
endophytic fungi as potent biocontrol agents under suitable conditions but also provides a
platform to com- pare the endophytes of the same plant from dif- ferent wild populations and
collection centers (if accessible) for global-scale diversity analysis and the production of successive
bioactive secondary metabolites (target and/or nontarget) with strong therapeutic potential .
Outlook
The potential of inimitable fungal endophytes adept in biosynthesizing bioactive metabolites,
occasionally those imitative to their host plants, has irrefutably been recognized. Endophytes can be
accepted as new sources for gene- and drug discovery in medical sciences and will provide, by
distinct genomic blueprints, new insights in gene assembly and expression control. Nonethe- less, there is
still no known breakthrough in the biotechnological production of these bioactive natural
products using endophytes. It is imperious to expound the metabolome in endophytes corre- lating to their host plants on
a case-by-case basis to comprehend how the biogenetic gene clusters are regulated and their expression is affected in planta and ex
planta (i.e., by environmental changes and axenic culture conditions). Only a deeper understanding of the host–
endophyte re- lationship at the molecular level might
help to in- duce and optimize secondary metabolite
produc- tion under laboratory conditions to yield desired metabolites in a sustained manner
using endo- phytes. This can be achieved by challenging the endophytes by specific and nonspecific patho- gens, especially
those attacking their host plants, by devising suitable coculture and dual-culture setups (qualitative, followed by suitable quantitative experiments). The pathogens encountered can serve as an inducer that might trigger the pro- duction of defense secondary
metabolites with prodrug-like properties. Once the production of a target or nontarget natural product with a
desired biological activity has been achieved, techniques such as genome mining, metabolic
engineering, and metagenomics could be utilized to influence the manipulation of secondary
metabolite pro- duction by endophytic fungi or the plant itself by directed infection with beneficial
endophytes (Kusari et al. 2012c, d). Such directed investiga- tion with the scientific rationale of mimicking
the natural plant–endophyte–pathogen interactions should be pursued to warrant a virtually
incessant discovery and sustained supply of bioactive pro- drugs against the current
and emerging diseases.
Extinction
Davies 8—Department of Microbiology and Immunology at the University of British Columbia
(Julian, “Resistance redux: Infectious diseases, antibiotic resistance and the future of mankind”, EMBO Rep. Jul 2008; 9(Suppl 1):
S18–S21, dml)
For many years, antibiotic-resistant
pathogens have been recognized as one of the main threats to
human survival, as some experts predict a return to the pre-antibiotic era. So far, national efforts to
exert strict control over the use of antibiotics have had limited success and it is not yet possible to achieve
worldwide concerted action to reduce the growing threat of multi-resistant pathogens: there are too many parties involved.
Furthermore, the problem has not yet really arrived on the radar screen of many physicians and
clinicians, as antimicrobials still work most of the time—apart from the occasional news headline that yet another nasty superbug
has emerged in the local hospital. Legislating the use of antibiotics for non-therapeutic applications and curtailing general public
access to them is conceivable, but legislating the medical profession is an entirely different matter.
In order to meet the growing problem of antibiotic resistance among pathogens, the discovery
and development of new antibiotics and alternative treatments for infectious diseases, together with
tools for rapid diagnosis that will ensure effective and appropriate use of existing antibiotics, are imperative. How the
health services, pharmaceutical industry and academia respond in the coming years will determine
the future of treating infectious diseases. This challenge is not to be underestimated: microbes
are formidable adversaries and, despite our best efforts, continue to exact a toll on the human
race.
Burnout is wrong
Kerscher 14—Professor, unclear where because every website about him is in German
(Karl-Heinz, “Space Education”, Wissenschaftliche Studie, 2014, 92 Seiten, dml)
The death toll for a pandemic is equal to the virulence, the deadliness of the pathogen or pathogens,
multiplied by the number of people eventually infected. It has been hypothesized that there is an
upper limit to the virulence of naturally evolved pathogens. This is because a pathogen that quickly
kills its hosts might not have enough time to spread to new ones, while one that kills its hosts
more slowly or not at all will allow carriers more time to spread the infection, and thus likely out-compete a
more lethal species or strain. This simple model predicts that if virulence and transmission are not
linked in any way, pathogens will evolve towards low virulence and rapid transmission. However, this
assumption is not always valid and in more complex models, where the level of virulence and the
rate of transmission are related, high levels of virulence can evolve. The level of virulence that is
possible is instead limited by the existence of complex populations of hosts, with different susceptibilities to
infection, or by some hosts being geographically isolated. The size of the host population and competition between different strains
of pathogens can also alter virulence. There are numerous historical examples of pandemics that have had
a devastating effect on a large number of people, which makes the possibility of global pandemic
a realistic threat to human civilization.
2AC
CARTELS
Outweighs diversification and lash out – guts resources that fund violence
Robelo, 12 [“Demand Reduction or Redirection? Channeling Illicit Drug Demand towards a
Regulated Supply to Diminish Violence in Latin America”, Research Coordinator for the Drug
Policy Alliance, 91 OR. L. REV. 1227, p. Hein online]
B. Levels of Violence It is also impossible to foresee how regulation would affect levels of violence. Some analysts believe a shortterm increase in violence is possible (as competition over a smaller market could intensify), but that violence in the longer term will
decline.106 Some analysts point out that organized crime may further diversify into other activities,
such as extortion and kidnapping, though these have been shown to be considerably less
profitable than drug trafficking. As one scholar notes, given the profitability of the drug trade, “it
would take roughly 50,000 kidnappings to equal 10% of cocaine revenues from the U.S.107 While the
American mafia certainly diversified into other criminal endeavors after the Repeal of alcohol
Prohibition, homicide rates nevertheless declined dramatically. 108 Combining marijuana
regulation with medical regulatory models for heroin, cocaine and methamphetamine could strike a major blow to
the corrosive economic power of violent trafficking organizations, diminishing their ability to
perpetrate murder, hire recruits, purchase weapons, corrupt officials, operate with impunity,
and terrorize societies. Moreover, these approaches promise concrete results—potentially
significant reductions in DTO revenues—unlike all other strategies that Mexico or the United
States have tried to date.109 Criminal organizations would still rely on other activities for their
income, but they would be left weaker and less of a threat to security. Furthermore, the United
States and Latin American governments would save resources currently wasted on prohibition
enforcement and generate new revenues in taxes—resources which could be applied more
effectively towards confronting violence and other crimes that directly threaten public
safety.
No uniqueness – diversification now
Francis, 14 [Legalizing Pot Makes Mexican Cartels Even More Dangerous The Fiscal Times By
David Francis January 7, 2014 1:30 PM, http://finance.yahoo.com/news/legalizing-pot-makesmexican-cartels-182600895.html]
Reuter
said he
expects California to decriminalize pot
If California legalizes, that changes things
in the coming years. He said the only reason a 2010 referendum to legalize marijuana failed was because it was poorly worded.
“These two states account for 5 percent of U.S. pot consumption. It’s not a big deal.
,” he said. Reuter added that the lack of
pushback from conservative interest groups also makes wider decriminalization more likely. Just one group — Smart Approaches to Marijuana, headed by former Rep. Patrick Kennedy, who has struggled with substance abuse — is vocally opposed to
decriminalization. Other conservative groups have been oddly quiet, Reuter said. “One of the fascinating things is how little real criticism there’s been from the right,” he said. “Social conservatives have not made much of this.” That could change since a new study
Grayson, an
expert on Mexican cartels at The College of William & Mary
Mexican syndicates are
diversifying their sources of revenue beyond marijuana
They are heavily involved in
kidnapping
extortion, prostitution, migrant smuggling,
from Northwestern University shows teenagers who smoke marijuana daily may suffer changes in brain structure that resemble schizophrenia. Related: Study Finds Link Between Teen Pot Use and Schizophrenia George W.
in Virginia, said, “
, cocaine and heroin.
— number one in the world —
” he said. “In addition, the cartels are ever-more active in stealing and exporting
opioids such as Oxycontin and Roxicodone. Even cigarette smuggling is on the rise.” Kidnapping has become so common that some have even been caught on tape. According to Mexico’s National Institute of Statistics and Geography, more than 105,000 people were
kidnapped in 2012. Grayson also said that
the cartels are stealing from energy companies
instance, in 2012, the Mexican Army estimated that 538,000 gallons of fuel were stolen in May in Veracruz alone.
, a practice more common in West Africa than Latin America. For
SOLVENCY
Existing demand means the market can tolerate massive investment
Chang, 14 – staff for Main Street; cites a report from the ArcView Group, a cannabis
investment and research firm (Ellen, “Is Marijuana the Next Bubble?” 2/26,
http://www.mainstreet.com/article/marijuana-next-bubble
Legal marijuana businesses are cropping up in many states, but those who have definitive
business models and mainstream strategies are able to attract funding from investors, boost
their growth and achieve scale.
The potential for the marijuana market to increase to $10.2 billion within the next five years or a
700% increase from the current U.S. market value is very likely, said Douglas Leighton,
managing partner of Dutchess Capital, a New York investment firm which manages $125 million
in assets, has $200 million in direct investments and made its first investment in the cannabis
industry recently. The "real growth" will arise when more states decriminalize the use of
marijuana.
"I've never seen it where a market already exists for the product," he said. "The market is already
there and it will gain wider acceptance."
Support for legalizing marijuana is widespread as support from Americans rose to an all-time
high of 58%, a 10-point increase in a year, according to a Gallup poll last October. Washington
and Colorado are expected to add $359 million and $208 million each to their respective
markets in 2014 for adult use. Another 14 states are projected to pass adult use regulations in
the next five years, including Alaska, Arizona, California, Delaware, Hawaii, Massachusetts,
Maine, Maryland, Missouri, New Hampshire, Nevada, Oregon, Rhode Island and Vermont, the
ArcView report said.
While there are very few public companies in this sector currently, the demand for them
remains high, said Leighton. Some of the stocks appear to be expensive, but have risen
substantially in the past six months, he said.
"I think the public stocks have gotten a little ahead of themselves," Leighton said. "There is a
large amount of capital chasing a small pool."
Investors should conduct due diligence on companies before they make an investment and to
ensure the businesses are operating within state regulations, he said. Investing directly into
dispensaries or companies who grow marijuana is not a good option since most of the
operations remain smaller because of state regulations, Leighton said.
Depending on an investors' risk tolerance, consumers should consider investing in ancillary
companies instead who do not directly handle the cannabis or its related byproducts, he said.
Dutchess Capital created http://www.mmjinvest.com/ to connect investors with adult and
medical marijuana entrepreneurs.
"If you can take risk and want a better return on your capital, then those companies which
control the plant are a great place to be," he said. "If your tolerance for risk is lower, then invest
in the other businesses where there is greater growth potential."
Companies which are involved in controlling the cultivation of the core commodity and develop
a brand around it "maintain the best opportunity in the industry," said Derek Peterson, CEO of
Terra Tech. (TRTC), a public company based in Irvine, Calif. which manufactures agricultural
equipment.
