1AC – GSU Doubles
1AC – Plan
The United States should legalize nearly all marihuana in the United States.
1AC – Cartels Advantage
CONTENTION 1: CARTELS
Violence in Mexico is worsening---cartels are using more violent methods
David James Cantor 14, Director, Refugee Law Initiative, School of Advanced Study, University of
London, “The New Wave: Forced Displacement Caused by Organized Crime in Central America and
Mexico”, Refugee Survey Quarterly (2014), first published online 6/10/14,
http://rsq.oxfordjournals.org/content/early/2014/06/10/rsq.hdu008.full.pdf+html
Drug-smuggling organizations also have a long history in Mexico . Traditionally, like Central American
transportistas, the Mexican cartels were rooted in strategically-important areas of the country and led by particular local families.
Yet, from the 1990s, a process of
increasing fragmentation and militarisation has produced a new modus
operandi in which each cartel seeks to establish exclusive control over territories through which drugs are
trafficked (plazas), on which they then levy a tax (piso).48 As well as moving drugs through Mexican territory, these
cartels have increasingly assumed a dominant regional role as drug owners and managers .49 Many –
especially the newer cartels – are also diversifying their interests in controlled territories to include extortion and charging piso on
other local criminal activities.50 This new mode of operations appears to have provoked forced displacement on a significant scale
since the mid-2000s.¶ The wave of violence experienced in Mexico over the past decade results largely from
disputes for the control of plazas by these ruthless and heavily-armed criminal organizations. In affected
parts of the country, much of the intense violent confrontation occurs outside the major cities, in the rural zones through which drug
transportation takes place. Rural zones in states such as Sinaloa are also a focal point for armed dispute over the production of
heroin, marijuana, and methamphetamines there.51 However, the confrontations are not exclusively confined to rural
areas but have increasingly extended to nearby cities, which provide attractive opportunities for diversifying into
extortion and control of the local drug-dealing market.52 In the last few years, disputes over control of drug-smuggling
routes have also spread with the cartels to Mexico’s southern neighbours .¶ The growing militarisation of
the Mexican cartels has not only exacerbated their fragmentation, but also altered the way in which they
interact with inhabitants of such territories. Most notably among the newer cartels, a bloody and
uncompromising mind-set prevails in which intimidation and extreme spectacles of violence are used
to control inhabitants (and officials) or to dominate new territories.54 The deployment of such tactics has raised the stakes for
other cartels, which have not hesitated to respond in kind. In urban areas,55 violent Mexican street gangs are also
sometimes employed by rival cartels as a means of waging war by proxy, thereby further fracturing the control and discipline of the
cartels.¶ While the cartels’ extensive territories are comparable to those of transportistas, their pursuit of exclusive territorial control
via intimidation and extreme violence is thus more similar to the strategy now favoured by the maras. Yet their power,
resources, and positioning in the regional drug trade put their capacity for violence in a league far above
that of other criminal organizations in the region.
Marijuana prohibition drives cartel violence---artificially high prices
sustain violence---legalization is key
Paul Armentano 9, Deputy Director of the National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws,
an expert in the field of marijuana policy, health, and pharmacology, has served as a consultant for Health
Canada and the Canadian Public Health Association, “How to End Mexico's Deadly Drug War”, 1/18/09,
The Foundation for Economic Education, http://www.fee.org/the_freeman/detail/how-to-end-mexicosdeadly-drug-war
The U.S. Office of Drug Control Policy (more commonly known as the drug czar’s office) says more than 60 percent of the profits
reaped by Mexican drug lords are derived from the exportation and sale of cannabis to the American market. To anyone who has
studied the marijuana issue, this figure should come as no surprise. An estimated 100 million Americans age 12 or older—or about
43 percent of the country—admit to having tried pot, a higher percentage, according to the World Health Organization, than any
other country on the planet. Twenty-five million Americans admit (on government surveys, no less) to smoking
marijuana during the past year, and 15 million say that they indulge regularly. This high demand,
combined with the drug’s artificially inflated black-market value (pot possession has been illegal under federal law
since 1937), now makes cannabis America’s top cash crop.¶ In fact, according to a 2007 analysis by George Mason
University professor Jon Gettman, the annual retail value of the U.S. marijuana market is some $113 billion.¶ How
much of this goes directly to Mexican cartels is difficult to quantify, but no doubt the percentage is significant. Government officials
estimate that approximately half the marijuana consumed in the United States originates from outside its borders, and they have
identified Mexico as far and away America’s largest pot provider. Because Mexican-grown marijuana tends to fetch
lower prices on the black market than domestically grown weed (a result attributed largely to lower production
costs—the Mexican variety tends to be grown outdoors, while an increasing percentage of American-grown pot is produced
hydroponically indoors), it remains consistently popular among U.S. consumers, particularly in a down economy. As a
result, U.S. law officials now report that some Mexican cartels are moving to the United States to set up shop