"From my perch, there is going to be a value in the companies that own and control state issued
permits for retail dispensaries and commercial cultivation throughout the country," he said.
Investing in the marijuana market has the same caveats as allocating money in a startup or
emerging market, said Peterson, a former senior vice president with Morgan Stanley Smith
Barney. Investors should examine the company's valuations and potential market size, but also
the space and location it operates in, he said.
"Investors should look at whether the company has a good product or service and if they are
operating in a location that is supportive of medical cannabis-related companies," Peterson said.
"There are areas in California and other legal states where the local government is pushing these
businesses out through zoning and other restrictions. This industry is unique as it operates in a
quasi-legal environment due to the dichotomy between state and federal law."
Companies traded on the OTC QB and QX markets are required to have independent audited
reporting requirements, he said.
"When looking at public companies I would focus on fully reporting companies," he said. "I
believe this industry is still in its infancy and far away from any level of maturation."
Until marijuana is federally legal, investors should shy away from businesses which are involved
in grow operations, said Bill Chaaban, CEO of Creative Edge Nutrition Inc. (FITX), a public
vitamin nutritional supplement company which plans to produce marijuana for medicinal use in
the U.S. and Canada through its subsidiary CEN Biotech. The market could generate as much as
$10 billion in revenue by 2018 and outpace the sales of tobacco and alcohol combined, he said.
"I think it is definitely a lot larger," Chaaban said. "You have a huge percent of the population
currently using marijuana that possess medical marijuana licenses who are really recreational
users. There are many people who partake in it and it will just become legal. It is definitely
mainstream."
The margins for the industry will be shrinking in the future, but investing in the cannabis
market is not for short term investors looking for quick gains, said Justin Hartfield, CEO of
Ghost Group, a Newport Beach, Calif. operating company that owns and manages marijuana
technology companies including Weedmaps, a listings and reviews site for marijuana
dispensaries.
"You need to be passionate about the product," he said. "This is going to be comparable to the
wine industry and bigger than the tobacco industry in the future. The black market is probably
five to 10 times larger than legal sales. There is always demand."
No impact – bubbles don’t eliminate the industry AND they foster more
sustainable innovation
Gross, 07 [Pop! Why bubbles are great for the economy, By Daniel Gross,American journalist
and author. Since July 2012 he has been editor of global finance for Daily Beast/Newsweek. He
was formerly Senior Editor at Newsweek, and between 2010 and 2012 was employed at Yahoo!
Finance http://www.slate.com/articles/business/moneybox/2007/05/pop.single.html]
If you blew the kids' college fund on Pets.com stock back in 2000, or dropped $800,000 last year on that spec house in Phoenix that you knew you could flip for $1.4 million,
Investment bubbles are great for the economy . Yes, those periodic
outbursts of investor insanity, which inevitably degenerate into venality, corruption, and searing losses—America needs them! In my
new book, Pop! Why Bubbles Are Great for the Economy, I explain why Americans have misunderstood the frenzies, manias, and stampedes that periodically seize us. In
that magical world known only to a few economists, where resources are allocated efficiently and
investors and consumers behave rationally, bubbles would always be unambiguously negative.
They cause all sorts of distortions and silly, self-defeating behavior (buying Amazon.com at $400). But that's not the world in
which we live, especially in the United States. We are not blessed with a population composed entirely
of hyper-rational individuals. And the government doesn't control the deployment of revolutionary inventions. As a result, new
technologies and ways of doing business are always rolled out in fits and starts. What's more, the excitement of
you probably won't believe me when I say:
a new technology interacts with some of the more unstable components of America's character—boundless optimism, a tendency toward entrepreneurship, a tolerance of
creative destruction, and greed—to produce a kind of mania. So, every time a hot new technology comes along (whether it's the telegraph or the Internet), Americans collectively
Looking back through the last 150 years, a familiar pattern
emerges . A wonderful new technology or economic idea arrives. A few good years of solid
growth help engender a sense that things are different and that new rules apply. Hype and rosy projections—
lose their minds—and then lose their shirts.
from Irving Fisher's 1929 prediction of a "permanently high plateau" to Dow 36,000-—justify investing at stratospheric levels. The trend, previously confined to the business
And
then, pop! The bubble bursts, heroes become goats, and bankruptcies spread. As corruption and venality are exposed, self-loathing and recriminations
community, crosses over into popular culture. Everyone's buying stock, investing venture capital, refinancing a mortgage, installing compact fluorescent light bulbs.
rule the day. (See: subprime lending, spring 2007.) And that's when all the moralizing narratives about the tragedy of bubbles get written. But this is only half the story!
After all, the process of growth and innovation doesn't end when a bubble bursts.
The Internet wasn't unplugged and shut down in 2002. In fact, once you gain a little
historical distance from bubbles, it is clear that some bubbles—some, not all—leave behind
something that is a little bit boring but extremely useful: infrastructure. The bubbles that have
left behind commercial infrastructure have been incredibly important contributors to America's
remarkable long-term economic performance. Simply put, bubbles are how new commercial infrastructure gets
built in this country. In the 1840s and 1850s, European governments slowly strung up telegraphs from large city to large city. But in the United States, bubbledrunk entrepreneurs rampaged throughout the countryside, stringing up competing and often redundant wires way ahead of demand. Most went bankrupt. In the 1880s, vast
competing, and often redundant, rail networks were built way ahead of demand. By 1894 about a quarter of the rails were in bankruptcy. The 1990s saw an orgy of commercial
Americans recover from failure very quickly. All that
infrastructure wasn't torn down—it was consolidated, taken over by new investors with lower
cost bases, and reused. The cheap, pervasive telegraph led to American dominance in the national and international market in information—and longinfrastructure built for the Internet. We all know how that ended. But
lasting businesses like the Associated Press and the Chicago Board of Trade. The cheap, pervasive national railroad network led to an integrated market in goods and
The
Internet pop has left us with Web 2.0—Facebook and Skype, MySpace and YouTube, and, most of
all, Google. Each of these companies either was started or gained critical mass after the Internet
bubble burst. Each gained tremendous scale overnight thanks to all the cheap excess capacity
built during the 1990s bubble. During bubbles, a second type of infrastructure is built, too: the
mental infrastructure. The money raised during bubbles doesn't just go into the incinerator. It is spent on marketing, advertising, promotion, hype, and brand
commodities—and long-lasting businesses such as department stores, mail-order retailers like Sears, and national brands from Coca-Cola to Procter & Gamble.
awareness. Bubble-era companies, desperate for traffic, discount furiously, pay rebates, offer free shipping, and run their businesses on negative margins—all as part of a heroic
effort to coax consumers and businesses to spend their money in fundamentally different ways. The telegraphs slashed per-word rates to compete with the mail and with each
other. The railroads slashed freight rates to compete with canals and rivers, and with each other. In the 1990s, the entire e-commerce sector spent furiously to persuade
Most of
the pioneering Internet bubble-era companies failed as businesses. But they succeeded in
making millions of people believe that it was safe, efficient, and desirable to conduct business
online. That mental infrastructure didn't disappear after the bust. People didn't suddenly stop
buying things online in 2001. According to Forrester Research, e-commerce more than
doubled between 2001 and 2006, to $211.4 billion. Post-bust innovators were able to tap into both a commercial physical infrastructure (near-universal broadband)
consumers and businesses to take the leap of faith and buy stuff—stocks, books, airline tickets, pet food, groceries, diamonds, chemicals, you name it—online.
and a huge installed base of customers. Thus, businesses that were stillborn during the boom (Webvan, advertising-supported video sites) can thrive after the bust (FreshDirect,
Today the services-driven U.S. economy is showing a remarkable capacity to blow
and deflate bubbles quickly . With the assistance of Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan, we transitioned seamlessly from Internet bubble to
YouTube).
real-estate bubble to alternative-energy bubble in just six years. That makes the mental infrastructure more important than ever. Take the housing bubble that just popped.
Millions of people will get hurt—and hurt badly—as housing prices fall and ARMs are reset higher. The upsides of bubbles are always hardest to see when things are collapsing.
(Raise your hand if, in 2001 and 2002, you thought an Internet search and advertising company would be worth $146 billion in 2007.) But the mental and commercial
infrastructure surrounding real-estate credit will remain. The culture of refinancing, which proved a huge boon to the economy throughout the 1990s and first half of this
decade, will stay with us. So, too, will important bubble-era services like Zillow that empower consumers. These efforts to make a virtue out of some of the worst tendencies in
the American economic character may sound like a naive exercise of hope over experience. But in my book, experience should give us hope—even if the housing bubble continues
to wreak damage on the economy and the alternative-energy space is getting bubbly. It is possible, even rational, to be both short-term gloomy and long-term optimistic.
Those who believe that the nation's experience with bubbles is all gray cloud and no silver lining
need to ask where we would be without the irrational exuberance. Without the disasters of
Global Crossing and Worldcom, would we still have Google?
ASPEC
Seriously, Elmore 80?
US Legal No Date ("United States Federal Government Law & Legal Definition."
definitions.uslegal.com/u/united-states-federal-government/)
The United States Federal Government is established by the US Constitution. The Federal Government shares
sovereignty over the United Sates with the individual governments of the States of US. The
Federal government has three branches: i) the legislature, which is the US Congress, ii) Executive, comprised of the President and
Vice president of the US and iii) Judiciary. The US Constitution prescribes a system of separation of powers and ‘checks and
balances’ for the smooth functioning of all the three branches of the Federal Government. The US Constitution limits the powers of
the Federal Government to the powers assigned to it; all powers not expressly assigned to the Federal Government are reserved to
the States or to the people.
T—NEARLY ALL
Nearly all means they can create small exceptions to the plan – we don’t require
mathematical certainty – they just have to legalize the overwhelming majority of
the area
Boochever, 1 – Circuit Judge for the UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE
NINTH CIRCUIT (CALIFORNIA TEACHERS ASSOCIATION; NORMA STEINER; IRELLA
PEREZ; KRISTIN WORTHMAN; ASSOCIATION OF MEXICAN AMERICAN EDUCATORS;
CALIFORNIA ASSOCIATION FOR ASIAN-PACIFIC BILINGUAL EDUCATION; NATIONAL
ASSOCIATION OF BILINGUAL EDUCATORS; EMILY PALACIO; ASSOCIATION OF
CALIFORNIA SCHOOL ADMINISTRATORS, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. STATE BOARD OF
EDUCATION, and its members; YVONNE W. LARSON; ROBERT L. TRIGG; TIMOTHY C.