permanently. A Congressional Research Service report says low-level cartel members are now establishing clandestine
growing operations inside the United States (thus eliminating the need to cross the border), as well as partnering with domestic
gangs and other criminal enterprises. A March 23 New York Times story speculated that Mexican drug gangs or their affiliates are
now active in some 230 U.S. cities, extending from Tucson, Arizona, to Anchorage, Alaska.¶ In short, America’s multibillion-
dollar demand for pot is fueling the Mexican drug trade and much of the turf battles and carnage
associated with it. ¶ Same Old “Solutions”¶ So what are the administration’s plans to quell the cartels’ growing influence and
surging violence? Troublingly, the White House appears intent on recycling the very strategies that gave rise to
Mexico’s infamous drug lords in the first place.¶ In March the administration requested $700 million from Congress to
“bolster existing efforts by Washington and Mexican President Felipe Calderón’s administration to fight violent trafficking in drugs .
. . into the United States.” These efforts, as described by the Los Angeles Times, include: “vowing to send U.S. money, manpower,
and technology to the southwestern border” and “reducing illegal flows (of drugs) in both directions across the border.” The
administration also announced that it intends to clamp down on the U.S. demand for illicit drugs by increasing funding for drug
treatment and drug courts.¶ There are three primary problems with this strategy.¶ First, marijuana production is a lucrative
business that attracts criminal entrepreneurs precisely because it is a black-market (and highly sought after)
commodity. As long as pot remains federally prohibited its retail price to the consumer will remain
artificially high, and its production and distribution will attract criminal enterprises willing to turn to
violence (rather than the judicial system) to maintain their slice of the multi-billion-dollar pie.¶ Second, the United
States is already spending more money on illicit-drug law enforcement, drug treatment, and drug courts than at any time in our
history. FBI data show that domestic marijuana arrests have increased from under 300,000 annually in 1991 to over 800,000 today.
Police seizures of marijuana have also risen dramatically in recent years, as has the amount of taxpayer dollars federal officials have
spent on so-called “educational efforts” to discourage the drug’s use. (For example, since the late 1990s Congress has appropriated
well over a billion dollars in anti-pot public service announcements alone.) Yet despite these combined efforts to discourage
demand, Americans use more pot than anyone else in the world.¶ Third, law enforcement’s recent attempts to crack
down on the cartels’ marijuana distribution rings, particularly new efforts launched by the Calderón administration in
Mexico, are driving the unprecedented wave in Mexican violence—not abating it. The New York Times states: “A
crackdown begun more than two years ago by President Felipe Calderón, coupled with feuds over turf and control of the
organizations, has set off an unprecedented wave of killings in Mexico. . . . Many of the victims were tortured. Beheadings have
become common.” Because of this escalating violence, Mexico now ranks behind only Pakistan and Iran as the administration’s top
international security concern.¶ Despite the rising death toll, drug war hawks at the U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA)
remain adamant that the United States’ and Mexico’s “supply side” strategies are in fact successful. “Our view is that the violence we
have been seeing is a signpost of the success our very courageous Mexican counterparts are having,” acting DEA administrator
Michele Lionhart said recently. “The cartels are acting out like caged animals, because they are caged animals.” President Obama
also appears to share this view. After visiting with the Calderón government in April, he told CNN he intended to “beef up” security
on the border. When asked whether the administration would consider alternative strategies, such as potentially liberalizing pot’s
criminal classification, Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano replied that such an option “is not on the table.”¶ A New
Remedy¶ By contrast the Calderón administration appears open to the idea of legalizing marijuana—or at least reducing criminal
sanctions on the possession of small quantities of drugs—as a way to stem the tide of violence. Last spring Mexican lawmakers made
the possession of personal-use quantities of cannabis and other illicit substances a noncriminal offense. And in April Mexico’s
ambassador to the United States, Arturo Sarukhan, told CBS’s Face the Nation that legalizing the marijuana trade
was a legitimate option for both the Mexican and U.S. governments . “[T]hose who would suggest that some of these
measures [legalization] be looked at understand the dynamics of the drug trade,” Sarukhan said.¶ Former Mexican President Vicente
Fox recently echoed Sarukhan’s remarks, as did a commission of former Latin American presidents. “I believe it’s time to open
the debate over legalizing drugs,” Fox told CNN in May. “It can’t be that the only way [to try to control illicit drug use] is for
the state to use force.Ӧ Writing recently on CNN.com, Harvard economist and Freeman contributor Jeffrey Miron said that ending
drug prohibition—on both sides of the border—is the only realistic and viable way to put a permanent stop to the rising power and
violence associated with Mexico’s drug traffickers. “Prohibition creates violence because it drives the drug market
underground,” he wrote. “This means buyers and sellers cannot resolve their disputes with lawsuits,
arbitration or advertising, so they resort to violence instead. . . . The only way to reduce violence ,
therefore, is to legalize drugs .”