DRAPER; KATHRYN DRONENBERG; MARION JOSEPH; MEGAN KEPHART; MARION
MCDOWELL; JANET NICHOLAS; GERTI B. THOMAS; MARINA TSE; DELAINE EASTIN, in
her official capacity as the State Superintendent of Public Instruction, Defendants-Appellees,
RON UNZ; SARINA FRIAS; SYLVIA NMI MARTINEZ; ANGELINA MORFIN; CENTER FOR
EQUAL OPPORTUNITY, Defendants-Intervenors-Appellees. No. 99-56784 UNITED STATES
COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT 271 F.3d 1141; 2001 U.S. App. LEXIS 24948;
2001 Cal. Daily Op. Service 9804; 2001 Daily Journal DAR 12259, lexis)
Plaintiffs contend that the uncertainty about which activities are covered by Proposition 227 is
compounded by the uncertainty about how much non-English is permitted during these
activities. The initiative requires that teachers present [**26] the curriculum "overwhelmingly"
in English or" nearly all" in English. Cal. Educ. Code § 306(b) and (d). Plaintiffs argue that these
terms are too vague to give them sufficient notice of how much English they must speak to avoid
liability.
The terms "overwhelmingly" and "nearly all," like "curriculum" and "instruction," are terms of
common understanding. Although they are not readily translated into a mathematical
percentage, the First Amendment does not require them to be. See Grayned, 408 U.S. at 110
("We can never expect mathematical certainty from our language."). HN16Go to this Headnote
in the case.To satisfy heightened vagueness scrutiny, it is sufficient that the vagueness of these
terms does not result in the chilling of a substantial amount of legitimate expression. See Young,
427 U.S. at 60.
Here, it is unlikely that the ambiguity in the terms "overwhelmingly" and "nearly all" will chill
any more than a negligible amount of non-English speech. Plaintiffs admit that, "realistically,
educators do not have the option to speak to students exclusively in English" because they have
an affirmative obligation to effectively impart knowledge to students and because some school
districts [**27] require educators to use some non-English. This means that, despite any
vagueness inherent in the terms "overwhelmingly" and" nearly all," it is highly unlikely that
educators will restrict themselves to speaking English only. Instead, by Plaintiffs' own account,
educators will continue to use some amount of non-English. In light of these circumstances, we
have no reason to believe that any chilling effect caused by the above terms will be more than
negligible. Cf. Bates v. State Bar of Arizona, 433 U.S. 350, 380-81, 53 L. Ed. 2d 810, 97 S. Ct.
2691 (1977) (commercial speech unlikely to be chilled because commercial entities have strong
economic interest in engaging in such speech).
Moreover, even if some teachers, out of fear of liability, would limit their instructional speech to
English only, it is unlikely [*1153] that the amount of unspoken non-English would be
substantial. The amount of speech chilled, i.e.., the difference between "nearly all" English and
"all" English, is necessarily small. The same is true with respect to the difference between
speaking "overwhelmingly" in English and speaking only in English. For the above reasons, we
do not believe that any [**28] vagueness contained in the terms "curriculum, ""instruction,"
"nearly all" and "overwhelmingly," whether considered separately or together, will chill a
substantial amount of legitimate speech.
In addition, these terms seem no more vague than other statutory terms which have survived
facial vagueness challenges under the First Amendment. For example, in Young, the plaintiffs
challenged a zoning ordinance restricting the location of adult theaters. By its terms, the
ordinance only applied to theaters presenting material "characterized by an emphasis" on
specified sexual activities. 427 U.S. at 53. The plaintiffs in Young argued it was impossible to
determine how much of the specified sexual activity could be included in a film before city
officials would find it "characterized by an emphasis" on such activity. 427 U.S. at 59. A majority
of the Supreme Court upheld the ordinance against the facial vagueness attack, in part, because
it believed that, in most situations, it would be readily apparent whether a film fell within the
scope of the ordinance. 427 U.S. at 61. In the context of Proposition 227, the terms
"overwhelmingly," "nearly all, [**29] " "curriculum" and "instruction," seem more concrete,
specific and objective than the amorphous phrase, "characterized by an emphasis," which the
Court found sufficiently clear in Young.
2AC TEXAS CP
They’d go to other locations
Fainaru and Booth 9—Washington Post Foreign Service
(Steve and William, “Cartels Face an Economic Battle”, http://www.washingtonpost.com/wpdyn/content/article/2009/10/06/AR2009100603847.html?sid=ST2009100603892, dml)
Now, to stay competitive, Mexican traffickers are changing their business model to improve
their product and streamline delivery. Well-organized Mexican cartels have also moved to
increasingly cultivate marijuana on public lands in the United States, according to the National
Drug Intelligence Center and local authorities. This strategy gives the Mexicans direct access to
U.S. markets, avoids the risk of seizure at the border and reduces transportation costs.
Unlike cocaine, which the traffickers must buy and transport from South America, driving up
costs, marijuana has been especially lucrative for the cartels because they control the business
all the way from clandestine fields in the Mexican mountains to the wholesale dealers in U.S.
cities such as Washington.
"It's pure profit," said Jorge Chabat, an expert on the drug trade at the Center for Research and
Teaching in Economics in Mexico City.
Biotech stops bioterror
New Scientist 6 (“Biotech Can Stop Bioterror”, 3-4,
www.newscientist.com/channel/opinion/mg18925413.400.html)
The best way to defeat bioterrorism might be to encourage bioscience in countries considered easy
targets for terrorists trying to get hold of a biological weapon. Fear of terrorism is making the developed world clamp down on the
spread of bioscience to developing countries, because poor security could allow terrorists access to the
technology for bioweapons. Not only is that unfair, because it prevents such countries enjoying the benefits of
biotechnology in food, medicine and other areas, but it could be counterproductive, says Abdallah S. Daar in a report from the
University of Toronto's Joint Centre for Bioethics in Canada. "What we are proposing is counter-intuitive, but if we create an
infrastructure, we will have a large number of scientists who are familiar with bioterrorism, who
can notice early signs and stop it happening," Daar says. Building the capacity for biological research
in developing countries will encourage the development of regulatory regimes, professional codes of
conduct and opportunities for international collaboration, he says. The report also calls for leaders of G8 countries to
endorse a "network of networks" that would alert authorities to possible misuses of technology. "It's unavoidable that there
will be some biotechnological development in these countries," Daar says. "The question is, do you want to
shine light on it, or do you want it to happen outside your knowledge?"
Extinction
Matheny, 7 – Research associate, Future of Humanity Institute, Oxford University (Jason G.,
“Reducing the Risk of Human Extinction,” Risk Analysis, Volume 27, Number 5,
http://www.upmchealthsecurity.org/website/resources/publications/2007/2007-10-15reducingrisk.html)//SY
We already invest in some extinction countermeasures. NASA spends $4 million per year monitoring near-Earth asteroids and
comets (Leary, 2007) and there has been some research on how to deflect these objects using existing technologies (Gritzner & Kahle, 2004; NASA, 2007). $1.7 billion is spent
There are policies to reduce nuclear
threats, such as the Non- Proliferation Treaty and the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty, as well as efforts to secure expertise by employing former nuclear scientists.¶ Of
current extinction risks, the most severe may be bioterrorism. The knowledge needed to
engineer a virus is modest compared to that needed to build a nuclear weapon; the necessary
equipment and materials are increasingly accessible and because biological agents are selfresearching climate change and there are many strategies to reduce carbon emissions (Posner, 2004, p. 181).
replicating, a weapon can have an exponential effect on a population
(Warrick, 2006; Williams, 2006).5
Current U.S. biodefense efforts are funded at $5 billion per year to develop and stockpile new drugs and vaccines, monitor biological agents and emerging diseases, and
strengthen the capacities of local health systems to respond to pandemics (Lam, Franco, & Shuler, 2006).
Legalization destroys the Afghan cannabis trade – key to stability and eliminating
terrorist financing
Pagan and Stroleny, 14 [Christopher Pagan is an attorney practicing criminal defense with a
law degree from Syracuse University, Julian Stroleny is an attorney with a law degree from
Florida International University, citing U.N. statistics on marijuana cultivation in Afghanistan
from the U.N. Office on Drugs and Crime, "", http://www.pslaw.org/legalizing-marijuana-willreduce-terrorism-border-instability/]
Legalizing marijuana should be a top national security objective – that is, if the United States wants
to minimize terrorism and border instability. How do legalizing marijuana and maintaining national security relate
to each other? Well, here’s the breakdown! The United States has been waging wars with Iraq and Afghanistan
for the past two decades and has tried relentlessly to stabilize both Iraq and Afghanistan by
attempting to build some type of political and economic structure within each of those nations .
Additionally, as the 2011 U.S. National Strategy for Counterterrorism states, the President’s top national security priority is ensuring
the security of the citizens of the United States and the interests of the United States from terrorists. With that in mind,
Afghanistan is the largest provider of cannabis in the world and the United States is the world’s
largest consumer of cannabis. Citizens of the United States spend about $40.6 billion a year on cannabis. Therefore, if
the United States legalizes cannabis, Afghanistan and its people and economy could establish a
source of income by supplying the United States’ legal cannabis industry. This would create
some sort of economic stability in Afghanistan and even destabilize terror groups. This is
because terrorist groups are the main beneficiaries of the illegal drug trade in Afghanistan.
According to the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime, the terrorist groups use profits from drug trafficking
to fund acts of terrorism, violence and other conflicts. The illegal drug trade in Afghanistan is
supporting the ongoing influx of terror activities. Therefore, so long as marijuana is still illegal in
the United States, the terrorist groups will benefit from illegal drug trafficking. However, if the
United States would legalize marijuana, the illegal drug trade in Afghanistan would disappear
and terrorist groups would lack funds to carry out their terror activities.
Extinction
Hellman 8 (Martin E. Hellman, emeritus prof of engineering @ Stanford, “Risk Analysis of
Nuclear Deterrence” SPRING 2008 THE BENT OF TAU BETA PI,
http://www.nuclearrisk.org/paper.pdf)
The threat of nuclear terrorism looms much larger in the public’s mind than the threat of a full-scale nuclear war, yet this article focuses primarily
on the latter. An explanation is therefore in order before proceeding. A terrorist attack involving a nuclear weapon would be a
catastrophe of immense proportions: “A 10-kiloton bomb detonated at Grand Central Station on a typical work day would likely kill some half a
million people, and inflict over a trillion dollars in direct economic damage. America and its way of life would be changed forever.” [Bunn 2003, pages viii-ix]. The
likelihood of such an attack is also significant. Former Secretary of Defense William Perry has estimated the chance
of a nuclear terrorist incident within the next decade to be roughly 50 percent [Bunn 2007, page 15]. David Albright, a former
weapons inspector in Iraq, estimates those odds at less than one percent, but notes, “We would never accept a situation where the chance of a major nuclear accident like
Chernobyl would be anywhere near 1% .... A nuclear terrorism attack is a low-probability event, but we can’t live in a world where it’s anything but extremely low-probability.”