Marijuana’s key---legalization weakens the cartels sufficiently to allow
current operations to succeed
Ioan Grillo 12, author, journalist, writer and TV producer based in Mexico City, has reported on
Mexico and Latin American since 2001, “Hit Mexico’s Cartels With Legalization”, 11/1/12, NYT,
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/11/02/opinion/hit-mexicos-cartels-with-legalization.html
Marijuana is just one of the drugs that the cartels traffic. Chemicals such as crystal meth may be too venomous to ever be legalized.
But cannabis is a cash crop that provides huge profits to criminal armies , paying for assassins and guns south of
the Rio Grande. The scale of the Mexican marijuana business was illustrated by a mammoth 120-hectare plantation busted last year
in Baja California. It had a sophisticated irrigation system, sleeping quarters for 60 workers and could produce 120 metric tons of
cannabis per harvest.¶ Again, nobody knows exactly how much the whole Mexico-U.S. marijuana trade is worth,
with estimates ranging from $2 billion to $20 billion annually. But even if you believe the lowest numbers, legal
marijuana would take billions of dollars a year away from organized crime. This would inflict more
financial damage than soldiers or drug agents have managed in years and substantially weaken cartels.¶ It
is also argued that Mexican gangsters have expanded to a portfolio of crimes that includes kidnapping, extortion,
human smuggling and theft from oil pipelines. This is a terrifying truth. But this does not take away from the fact that the
marijuana trade provides the crime groups with major resources. That they are committing crimes such as
kidnapping, which have a horrific effect on innocent people, makes cutting off their financing all the more
urgent.¶ The cartels will not disappear overnight. U.S. agents and the Mexican police need to continue battling hit
squads that wield rocket-propelled grenades and belt-driven machine guns. Killers who hack off heads still have to be locked away.
Mexico needs to clean up corruption among the police and build a valid justice system. And young men in the barrios have to be
given a better option than signing up as killers.¶ All these tasks
will be easier if the flow of money to the cartels is
dramatically slowed down . Do we really want to hand them another trillion dollars over the next three decades?