In a survey of 85 national security experts, Senator Richard Lugar found a median estimate of 20
an attack involving a nuclear explosion occurring somewhere in the world in
the next 10 years,” with 79 percent of the respondents believing “it more likely to be carried out
by terrorists” than by a government [Lugar 2005, pp. 14-15]. I support increased efforts to reduce the threat of nuclear terrorism, but that is not
inconsistent with the approach of this article. Because terrorism is one of the potential trigger mechanisms for a full-scale nuclear
war, the risk analyses proposed herein will include estimating the risk of nuclear terrorism as one component of the overall risk. If that risk, the overall risk, or both are found
[Hegland 2005].
percent for the “probability of
to be unacceptable, then the proposed remedies would be directed to reduce which- ever risk(s) warrant attention. Similar remarks apply to a number of other threats (e.g.,
nuclear war between the U.S. and China over Taiwan). his article would be incomplete if it only dealt with the threat of nuclear terrorism and neglected the threat of full- scale
nuclear war. If both risks are unacceptable, an effort to reduce only the terrorist component would leave humanity in great peril. In fact,
society’s almost total
neglect of the threat of full-scale nuclear war makes studying that risk all the more important. The
cosT of World War iii The danger associated with nuclear deterrence depends on both the cost of a failure and the failure rate.3 This section explores the cost of a failure of
nuclear deterrence, and the next section is concerned with the failure rate. While other definitions are possible, this article defines a failure of deterrence to mean a full-scale
exchange of all nuclear weapons available to the U.S. and Russia, an event that will be termed World War III. Approximately 20 million people died as a result of the first World
War. World War II’s fatalities were double or triple that number—chaos prevented a more precise deter- mination. In both cases humanity recovered, and the world today bears
few scars that attest to the horror of those two wars. Many people therefore implicitly believe that a third World War would be horrible but survivable, an extrapola- tion of the
effects of the first two global wars. In that view, World War III, while horrible, is something that humanity may just have to face and from which it will then have to recover. In
contrast, some of those most qualified to assess the situation hold a very different view. In a 1961 speech to a joint session of the Philippine Con- gress, General Douglas
No longer
does it possess even the chance of the winner of a duel. It contains now only the germs of double
suicide.” Former Secretary of Defense Robert McNamara ex- pressed a similar view: “If deterrence fails and conflict develops, the present U.S. and NATO strategy carries
with it a high risk that Western civilization will be destroyed” [McNamara 1986, page 6]. More recently, George Shultz, William Perry, Henry
MacArthur, stated, “Global war has become a Frankenstein to destroy both sides. … If you lose, you are annihilated. If you win, you stand only to lose.
Kissinger, and Sam Nunn4 echoed those concerns when they quoted President Reagan’s belief that nuclear weapons were “totally irrational, totally inhu- mane, good for nothing
but killing, possibly destructive of life on earth and civilization.” [Shultz 2007] Official studies, while couched in less emotional terms, still convey the horrendous toll that World
The resulting deaths would be far beyond any precedent
War III would exact: “
. Executive branch calculations show a range of U.S.
deaths from 35 to 77 percent (i.e., 79-160 million dead) … a change in targeting could kill somewhere between 20 million and 30 million additional people on each side .... These
calculations reflect only deaths during the first 30 days. Additional millions would be injured, and many would eventually die from lack of adequate medical care … millions of
people might starve or freeze during the follow- ing winter, but it is not possible to estimate how many. … further millions … might eventually die of latent radiation effects.”
[OTA 1979, page 8] This OTA report also noted the possibility of serious ecological damage [OTA 1979, page 9], a concern that as- sumed a new potentiality when the TTAPS
nuclear explosions and their resultant fire- storms could usher
in a nuclear winter that might erase homo sapiens from the face of the earth, much as many scientists now believe
report [TTAPS 1983] proposed that the ash and dust from so many nearly simultaneous
the K-T Extinction that wiped out the dinosaurs resulted from an impact winter caused by ash and dust from a large asteroid or comet striking Earth. The TTAPS report
produced a heated debate, and there is still no scientific consensus on whether a nuclear winter would follow a full-scale nuclear war. Recent work [Robock 2007, Toon 2007]
even a limited nuclear exchange or one between newer nuclear-weapon states, such as India and Pakistan, could have
devastating long-lasting climatic consequences due to the large volumes of smoke that would be generated by fires in modern megacities.
suggests that
While it is uncertain how destructive World War III would be, prudence dictates that we apply the same engi- neering conservatism that saved the Golden Gate Bridge from
collapsing on its 50th anniversary and assume that
preventing World War III is a necessity—not an option.
2AC GOP GOOD MIDTERMS
Dems will retain the Senate
Mark Barabak, LATimes, 9/29/14, As election nears, control of Senate looks surprisingly
uncertain, www.latimes.com/nation/politics/la-na-2014-election-20140929-story.html#page=1
Just over a month before the midterm election, control of the U.S. Senate remains surprisingly
up for grabs as Democrats parlay a financial edge and other advantages to battle history and a strong antiObama tide. Republicans still enjoy the more secure position. The GOP is almost certain to win open-seat contests in
Montana, South Dakota and West Virginia, getting them halfway to the six seats needed to win a majority and gain control. But
the party's candidates have yet to put away any of the 10 or so most competitive Senate races,
buoying Democratic hopes they can hang on to at least one chamber of Congress despite what
appeared, at the start of this election year, to be long odds. In Louisiana, Arkansas and Alaska, where President
Obama's approval ratings are particularly low, Democratic incumbents have kept their uphill races within striking distance. It helps
that the candidates — Mary L. Landrieu, Mark Pryor and Mark Begich — come from prominent political families, making them
familiar brand names in their respective states. But even in North Carolina, first-term Democratic Sen. Kay Hagan, a prime
Republican target, has clung to a small but consistent lead in recent voter surveys. Part of the reason is money.
Democrats, unexpectedly, have had more of it this year than Republicans. And part of it is
mechanics — allocating resources, targeting voters, getting them to the polls — which national
Democrats have excelled at over the last decade. In that time, Democrats have defeated 12
sitting Republican senators. Republicans have ousted just three Democratic incumbents, two of
them in the last midterm election under Obama, in 2010. Historically, the midterm vote has been a referendum on the president,
and this one appears to be no exception. There are three typical outcomes for the party in the White House, said Charlie Cook, a
longtime nonpartisan campaign analyst: "Bad; really bad; and really, really bad." To a great extent Democrats are simply
fighting for the least bad result, which would be clinging to the Senate by the narrowest of
margins. (Republicans are expected to modestly pad their majority in the House and could lose a handful of governor's seats.)
The GOP started the year with a distinct advantage in the Senate fight. Democrats have been forced to defend far more seats, thanks
to their gains when Obama was elected in 2008, and a number of retirements in conservative-leaning states. Of the most competitive
races, all but a handful are in places that Obama lost in 2012, several by landslide margins. Also working in favor of Republicans are
the election's broad themes — the appropriate size and scope of government, Obama's leadership and competence — which match
those of 2010, a banner year for the GOP. Democrats have tried to shift the focus from a debate over big government,
embodied by the unpopular national healthcare law, to
the merits of popular programs, such as Social Security and
issues that are especially resonant to minorities, young people and single women. All
are Democratic-leaning voter groups that tend to sit out midterm elections. "Our candidates are asking
Medicare, and
theirs, 'Where are you on minimum wage? Where are you on equal pay [for women]? Where are you on college tuition?'" said Sen.
Charles E. Schumer of New York, one of the Democratic Party's top political strategists. That tactic — one party trying to
nationalize the election, the other trying to make contests more localized and issue-specific — is
also typical of midterm elections. Another time-honored tradition is candidates distancing themselves from the unpopular
president of their own party; some Democrats this year have gone so far as to criticize Obama in their TV advertising. "I disagree
with him on guns, coal" and the Environmental Protection Agency, says a skeet-shooting Alison Lundergan Grimes, Kentucky's
Democratic secretary of state, who faces Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell in a fiercely fought contest. Begich, locked in a
tough race with former GOP Atty. Gen. Dan Sullivan, cited several differences with Obama in a recent TV spot, over taxes, the
environment and defense spending. "True Alaska," read the logo opening Begich's advertisement. What is notable this year
is Democrats' considerable financial advantage, which will not necessarily determine control of the Senate but,
at the least, has kept many contests close heading into the final five weeks of the campaign. The
Democrats' Senate campaign committee raised $111 million through August, nearly $30 million more than the Republican
committee, and outside groups have enhanced the party's cash lead. In the 10 most competitive Senate races, pro-Democratic forces
have outspent their Republican counterparts $80 million to $73 million through Friday, according to data from the Center for
Responsive Politics, an organization that tracks campaign spending. Crucially, the Democrats have used their
money edge to reserve far more TV air time than Republicans in the campaign's final stretch,
meaning even if the GOP and its allies catch up financially they will have to pay much higher
last-minute rates. Writing in the Wall Street Journal this month, Republican strategist Karl Rove lamented the financial
disparity in a commentary that amounted to a thinly veiled plea for donors to open their checkbooks. "The midterm
environment is terrible for Democrats," Rove wrote, "yet each passing day provides evidence as to
why a GOP Senate majority is still in doubt." (Many Republican donors have sat on their wallets out of frustration
with a Rove-affiliated "super PAC" and other groups that collected tens of millions of dollars in 2012 and failed to elect Mitt Romney
president or deliver a Republican Senate.)
Obama’s economic strategy will be successful
Williams, 9/29/14 --- author and political analyst for Fox News Channel (Juan, “Juan Williams: Economy could tip election to
Dem s,” http://thehill.com/opinion/juan-williams/219140-juan-williams-economy-could-tip-election-to-dems, JMP) One of the biggest surprises on the
midterm campaign trail is hearing President Obama echo President Reagan’s famous question by asking
voters whether “you are better off than you were four years ago.” The question is the hammer
in Obama’s toolbox for nailing down his Democratic majority in the Senate in this year’s
midterm election. “By almost every economic measure, we are better off today than we were when I took
office,” the president said in a Sept. 19 speech to the Women’s Leadership Forum, sponsored by the Democratic National Committee. Speaking to a Labor Day rally of union workers
in Milwaukee, he also pointed to America’s improved economic performance over the last five years. “You wouldn’t know it from watching the news,” he lamented. In fact, Reuters recently
confirmed the president’s upbeat claims. The news agency reported that, however slow, the economic recovery has lasted
longer than average. The report adds, “There seems to be more gas in the tank. The International Monetary Fund expects the U.S. economy to grow 3 percent next year and in 2016. On
Obama’s watch, 5.1 million jobs have also been added to payrolls, the S&P/Case-Shiller national home price index is up about 17 percent and the S&P 500 stock index has more than doubled while hitting all-time
There are more hard facts to bolster the president’s economic case. A Kiplinger’s economic
outlook from this month is full of good news. The economy “looks better than was previously
thought,” Kiplinger reports, “setting the stage for more sustained growth in coming months.” The unemployment rate has
records.”
been lower over the last five months than at any point in the last five years, dropping to 6.1 percent in August. The Dow Jones industrial average is hovering around its all-time high, now regularly closing at over
17,000 points. Consumer confidence in August also rose to its highest point in almost seven years. This, in turn, is key to consumer spending, which is the biggest part of the economy. Is all the good economic
news helping Democrats with the voters? Not really – or, at least, not yet. RealClearPolitics has 55 percent of Americans disapproving of the president’s handling of the economy, to only 40 percent approving.