Specifically, the aff undercuts the Sinaloa and Tijuana cartels, the most
powerful and influential cartels---that’s key to stability
Chad Murray 11, M.A. student in the Latin American and Hemispheric Studies Program @ George
Washington, supervised and sponsored by the OAS and Inter-American Drug Abuse Control Commission,
“Mexican Drug Trafficking Organizations and Marijuana: The Potential Effects of U.S. Legalization”,
4/26/11, https://elliott.gwu.edu/sites/elliott.gwu.edu/files/downloads/acad/lahs/mexico-marijuana071111.pdf
While Los Zetas and La Familia have recently dominated the media coverage of the drug war in Mexico, they might not be
objectively termed the strongest cartels in the country. They are the most active in attacking government forces and
setting up narco bloqueos in major cities.59 However, they do not have the financial strength, military prowess, territorial reach, or
tactical discipline of Mexico‟s largest DTO, the Sinaloa cartel. 60 This DTO and the Tijuana cartel are major traffickers of
marijuana, and their territories are the major marijuana production areas in Mexico. They have near exclusive control of
the so called “Golden Triangle” region of Mexico where the mountainous areas of Sinaloa, Durango and Chihuahua
states meet. This makes sense, because according to sources in the Drug Enforcement Agency these two DTOs likely make a
majority their revenue from marijuana.¶ The amount of marijuana trafficked by the Sinaloa cartel is
evident by the scale of recent drug busts. In October of 2010 Mexican police and military forces seized more than 134
metric tons of marijuana in one Sinaloa facility. This was equal to almost $200 million according to Mexican authorities.63 The very
next month 30 tons of marijuana was retrieved by law enforcement on both sides of the border after a Tijuana drug smuggling
tunnel was discovered.64 The DTO behind this operation has not been determined, but based on the location it is likely to be either
the Sinaloa cartel or Arello Felix Organization. These seizures represent only a proportion of the amount marijuana trafficked into
the United States from Mexico through the San Diego-Tijuana corridor in 2 months. There are other drug transport corridors that
likely receive more marijuana traffic. ¶ Although the Sinaloa cartel does not often target civilians, it
is the most violent DTO
in terms of overall casualties . It has targeted hundreds of police officers and its leader, “El Chapo” Guzmán, is
widely thought to have caused a recent upsurge in violence after breaking a truce with the other major criminal
groups in the country.66 The feud between the Sinaloa and Juarez organizations is the reason that Juarez is the most violent city in
Mexico, and according to some accounts, the entire world. 67 The Sinaloa cartel’s huge financial resources make it
a major threat to the government , because they are able to corrupt large numbers of local, state, and federal government
officials. This was revealed in several high profile cases in recent years.68The Sinaloa cartel is constantly trying to expand
its territory into that traditionally held by other cartels, particularly in Juarez, and this is a major cause of
much of the violence.¶ The Sinaloa cartel has the greatest capacity to wage „all-out war‟ because they have
far more money than the other DTOs. Guzmán is also more focused on winning the favor and tacit protection of the
populace, and thus is more involved in the drugs trade than kidnapping, and prefers to bribe rather than confront
authorities.69 However, in many ways this makes the Sinaloa cartel more dangerous to the Government in Mexico. Its use of
bribes can make local state and even federal law enforcement unreliable. Furthermore, the Sinaloa organization’s
outreach to the civilian population makes it even harder for the government to gain information about Guzmán. In addition, the
massive strength of the Sinaloa cartel makes an eventual peace all the more allusive. In the event that the
government would try to reduce the violence through talks with cartels, the Sinaloa organization would be unlikely to take them
seriously. The government has little to offer big organizations like Sinaloa, which already enjoy near uncontested control over the
areas in which they operate.¶ The Tijuana cartel is also a powerful, though often underrated organization. This group was infamous
in 2008 and 2009, when it destabilized much of Tijuana with its attacks on the police and rival cartels. 71As with the Sinaloa cartel,
the Tijuana cartel is a very important organization with networks mainly in the Tijuana and the San Diego
area. This DTO is famous for both its violence and the brutality. Most notoriously, Teodoro García Simental’s
war for control of Tijuana led to hundreds being tortured and killed until his arrest in 2010. ¶ The main areas where the Sinaloa
and Tijuana cartels tend to cultivate marijuana include Sonora, Michoacán, and Sinaloa states. They focus on trafficking in
marijuana because it is easy to grow, profitable for wholesale, and cheap to pay laborers . In 2010 farmers
received only 15 to 20 dollars for a pound of marijuana. 73 This price is just barely above the amount farmers could get for corn and
other produce. Therefore, if the price farmers were to be paid for marijuana were to fall much further, it is not
unlikely that many would turn to more legitimate crops.¶ These cartels represent a huge part of the
Mexican organized criminal structure . Dealing a major blow to these groups could give the Mexican
government a leg up. The Sinaloa cartel currently has the ability, due to its huge monetary reserves, to project its influence and
carry out violence acts across vast swathes of Mexico. The Tijuana cartel holds large parts of its namesake city through violence and
coercion. The following chapter will explore what effect, if any, the legalization of marijuana would have on the revenue, operational
capacities, overall strength, and ability to wage violence for these two cartels.