Democrats must get voters to turn that negative economic view around. This month, a CBS/New York Times poll indicated
that the economy is the No. 1 issue to voters. A September Gallup poll similarly found that, other than “dissatisfaction with government,” the top concern is “the economy in general.” With all the good statistics,
why does America’s kitchen-table assessment of the economy remain glum? Perhaps because median household incomes fell by more than $2,100 in Obama’s first term, according to the Census Bureau. Sagging
Democrats running for Congress are reminding voters of the GOP’s lack
of interest in boosting wages for working people. The GOP has turned back efforts to raise the
minimum wage and to invest in infrastructure. Democrats also point to the House GOP’s denial
of extended unemployment benefits for the long-term jobless. Republicans, meanwhile, are promising that, if they take total control of
wages have created lingering discomfort and anxiety.
Congress, they will boost the economy by cutting Wall Street regulation. They also plan to fight new rules from the Environmental Protection Agency and support oil and gas exploration. Speaker John Boehner (ROhio) handed ammunition to the Democrats this month when he said some Americans have “this idea” that, instead of finding a job, “I think I’d rather just sit around.” Before Congress left for the campaign trail,
the party race to win voters, stressed out over low pay, turned into an unusual fight over the Export-Import Bank. The bank was reauthorized for only nine months. But first, small-government Republicans — with
the Club for Growth and Heritage Action support — pushed to kill the bank, blasting it as an example of “crony capitalism” and the big government “picking winners and losers.” That divided the GOP because the
GOP-leaning Chamber of Commerce is supporting the bank. It points to “thousands of businesses” that risk failure without the bank. The New York Times reports that the bank is a key issue, a “wild card” in North
Carolina, Iowa and Louisiana Senate races. “Our candidates have been leaning heavily into this and this really goes to the heart of making the economy work,” a Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee
Obama is on to something. If the midterms turn into a referendum
on which party to trust to boost middle-class wages, look for Democrats to hold
the Senate.
spokesman told the Times. President
The plan wrecks this strategy – ensures GOP victory
Raffin, 9 --- Editor in Chief at The Stanford Progressive (May 2009, Ross, “Legalizing
Marijuana the Federalist Way,” http://progressive.stanford.edu/cgibin/article.php?article_id=339)
Many advocates of legalizing or decriminalizing marijuana feel Obama has abandoned them.
White
House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel is a consistent warrior against decriminalization. Attorney General Eric Holder has a history of opposing drug policy reforms and considers the adult use of marijuana equivalent to public nuisance. Even Joe Biden, when asked
about pain management and medical cannabis, responded that “there's got to be a better answer than marijuana.” But the reality is that the Obama administration has turned the tides in favor of legalization and decriminalization in a much stronger and subtler way
Optimism for drug reform began when Obama ended federal raids on cannabis
dispensaries in states which allow medical marijuana.
he Obama
administration initiated a small but extremely important step towards legalization
it has
done so in a way to insulate itself from Republican attacks and attempts to distract the
public.
than open rhetorical endorsements.
What marijuana advocates fail to realize is that with this t
. More importantly,
At the heart of the marijuana debate is federalism, the separation of state and national governmental power. For most of America's history, marijuana was treated as a crop subject to state regulation. However, the national government justified
regulating marijuana through a variety of means, mainly the Commerce Clause of the Constitution which gives Congress power to regulate inter-state trade. This line of reasoning was forcefully used by the John Ashcroft in 2001 to enforce federal raids on medical
marijuana dispensaries. When a state legalizes marijuana, medical or otherwise, state law is in contradiction with federal law. This grey area leads to very confusing legal proceedings. For instance, if a state patrolman finds a medical marijuana patient in possession
of marijuana, nothing happens. However, if a federal officer found a medical marijuana patient in possession of the same amount of marijuana, the federal officer can and usually will arrest the patient and prosecute under federal law. This hypocrisy is at the base of
the current trials going on against elderly medical marijuana patients. The Obama administration drastically changed this dynamic with just a sligh t alteration of criteria for federal intervention with marijuana dispensaries. Eric Holder announced that the federal
government will no longer pursue medical marijuana dispensaries or patients unless they violate both federal and state laws. In the case of California, because medical marijuana is legal, federal intervention is no longer allowed in cases where California's medical
marijuana laws are not broken. Thus, if California were to fully legalize marijuana, under current policy the federal government would not intervene. This leaves Republicans in a very tough spot. Small government is the bedrock foundation of the party. However, if a
Obama's actions cannot be criticized
as an attempt to “deregulate” marijuana. Instead, it is a triumph of state rights over federal
intervention.
Consider the
strategy of legalizing marijuana on a national level
first through Obama
Imagine the campaigns
that could be waged if Obama so much as hinted that he wants to legalize
marijuana. Not only would there be insinuations that Obama wants drugs for personal use,
but inevitably racial dynamics and stereotypes would enter discourse. It would be the
“liberal” state legalizes marijuana, the only tool left to combat the legalization of marijuana is for the federal government to extend power over state government.
More importantly, any attempt to fight state legalization of marijuana through suit automatically goes to the Supreme Court. This creates an opportunity to strike down previous legislation criminalizing marijuana as opposed to
having the Democrats introduce a bill on the Senate floor to legalize pot
alternative
. In the current political environment, the leading accusations against the president range from terrorist to Marxist to illegal alien.
ultimate redirect from the economy. Instead of focusing on regulations and expenditures,
emphasis would be on the president who is destroying traditional American values with reefer.
If
Obama or the Democrats proposed legalization, all the Republicans have to do is have several governors or senators who refuse to implement the federal law. This would frame the argument as Obama trying to extend the government's power to regulate what some
consider the moral fabric of society. With just a few rhetorical shuffles, Obama's proposal could be linked to general monetary and budget extensions of power. This would be like the Republican's in the 30s arguing against the New Deal as a whole by linking it with a
Obama
public hesitation towards marijuana legalization is not only
understandable but, considering the impact of the current economic legislation and programs
the administration is endorsing, the most pragmatic and efficient route for the moment.
government proposal to force states to legalize prostitution. The
administration's
Legalization and
decriminalization advocates should focus efforts on state-wide legalization, not nation-wide. If states are challenged in lawsuits, than the Supreme Court will be forced to rule on whether legislation criminalizing marijuana should be struck down. This is preferable to
the executive putting forward a proposal to legalize marijuana from the top down. When Obama tells the countr y that marijuana legalization is not the path he chooses for America, he means to say that the path must first be drawn by us.
Marijuana doesn’t impact the election
Cohn, 13 (10/24/2013, Nate, “Marijuana is America's Next Political Wedge Issue Pot politics,
in 2016 and beyond,” http://www.newrepublic.com/article/115334/marijuana-americas-nextgreat-political-wedge-issue, JMP)
We’ve reached the point where there should be no surprise if a major national politician embraces marijuana legalization. Without any large-scale campaign on its behalf, surveys show that approximately half of
marijuana is all but
assured to emerge as an issue in national elections—it's only a question of how and when. So far,
neither party wants to touch the issue. The Democratic governors of Washington and
Colorado didn’t even support initiatives to legalize the possession, distribution, and consumption of marijuana, even though the
initiatives ultimately prevailed by clear margins. It took the administration ten months to
announce—in the middle of the Syria debate—that the Department of Justice wouldn’t pursue legal action against
Washington and Colorado. And on the other hand, Republicans weren't exactly screaming about
hippies and gateway drugs, either. Despite their apparent reservation to engage the issue, it’s hard to imagine Democrats staying on the sidelines for too many more
Americans now support marijuana legalization, including 58 percent in a recent, but potentially outlying, Gallup poll. Regardless of the exact support today,
election cycles. The party’s base is already on board, with polls showing a clear majority of self-described Democrats in support. Approximately three quarters of Democrats and liberals supported legalization
initiatives in Colorado and Washington. This level of support makes it a foregone conclusion that Democrats will eventually embrace the issue. There’s a reason there aren’t very many questions where the public is
supportive, the party rank-and-file is supportive, and the party’s elected officials stay silent. Are there any? To date, Democrats haven’t had many incentives to take a risk on the issue. Democrats are already
Marijuana legalization
may be increasingly popular, but it’s not clearly an electoral bonanza. Support for
legalization isn’t very far above 50 percent, if it is in fact, and there are potential downsides.
National surveys show that a third of Democrats still oppose marijuana legalization. Seniors,
who turnout in high numbers in off year elections, are also opposed. Altogether, it’s very
conceivable that there are more votes to be lost than won by supporting marijuana. After all, marijuana
winning the winnable culture war skirmishes, at least from a national electoral perspective, and they have a winning demographic hand. And let’s get perspective:
legalization underperformed President Obama in Washington State. Even so, Democratic voters will eventually prevail over cautious politicians, most likely through the primary process. Any liberal rival to Hillary
Clinton in 2016 will have every incentive to support marijuana legalization. Whether Clinton will follow suit is harder to say, given that frontrunners (and Clintons) are generally pretty cautious. It’s probably more
likely that Clinton would endorse steps toward liberalization, like weaker criminal penalties and support for the legalization experiments in Washington and Colorado. Republicans, meanwhile, are less likely to
support legalization or liberalization. To be sure, some Republicans will. They can take a states’ rights position and the party has a growing libertarian bent, perhaps best exemplified by Rand Paul’s willingness to
support more liberal marijuana laws. Republicans also have electoral incentives to lead on issues where they can earn a few votes among millennials, who pose a serious threat to the continued viability of the
national Republican coalition. If the Republicans can't adjust their existing positions to compensate for demographic and generational change, which (for now) it appears they cannot, then perhaps taking a stance
on a new issue, like marijuana, is the best they can do. Of course, the problem is that a majority of Republicans are opposed to legalization. Two thirds of Republicans voted against legalization in Colorado and
Washington, where one might expect Republicans be somewhat more amenable than the nation as a whole. It probably doesn’t help that marijuana is closely aligned with the liberal counterculture. It's also
possible that many pro-legalization conservatives don't identify as Republicans at all, but instead might be independents. Worse still, Republicans might not reap the electoral benefits of changing positions, since
most Democrats would embrace any pro-marijuana policies that Republicans were willing to concede. All considered, it’s risky for a Republican candidate to support liberalization, let alone legalization.
ADVERTISEMENT With Republicans likely to remain opposed, marijuana could emerge as a big cultural issue in the 2016 election. In particular, Clinton would be well-positioned to deploy the issue. Her strength
among older voters and women mitigates the risk that she would lose very much support, while legalization could help Clinton with the young, independent, and male voters who could clinch her primary or
realistically, Clinton or another Democrat won't campaign on marijuana
legalization. For one, it’s most likely that the Democratic nominee will support incremental
measures. But even if the Democrat does support legalization, strategists will probably decide that an untested, potentially divisive issue is too risky, particularly for a party holding a pretty good hand
of issue and demographic cards. That might make marijuana something like a less politicized version of gay marriage in
2012, where the issue is too popular for Republicans to vigorously oppose, but not popular
enough to convince Democrats to actively use it as a wedge issue . It’s easier to imagine marijuana playing a role in the 2016
general election victory. But
primaries. Many candidates will have incentives to use the issue, whether it’s a cultural conservative using marijuana to hurt Rand Paul among evangelicals in Iowa, or a liberal trying to stoke a progressive revolt
Marijuana won’t be
decisive in a primary, but 2016’s primary battles will shape the two party’s initial positions on
the issue. Yet marijuana’s big moment will probably come later, perhaps in 2024. Legalization might eventually be popular enough for
against Clinton’s candidacy. And once one party begins to debate the issue, the other will almost certainly be confronted by the same question.