The plan also massively disrupts cartel revenues and independently frees
up law enforcement resources to focus on other sources of revenue
David Shirk 11, director of the Trans-Border Institute and associate professor of political science at the
University of San Diego, conducts research on Mexican politics, U.S.-Mexico relations, and law
enforcement and security along the U.S.-Mexico border, currently the principal investigator for the
Justice in Mexico project, a binational research initiative on criminal justice and the rule of law in Mexico,
“Drug Violence and State Responses in Mexico”, last date cited was 2011, http://iisdb.stanford.edu/evnts/6716/Shirk-Drug_Violence_and_State_Responses_in_Mexico.pdf
In evaluating Mexico’s efforts to address these challenges, it seems clear that inter-cartel dynamics and the government’s
own efforts to decapitate top leadership structures has contributed to the fractionalization of organized
crime groups, more severe and disorganized violence, and a diversification of organized criminal activities. If current trends
continue, my estimation is that we are likely to see a reconfiguration of international drug trafficking networks —with a continued
shift to Central America— and a gradual diminishing, but greater dispersion of crime and violence in Mexico. For some, this result
will seem like a victory, since it would achieve the Calderón administration’s stated goal of eliminating drug trafficking organizations
as a national security threat. However, in my view, this result would merely illustrate the utter failure of counter-drug efforts, in that
it would perpetuate the pattern of displacement —the so-called balloon effect— that has characterized the war on drugs for over 40
years. Meanwhile, little real progress has been made with regard to the two factors of greatest concern to ordinary
people: significantly reducing drug violence and the accessibility of psychotropic substances. In fact, in both areas, the
traditional strategies associated with the drug war —the disruption of cartel leadership structures, the concentration of
interdiction efforts at the border, and the overall emphasis of a law enforcement approach to the shared
problem of drug consumption— have arguably produced more harm than good. ¶ Still, the policy options available to
Mexico partly reflect the policies and priorities of the United States, which is presently opposed to any alternative to the
criminalization of drugs and strongly supports counter drug efforts in Mexico. What most ordinary U.S. and Mexican citizens don't
realize is that the vast majority of counter-drug efforts currently focus on the drug that is most widely used: marijuana. Indeed, last
marijuana represented 98% of the bulk tonnage seized by authorities at the U.S. Mexican border ,
although even the most generous estimates suggest that this represented no more than 5-10% of the total
volume of marijuana flowing across the border. Meanwhile, more than half of U.S. drug arrests—and roughly
6% of all arrests in the United States — are related to the illegal possession, consumption, or sale of cannabis.¶ Efforts
to restrict cannabis flows and consumption does little damage to drug cartels, since marijuana sales in the United States
represent 20-25% of proceeds from exports by Mexican drug traffickers, at best. Some observers stress this
point to argue that legalization of marijuana would do little to sway the fight against organized crime. Given that the
repeal of marijuana prohibition would cause drug traffickers to lose roughly a fifth of their U.S. proceeds
almost overnight, they are probably wrong . Indeed, repealing marijuana prohibition would likely do far more
than our current, costly restrictions to deprive organized crime groups of profits, and it would also free up badly
needed law enforcement resources to fight organized crime groups on other fronts and reduce consumer
dependence on high risk drugs like cocaine and heroin. Marijuana legalization is therefore a potential
first step toward a more rationale and effective approach to combating organized crime.
year
Drug violence spills over—destabilizes Central America and the Caribbean
David Shirk 11, director of the Trans-Border Institute and associate professor of political science at the
University of San Diego, conducts research on Mexican politics, U.S.-Mexico relations, and law
enforcement and security along the U.S.-Mexico border, “The Drug War in Mexico Confronting a Shared
Threat”, March 2011, Council on Foreign Relations, http://www.cfr.org/mexico/drug-warmexico/p24262
Third, Mexican stability serves as an important anchor for the region . With networks stretching into Central America, the Caribbean,
and the Andean countries, Mexican DTOs undermine the security and reliability of other U.S. partners in the hemisphere, corrupting highlevel officials, military operatives, and law enforcement personnel; undermining due process and human rights; reducing public support for counter-drug
efforts; and even provoking hostility toward the United States. Given the fragility of some Central American and Caribbean states,
expansion of DTO operations and violence into the region would have a gravely destabilizing effect .