Democrats to use the issue in general elections, first at the state level and then nationally. As with gay marriage, the GOP’s obvious but difficult solution is to take their own creed on states’ rights seriously, and
devolve the issue—and the politics—to the states. Compared to gay marriage, which strikes at the heart of the evangelical wing of the party, it should be easier for the Republicans to make an adjustment on
marijuana. But if they cannot, the GOP will again find itself on the losing side of the culture wars.
The plan passes after the election
Mataconis, 9/27/14 --- J.D. from George Mason University School of Law (Doug, “Should the
next attorney general be confirmed in a lame-duck session?”
http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/DC-Decoder/Decoder-Voices/2014/0927/Should-the-nextattorney-general-be-confirmed-in-a-lame-duck-session, JMP)
I’m somewhat sympathetic to the arguments that Republicans are making here. Traditionally, at least, lame-duck sessions are intended for Congress to finish up business that
could not get done prior to the election. Typically this involves budget matters, and that will be one of the matters that Congress will need to take up when it returns. The idea of
members of the Senate who are leaving office, or who have just been voted out of office, voting on consequential matters like the confirmation of presidential appointees or a
vote to authorize future military action against the Islamic State, on the other hand, raises serious issues that shouldn’t be dismissed lightly. Just a week before Congress returns,
after all, the people will have spoken and that will likely include voting out of office several incumbents in both the House and the Senate; the idea that these legislators would
then have a vote on controversial and important issues is somewhat discomforting. Yes, it’s their job, but they will have just been effectively fired from their job by the voters,
and it seems somewhat wrong for them to be voting as is nothing has happened, especially when the election has resulted in the party switch for their seat. The argument is the
For better or worse, though, it’s become
common practice for both parties to use these lame-duck sessions to push through
things that couldn’t get passed prior to an election. During President Obama’s tenure, for
example, we have seen budget agreements, extensions of the Bush Tax cuts, and the repeal of Don’t
Ask, Don’t Tell all passed by a lame-duck Congress. This issue has come up before, and there was even a West Wing episode about it
same for legislators who have announced that they are retiring when the current session of Congress ends.
that focused on a defeated senator who decided he could not in good conscience go against the will of the voters that had just elected his opponent, despite the fact that it would
hurt the administration and his party. Four years ago, several Republican senators implored Harry Reid to delay consideration of the new START Treaty until the new Congress
convened in January 2011. Democrats would still control the Senate at that time, but their majority would be a lot slimmer and Republicans would likely have had a better
opportunity to influence the debate. Ultimately, Reid went forward with the vote and the treaty was ratified by a comfortable margin. At the time, though, the issue raised some
serious concerns about the role of lame-duck congressional sessions, and not just from people on the right. Yale Law Professor Bruce Ackerman noted that there were some
serious constitutional issues raised when lame-duck sessions include the consideration of controversial legislation, especially if that legislation was part of the election. At the
given the fact that
Congress has gotten into the habit of delaying the work it needs to get done until after
elections to the point where it is starting to become tradition, it’s unlikely that we’re going to
see an end to these kinds of tactics in the near future.
time, I noted that the entire process seemed anti-democratic and rife with possibilities for abuse. These concerns are all well founded, but
GOP Congress won’t impact energy policy --- including LNG exports and Keystone
O’Keefe, 9/12/14 --- CEO of the George Marshall Institute and president of Solutions
Consulting, Inc. (William, “Will GOP control of the Senate affect energy policy?”
http://thehill.com/blogs/pundits-blog/energy-environment/217479-will-gop-control-of-thesenate-affect-energy-policy, JMP)
A lot of attention is being paid to November's election because control of the Senate could switch
from Democratic to Republican. Some races that seemed safe for Republican incumbents, or
were leaning Republican, have now become less certain and more competitive, e.g. Kansas and
North Carolina. However, even if Republicans pick up the needed six seats to gain control, does
it matter in terms of energy policy? I think that the answer is "not much."
Even though Republicans have been in the minority, they have been able to block most of Senate
Majority Leader Harry Reid's (D-Nev.) legislative agenda, whatever it is. As the minority party,
the Democrats would be able to use similar tactics to prevent Republicans from passing much of
their energy agenda or acting on energy legislation passed by the House.
The major energy issues are Keystone XL, removing the prohibition on crude oil exports,
accelerating the construction of liquefied natural gas (LNG) export facilities, accelerating
exploration and production on federal lands, subsidies for renewable energy projects,
preventing Environmental Protection Agency anti-coal regulations, securing electric power
generation, and clean energy and climate change.
President Obama has delayed action on the Keystone pipeline for political reasons, since the
case for approving it on both energy and environmental grounds is overwhelming. The most
likely reason for slow-walking approval is that he does not want to offend environmental voters.
He needs them and other liberal Democrats to turn out in large numbers to help save the most
vulnerable Democratic senators. After the election and before the presidential campaigning
really gets underway, he could well give his approval. If he didn't, a Republican Senate could be
challenged to pass legislation that would not encounter a filibuster or face a presidential veto.
And there is no way that the Senate could muster enough votes for an override.
The same is probably true for legislation on LNG exports, removing the constraints on crude oil
imports and expanding exploration on federal lands. Any Republican energy legislation that the
White House or Senate Democrats opposed would face the same tactics from Democrats as used
by Republicans.
Sixty votes are the key and it is hard to foresee a situation where the Senate announces
"Kumbaya," locks arms and finally starts doing the public's business. The dysfunction caused by
extreme polarization is not likely to change any time soon. Members of both the House and
Senate have long forgotten the wise counsel of Henry Clay: "Politics is not about ideology or
political purity. It is about governing. If you can't compromise, you can't govern."
The word "compromise" in Congress has become an epithet, when it should mean finding
common ground without abandoning principle. The enmity between Reid and Senate Minority
Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) has become so strong that they seem unable to reach out to
each other for the country's good. A few months ago, The Washington Post wrote about the
Senate's dysfunction. According to Paul Kane, "The Senate went three months this spring
without voting on a single legislative amendment, the nitty-gritty kind of work usually at the
heart of congressional lawmaking. ... The big issues have been sidelined by political and
procedural battles and an intensely personal war between the leadership offices." The article
quoted several senators who essentially said that there is no way to fix the problem between two
men whose mutual distrust is so intense.
It would be easy to conclude that the current situation is simply election-year politics with each
party trying to bolster its election prospects while damaging those of the opposition. However,
that is not the case. The Bipartisan Policy Center issued a report this summer, Governing in a
Polarized America, by a committee that included former senators. It documented the
seriousness of the situation in the Senate and the reasons why it is unlikely to change anytime
soon.
The best hope for change would come from both Reid and McConnell stepping down from their
leadership positions.
That may seem radical, but when a company's leadership performs so poorly, its board — 98
senators in this case — brings in new leadership. That is what is required to advance the process
of finding common ground.
With new leadership, the Senate and House should be able to reach out to the president with a
bipartisan agenda that goes beyond energy to include budget, tax, immigration reform and an
energy agenda that builds on the success of the recent energy renaissance.
If Sens. Reid and McConnell simply switch positions, gridlock will just be another color.
Exports won’t solve Russia
Wilcox, 9/29/14 (Mark, “Researchers: U.S. LNG exports won’t solve 'Russia problem'”
http://www.wyomingbusinessreport.com/article/20140929/NEWS/140929964, JMP)
Natural gas producers are encouraging liquid natural gas, or LNG exports, partially under the
auspices of harming the natural-gas rich Russian government in the throes of political unrest
and armed conflict. However, a new study said exporting U.S. liquid natural gas would
do little to divert Russia from its course of using its natural resources as a power
grab in Europe.
Researchers from Columbia University’s Center on Global Energy Policy concluded in a 60-page
report released last week that while LNG exports could cause pain in Russia, the people feeling
the pain might not be the intended targets.
“By forcing state-run Gazprom to reduce prices to remain competitive in the European market,
U.S. LNG exports could have a meaningful impact on total Russian gas export revenue,” said
researchers Jason Bordoff and Trevor Houser. “While painful for Russian gas companies, the
total economic impact on state coffers is unlikely to be significant enough to
prompt a change in Moscow’s foreign policy, particularly in the next few years.”
They concluded, moreover, that U.S. LNG exports would give European nations some
bargaining power with Russia, they wouldn’t “free Europe from Russian gas.”
“Russia will remain Europe’s dominant gas supplier for the foreseeable future, due both to its
ability to remain cost-competitive in the region and the fact that U.S. LNG will displace other
high-cost sources of natural gas supply,” they said.
But some producers are saying whatever impact could be made should be made.
“Unpredictable suppliers create unpredictable markets,” said John Harpole, the president and
founder of Mercator Energy in a recent article he wrote for a trade magazine. Harpole said
exporting U.S.LNG could keep some families from freezing through the Ukrainian winter as
Russia cuts gas supplies, and that it could also make friends in the process.
“What value is there in being an energy superpower unless that power is projected outward and
delivered to energy-starved allies and potential allies?” Harpole wrote.
But Harpole admits there would be shortfalls to the strategy.
“U.S. shale gas won’t resolve Europe’s energy issues overnight, but additional U.S. regulations
and delays will dash any hope for near-term energy competition,” Harpole said. “The DOE has
granted LNG exports at a glacial pace.”
He said at a recent event that the issue is as important as the Keystone XL Pipeline to the U.S
energy industry.
Researchers did agree to some extent with the energy industry’s side of the story.
“Over time, however, U.S. LNG can help Europe minimize the amount of leverage Russia gains
from selling gas to Europe, as part of a broader European energy security policy agenda,” they
said. And a richer environment of energy choice for European consumers will give Europe larger
bargaining chips to work with as they shape future negotiations with Russia and other
producers.
“Maximizing the benefits of this opportunity, however, requires changes in European
policy and infrastructure that focus on reducing vulnerability to Russian supply disruption,
not only dependence on Russian gas overall,” the researchers stated.
2AC TREATY DA
Syria thumps the treaty regime
Zunes, 9/27/14 [Stephen Zunes, a professor of politics and program director for Middle
Eastern Studies at the University of San Francisco. Home Opinion Story Stephen Zunes: US
should use caution in the fight against ISIL By Stephen Zunes Special to the Sentinel Posted:
09/27/2014 11:01:30 PM PDT]
First of all, bombing
targets in Syria without permission from the Syrian government or
authorization from the UN Security Council is a flagrant violation of U.S. treaty
obligations under the U nited N ations charter. And, without Congressional authorization, it is also a violation
of the U.S. Constitution.
Spills over
Clarkson, 9/24/14 [“Humanitarian Air Strikes” against Syria: U.S. Breaks International Law,
Again By Alexander Clackson Global Research, September 24, 2014,
http://www.globalresearch.ca/humanitarian-air-strikes-against-syria-u-s-breaks-internationallaw-again/5404014]
The United States, assisted by a handful of Arab nations, conducted air strikes o n Syria on 23rd September .
The attacks mark a striking expansion in America’s military campaign against the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria (ISIS) and
have occurred without the consent of the Syrian government. A U.S. State Department official confirmed that
the Syrian government was not asked for authorisation, saying: “We did not seek the regime’s permission, we didn’t coordinate our
actions with the Syrian government, and Secretary [of State John] Kerry did not send a letter to the Syrian regime.” The U.S.
airstrikes are therefore a clear violation of international law , as Damascus had earlier said
that any direct action by the United States within Syria would constitute an act of war and a breach of its
sovereignty. The U.S. administration lawyers have used spurious excuses, invoking Iraq’s right to self-defence and the weakness of
the Assad government as twin justifications for U.S. bombing in Syria. However, the fact of the matter is: without United Nations
authorisation or approval from the Syrian government, airstrikes on Syria are a violation of basic international law. The legal
circumlocutions to avoid requesting a UN Security Council resolution match similar efforts to avoid requesting specific legal
authority from the U.S. Congress. Fearing that U.S. politicians up for re-election in November may balk at voting for a third military
attack on Iraq and being sucked into a Syrian quagmire, the White House has avoided seeking a fresh authorisation of the use of
military force, preferring to rely on early authorisations against al-Qaida granted after the 11 September 2001 attacks. The President
of the Middle East Institute, Yevgeny Satanovsky, summarised succinctly the illegitimacy of the airstrikes, saying: “The fact that
Washington has notified Syria’s UN envoy of air strikes against militants’ positions in the territory of Syria does not change
anything. Aggression will be aggression. The UN Security Council’s resolution 2170 of August 15 envisaged creation of a basis for a
collective international response to the threat from the Islamic State that has emerged in Iraq and Syria, but gave Washington no
right to use force against a sovereign country.” It is important to note that recent testimony by US intelligence and homeland
security officials in Washington have acknowledged that Syrian groups such as Isis are not known to be planning any direct attacks
on the U.S. Thus, in bombing Islamic State targets in Syria, the United States cannot credibly claim that it used force in self-defence
or at the request of the Syrian state exercising lawful force to suppress rebellion. The
United States has a vast track
record of breaking international law. It did so, for example, in March 1999, when along with its
NATO allies it launched an extended bombing campaign in Serbia. In this case also, the United States could not
claim it was acting in self-defence. Nor was military action authorised by the UN Security Council. In addition, the U.S.
government is making sure not to mention the American invasion of Iraq in 2003, which also rested
on erroneous claims of weapons of mass destruction and arguably contributed to its current instability. As always, American allies
have remained silent over this blatant refusal to follow international law. Only Russia has forcefully condemned the illegality of the
airstrikes. In its statement, the Russian Foreign Ministry warned: “Any such action can be carried out only in accordance with
international law. That implies not a formal, one-sided ‘notification’ of airstrikes but the presence of explicit consent from the
government of Syria or a corresponding UN Security Council decision.” Describing the U.S.-led move as a bid to “achieve one’s own
geopolitical goals,” the Russian Ministry said the airstrikes would only “exacerbate tensions and further destabilize the situation.”
The point about “achieving one’s own geopolitical goals” is crucial here, as it is highly likely that the U.S. administration is once
again on a mission to carry out another regime chance, with President Bashar al-Assad being the main target. As the United
States and its allies continue to lecture other states on international law and respecting
sovereignty, once again the preacher has become the main violator of what is being
preached. It looks like the hypocritical nature of the United States knows no
bounds.
The UN is toothless and doesn’t solve conflict
Hiken 12 ("The Impotence of International Law" Luke Hiken, Associate Director Institute for
Public Accuracy, 7-17-'12 http://www.fpif.org/blog/the_impotence_of_international_law)
Whenever a lawyer or historian describes how a particular action “violates international law” many people stop listening or reading further. It
is a
bit alienating to hear the words “this action constitutes a violation of international law” time and
time again – and especially at the end of a debate when a speaker has no other arguments available. The statement is inevitably followed by:
“…and it is a war crime and it denies people their human rights.” A plethora of international law violations are
perpetrated by every major power in the world each day, and thus, the empty
invocation of international law does nothing but reinforce our own sense of impotence and helplessness in the
face of international lawlessness. The United States, alone, and on a daily basis violates every principle of
international law ever envisioned: unprovoked wars of aggression; unmanned drone attacks;
tortures and renditions; assassinations of our alleged “enemies”; sales of nuclear weapons;
destabilization of unfriendly governments; creating the largest prison population in the world – the
list is virtually endless. Obviously one would wish that there existed a body of international law that could put an end to these
abuses, but such laws exist in theory, not in practice. Each time a legal scholar points out the
particular treaties being ignored by the superpowers (and everyone else) the only appropriate
response is “so what!” or “they always say that.” If there is no enforcement mechanism to prevent the
violations, and no military force with the power to intervene on behalf of those victimized by the
violations, what possible good does it do to invoke principles of “truth and justice” that border on fantasy? The
assumption is that by invoking human rights principles, legal scholars hope to reinforce the importance of, and need for, such a body of law. Yet, in
reality, the invocation means nothing at the present time, and goes nowhere. In the real world, it would be
nice to focus on suggestions that are enforceable, and have some potential to prevent the atrocities taking place around the globe.
Bush treaty withdrawals
Bewley-Taylor, 3 - Department of American Studies, University of Wales Swansea (David,
“Challenging the UN drug control conventions: problems and possibilities” International
Journal of Drug Policy 14 (2003) 171-179, doi:10.1016/S0955-3959(03)00005-7)
This ‘‘collective responsibility for global order’’ argument would of course be more persuasive
were it not for the selective approach to international law adopted by the United States of America.
Washington’s withdrawal from the Kyoto Treaty and repudiation of the 1972 Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty
had already gone a long way to threaten the treaty system before its recent announcement
to ‘‘unsign’’ itself from the convention to establish an International Criminal Court (Teather, 2002; Lewis, 2002). In
facilitating this unprecedented move the administration of George W. Bush seems to have asserted that the US is also no longer
bound by the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties. Under the 1969 Convention, a country that has signed a treaty cannot act to
defeat the purpose of that treaty, even if it does not intend to ratify it. Thus, having set this precedent on the basis of national
interest, Washington will surely find itself in an awkward position vis-a`-vis its opposition to any defection from the drug control
treaties on similar grounds.
No global political will
Fred Tanner 9-30-2K; Fred Tanner is Deputy Director of the Geneva Centre for Security Policy.
“Conflict prevention and conflict resolution: limits of multilateralism” 30-09-2000 Article, International Review of the Red Cross,
No. 839 http://www.icrc.org/eng/resources/documents/misc/57jqq2.htm
4. There
is no consensus on the utility of early warning in conflict prevention. Some analysts argue today
opportunities for conflict prevention have occurred not because of insufficient time to respond,
but because of a lack of political will to react to the warning. The Carnegie Commission on Preventing Deadly
that failed
Conflict made one of the first efforts to link early warning with receptivity of warning and early response. But, as the 1999 Rwanda
Report pointed out, early
warning makes sense only if the warning signals are correctly analysed and
transferred to the relevant decision-making authority. In this context, the capacity to gather and
analyse information for the UN has fallen prey to “downsizing efforts”. In 1992, the UN did away with the
Office for Research and Collection of Information (OCRI) and transferred some of its functions to the Department of Political Affairs
and, as a consequence, the 1995 Report of the Commission on Global Governance proposed that the UN develop a new system to
collect information on trends and situations that may lead to violent conflict or humanitarian tragedies. [7 ]
Not unique – States and Uruguay
Irish Examiner, 14 [“TD criticises hard-hitting UN attack on legalising cannabis” Irish
Examiner, March 6, 2014 Thursday, Lexis]
Publishing its annual report, INCB president Raymond Yans said the developments
in Uruguay and the US states
of Colorado and Washington "contravenes" drug control conventions. "These developments do pose a very
serious challenge to the international drug control system and they represent a grave threat to public
health," he said. "Member states themselves have recognised the dangers posed by cannabis abuse and committed themselves to the
implementation, the full implementation, of the convention." In December, Uruguay approved a bill to legalise and regulate the sale
and production of marijuana. The sale of cannabis by licensed suppliers to adults aged over 21 became legal in Colorado last
January. Washington state is due to follow in the summer. Luke 'Ming' Flanagan TD, who last November put forward a bill to
regulate cannabis, described the statement from the INCB as "the last sting of a dying wasp". The
Roscommon-South Leitrim deputy said: "The [INCB] president would want to realise the laws were put in place by nations and
nations are changing direction on this issue." He said Mr Yans' comments were based on "misinformation" and
contrary to what people were telling him. He said the
trend among countries was "moving rapidly in the
direction of the repeal of prohibition" and said the US was leading the charge. "There are six
plebiscites or referendums in the US this year, including California in November, the ninth biggest
economy in the planet and its odds-on to legalise," said Mr Flanagan. "I believe what will happen in the US will
have a domino effect . The situation is changing and things could evolve quicker than the UN review."
He said there were moves across many countries in Europe, including Spain and Portugal, but that "little Ireland
was behind the times". Mr Flanagan said there should be a debate in Ireland in the run up to the 2016 review. Citywide, an umbrella
group of drug projects, has called for a debate on drug laws and is in favour of the decriminalisation of drug possession. It said
between 25 and 30 countries had implemented some form of decriminalisation, although it added that
legalisation was a "more complex" issue.
1AR
MIDTERMS
Money matters --- Dems are spending more to reverse turnout deficit in critical
states—solves turnout sufficiently
Willis, 9/30/14 (Derek, “Democrats Are Spending More on the Ground in Key Senate Races,”
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/10/30/upshot/democrats-are-spending-more-on-the-groundin-key-senate-races.html?rref=upshot&abt=0002&abg=0, JMP)
With a strong possibility that Democrats could lose control of the Senate in the midterm
elections, they are investing heavily in voter turnout efforts.
In states too close to call like Alaska, Colorado, Iowa and North Carolina, Democrats are
making much greater investments in the ground game than Republicans.
Not all spending is captured in Federal Election Commission data, but the spending trends are
clear. The Democrats’ spending advantage is greatest in states where they’ve had time to
organize and plan for competitive races, and they are using that edge to register new voters;
publicize absentee and early voting options; and, of course, make sure supporters actually go to
the polls on Election Day. The efforts extend to states where the Republicans more recently
made Senate contests more competitive, like Michigan.
Democrats have invested several million dollars in both North Carolina and Colorado for this
ground game. Republican spending in those states so far has tended to focus on broadcast
advertisements and direct mail.
That edge extends to Alaska, where the Democratic incumbent Mark Begich faces Dan Sullivan.
Combined, Democratic independent groups, party committees and Mr. Begich’s campaign have
already spent nearly 10 times more than Republicans on wages and expenses for local
staffers; get-out-the-vote efforts; and other field operations.
The state Democratic Party alone has spent at least $763,687 on voter turnout and staffing this
year, which amounts to $1.45 for every citizen over 18 in the state. By comparison, the more
than $1 million the Wake County Democratic Party has spent on voter turnout and staffing in
North Carolina this year works out to 15 cents for every potential voter.
In Iowa, the state Democratic Party has spent more than $872,000 in ground operations, part of
a substantial advantage that Democrats have over Republicans in that state. The party has paid
the salaries of at least 148 people in the current election cycle, according to data through the end
of August. The Republican Party of Iowa had 11 people on its federal campaign payroll in
August.
[graph omitted]
The Republican candidate Joni Ernst had spent less than $40,000 on paid staff through June.
Ms. Ernst faces Representative Bruce Braley in the race to succeed Tom Harkin, a Democrat
who is retiring. Iowa remains a tossup race, according to Leo, The Upshot’s Senate forecasting
model, with Ms. Ernst taking the lead in the latest polls.
Michigan is a rare exception. There the two state parties have spent roughly similar amounts on
staff through the end of August. Democratic outside spending on field operations has been less
than in other key states, while Republicans have invested in field spending.
The Upshot determined ground game totals by adding up itemized expenditures on nonWashington staffers and spending specifically described as being for in-person voter contact and
canvassing purposes. This includes mileage and per diem expenses for field staff and a few other
smaller items like materials for door-to-door campaigning. The largest amounts went to
campaign staff.
This isn’t a perfect measure because some descriptions of spending are vague or include
different categories, and not every staffer is engaged in voter contact. In addition, candidate
spending is through June 30, while party spending covers this year through the end of August,
and independent expenditure data includes general election spending through late September.
Taken as a whole, however, the Democratic lead in this area is clear.
Outside groups working on behalf of Democratic candidates have extended the advantage. Super
PACs, environmental organizations and abortion rights groups have spent more than $4.8
million on ground activity in Senate races in Alaska, Colorado, Iowa, Michigan and North
Carolina. Republican-leaning groups have kicked in only $369,000.
Economic messaging benefits Democrats—winning it now
Sink, 9/15/14 (Justin, “Obama set to launch October midterm push,”
http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/senate-races/217785-obama-set-to-launch-octobermidterm-push, JMP)
President Obama will kick off his midterm campaign push in October, according to senior
administration officials, with events benefitting individual vulnerable Democratic
candidates.
Obama will ramp up his public campaign efforts on behalf of congressional Democrats, but — in
a possible acknowledgement of the president's flagging approval ratings — the effort will be less
intensive than what former President George W. Bush undertook during the 2002 midterm
election cycle. That fall, Bush made more than 40 campaign speeches for dozens of
congressional candidates.
At the same time, the White House says it feels better about the midterm elections than it did
just one month ago.
One senior administration official said there was a clear path for Democrats to hold the Senate,
and that the White House was encouraged that every toss-up race remains within the margin of
error. The official said Republican chances of a pick-up in the Michigan open-seat race were
fading, while vulnerable senators like Sens. Mark Begich (D-Alaska) and Kay Hagan (D-N.C.)
were maintaining narrow leads. Meanwhile, Democratic nominee Rep. Bruce Braley has taken a
slim lead in Iowa, according to a White House official.
The White House is also not concerned about polls indicating that Sen. Jeanne Shaheen's (DN.H.) lead over former Massachusetts GOP Sen. Scott Brown appeared to be eroding, dismissing
recent surveys as an aberration.
In the Senate, Democrats are defending 21 of the 36 seats up this fall, and election watchers
widely expect the party to lose seats as it protects a fragile six-seat majority. Democrats in red
states like South Dakota, West Virginia and Montana have retired, and Sens. Mark Pryor (Ark.)
and Mary Landrieu (La.) also face tough races.
The White House maintains that the president was never expecting to campaign until October,
and that recent foreign policy events have not distracted from the economic
messaging the party hoped to promote ahead of the midterms. In fact, officials believe
there is plenty of time to return the national discussion to the economy ahead of
the midterm elections, they said.
They also say not to expect the president to highlight his response to recent foreign policy crises
on the campaign trail. And the White House appears confident that the president's decision to
punt on an executive action on immigration reform has neutralized the issue for the midterms,
with one official saying that GOP arguments on amnesty and immigration haven't been
resonating in the polls.
The official also argued Republicans were struggling to come up with a theme for their midterm
campaign.
This strategy allows Dems to maintain Senate control—it’s more important and
working now
Shaw, 9/22/14 (John, “Battle For US Senate To Turn On Half Dozen Very Tight Races,”
https://mninews.marketnews.com/index.php/battle-us-senate-turn-half-dozen-very-tight-
races?q=content/battle-us-senate-turn-half-dozen-very-tight-races, JMP) ***Note --- Charlie
Cook is a leading election analyst
But Cook adds that a Republican victory is far from certain.
"At least a half dozen very close races will be determined by a point or two, and those can turn
on events that may have yet to occur, making the battle for the majority very volatile,"
Cook writes.
He said two factors could allow Democrats to retain control of the Senate: well-funded
campaigns in key states and state-of-the-art political operations that bring the
Democratic base to the voting booth on November 4.
According to the Cook Political Report, "Republicans are on track to pick up between four and
six seats; it is more likely than not that the number will be at the higher end of - and may exceed
- that range."
Plan makes marijuana a controversial national issue and wrecks Dems’ election
strategy
James, 14 (1/21/2014, Frank, “Obama's Marijuana Remarks Light Up Legalization Debate,”
http://www.npr.org/blogs/itsallpolitics/2014/01/21/264551314/obamas-marijuana-remarkslight-up-legalization-debate)
That President Obama could openly speculate about marijuana being less dangerous than
alcohol — and embrace the state-level legalization of the drug — is a measure of just how far the
nation has moved since the 1980s.
Back then, the Reagan administration's approach was absolute: "Just Say No." It's more
complicated today.
Obama's interview with the New Yorker's David Remnick gave a measure of validation to friends
of legalization and served as a buzz kill to its foes. But even supporters of decriminalizing
marijuana were careful not to claim that Obama's statement had altered the overall dynamics of
the debate.
For one thing, Obama was characteristically cautious in how he framed the issue, to the point of
ambivalence. While he said that marijuana was less dangerous than alcohol — an assertion in
dispute — he also said he told his daughters that it was "a bad idea, a waste of time, not very
healthy."
He seemed most concerned about the disproportionate impact marijuana arrests and
convictions were having on minority young people. And he also worried about where to draw the
line with other more dangerous drugs like cocaine or methamphetamine.
Obama, as a politician and leader of the Democratic Party, is also wary of intentionally
putting his party at a political disadvantage, especially as the 2014 midterm and
2016 presidential elections come into view.
So while Allen St. Pierre, executive director of NORML, the best-known marijuana legalization
advocacy group, welcomed the president's comments, he wasn't expecting a burst of federal
legislative activity or executive directives from the president's pen.
"Let's get politically pragmatic here. His approval ratings right now are not that high," St. Pierre
said. "So the idea of coming out full bore for marijuana legalization is probably not
a strategy to raise his overall ratings. Second, he's a Democrat who would like to hand off
his eight-year presidency to another Democrat.
"And so it's very likely that he and his aides are very conscious of the idea marijuana is a
political hot potato," he said. While libertarian conservatives tend to to be pro-legalization,
many other Republicans aren't.
"And so do they want to hand such a massive triangulation to Republicans who would cast Mr.
Obama and other Democrats as a bunch of legalizing dopers?" St. Pierre asks rhetorically. Not
likely to happen, says NORML's leader, who has lobbied in Washington for legalization for
decades.
Obama was already a target for such attacks from conservatives because of his
acknowledgement that he smoked pot and tried other drugs as a teenager and young man, even
leading the self-styled Choom Gang of young marijuana aficionados.
And it's not just non-libertarian-oriented Republicans who would oppose the president if he
decided to push for federal decriminalization. Patrick Kennedy, the former congressman and
son of Sen. Edward Kennedy, who has experienced his own battle with substance abuse, took
Obama to task for saying that marijuana was benign relative to alcohol. In a statement Kennedy,
chairman of Smart Approaches to Marijuana, said:
"We take issue with the President's comparisons between marijuana and alcohol, and we
strongly encourage him — a president who has, on many occasions, championed rigorous
science — to work closely with his senior drug policy advisors and scientists, who fully
acknowledge the growing world body of science showing the harms of marijuana use to
individuals and communities. Today's marijuana is far more potent than the marijuana the
President has acknowledged using during his teens and early adulthood."
Obama's comments, cautious as they were, could still fuel momentum for legalization at the
state level, especially since he endorsed that approach. Only two states, Washington and
Colorado, have legalized marijuana for recreational use. Beyond them, 20 states and the District
of Columbia have more or less legalized the drug for medical purposes.
Exports now
Passut 9/16—Natural Gas Intel
(Charlie, “U.S. Shale Revolution Supplanting Saudi, West African Oil Imports, IEA Finds”,
http://www.naturalgasintel.com/articles/99722-us-shale-revolution-supplanting-saudi-west-african-oil-imports-iea-finds, dml)
As global demand for oil slows, surging U.S. shale and light tight oil (LTO) production is causing
Saudi Arabian and West African crude oil exports to be diverted elsewhere, while U.S. gasoline
exports to the world market are expected to rise, according to the International Energy Agency
(IEA).
In the latest installment of its monthly Oil Market Report, the IEA said the recent slowdown in
global oil demand "is nothing short of remarkable."
"Latest statistics show that demand growth slowed to below 500,000 b/d year-on?year in
2Q2014 for the first time in two and a half years. Demand projections for 3Q2014 have been
revised downwards, as have been forecasts for 2014 and 2015 as a whole. While demand growth
is still expected to gain momentum, the expected pace of recovery is now looking somewhat
more subdued."
And while the IEA gave kudos to the Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC)
for keeping supplies near the target of 30 million b/d despite the ongoing violence in Libya and
Iraq, the agency said "shifts in the direction of OPEC export flows [are] noteworthy," and are
being impacted by rising unconventional production in the U.S.
"In recent years, surging LTO production has backed out U.S. imports of West African crude,
which are now moving to Asia," the IEA said. "Saudi exports seem to be showing the beginning
of a similar shift. Saudi exports as a whole are likely to have run below 7 million b/d for the last
four months, their lowest level since September 2011. Exports to the U.S. led the drop amid
rising Saudi domestic demand for crude burn and refinery runs."
According to the IEA, Saudi Arabia's national oil and gas company, Saudi Aramco, "appears to
be pricing oil out of the U.S. market by ratcheting up official selling prices [OSP] to North
America, while OSPs to Asia have come off, likely setting the stage for a broad rebalancing of
trade flows. Thus is the global crude market continuing to adjust to the new North American
supply reality."