Instability causes bioterror attacks
Stephen Flynn 1, Founding Co-Director of the George J. Kostas Research Institute for Homeland
Security, Professor of Political Science at Northeastern University and senior fellow at the Council on
Foreign Relations, “Terrorism, Porous Borders, and Homeland Security: The Case for U.S.-Caribbean
Cooperation”, 10/21/01, http://www.cfr.org/border-and-port-security/terrorism-porous-bordershomeland-security-case-us-caribbean-cooperation/p4844
Terrorist acts can take place anywhere. The Caribbean is no exception. Already the linkages between drug trafficking and terrorism are clear in
countries like Colombia and Peru, and such connections have similar potential in the Caribbean. The security of major industrial
complexes in some Caribbean countries is vital. Petroleum refineries and major industrial estates in Trinidad, which host more than 100 companies that produce the
majority of the world’s methanol, ammonium sulphate, and 40 percent of U.S. imports of liquefied natural gas (LNG), are vulnerable targets. Unfortunately, as experience has
terrorists are likely to strike at U.S. and European interests in Caribbean
countries.¶ Security issues become even more critical when one considers the possible use of Caribbean countries
by terrorists as bases from which to attack the United States. An airliner hijacked after departure from an airport in the northern Caribbean or
the Bahamas can be flying over South Florida in less than an hour. Terrorists can sabotage or seize control of a cruise
ship after the vessel leaves a Caribbean port. Moreover, terrorists with false passports and visas issued in the Caribbean may be able to move easily through passport controls
shown in Africa, the Middle East, and Latin America,
in Canada or the United States. (To help counter this possibility, some countries have suspended "economic citizenship" programs to ensure that known terrorists have not been
Caribbean countries are as vulnerable as anywhere else to the clandestine manufacture and
deployment of biological weapons within national borders.
inadvertently granted such citizenship.) Again,
Cartels in Mexico working with external terrorists short-circuits existing
checks and makes attack likely
Terence Rosenthal 13, political consultant and contributor at the Center for Security Policy, July 10,
“Los Zetas and Hezbollah, a Deadly Alliance of Terror and Vice”,
http://www.centerforsecuritypolicy.org/2013/07/10/los-zetas-and-hezbollah-a-deadly-alliance-of-terrorand-vice/
When Americans think about the illegal drug trade and black markets in Mexico, it is probable that they
do not associate them with terrorism
However, there is proof that Hezbollah
are functioning with cartels like Los Zetas
The combination of power hungry cartels
like Los Zetas, and terrorist organizations like Hezbollah
should not remain unnoticed.¶
, or Islamic fundamentalism. One would think that drug cartels like Los Zetas, the most sophisticated and second most powerful drug cartel in Mexico would have enough
allies and connections not to need the assistance of an organization like Hezbollah based half way across the world in Lebanon.
force
, as well as elements of the Iranian Quds
, the most sophisticated drug cartel in Mexico.
who want a presence in North America, in or near the United States inhibit U.S. companies from wanting to conduct
business in Mexico, and
The question is, how did this deadly alliance come into existence? For decades, immigrants, legal and illegal, have been arriving in Mexico from Lebanon. This
population has been growing steadily, and has a certain level of favorability with Hezbollah. One of the creations of Hezbollah in Mexico is that of well-connected global drug dealers, like Ayman Joumaa. Joumaa, indicted in 2011 is of Lebanese heritage, and has been
linked to Hezbollah, and Mexico’s Los Zetas cartel. With the help of the Los Zetas, and companies like The Lebanese Canadian Bank, Ayman Joumaa has laundered between $850 and $900 million. ¶ Joumaa is known among Israeli intelligence as being in contact
with Hezbollah elite forces, and was connected to senior operatives handling Hezbollah drug operations. He has received bulk payments of U.S. dollars in Mexico City after coordinating drug shipments from South America to the Los Zetas cartel, receiving a cut for
laundering and camouflaging funds. Drug and contraband profits were disguised through the trading and selling of used cars through an exchange in Africa with the help of Beirut exchange houses. Eventually, similar fraud rings connected to Joumaa were
discovered throughout North and South America, and the Middle East. Various methods of investment fraud are typically used by drug dealers to cover their tracks. Many fraud rings use creative investment tactics that can pass as legal activity if not scrutinized. One
such operation involved the selling of thorough-bred horses to cover up the trade of millions of dollars in fraudulent drug money.¶ Since 2005, Iran and Hezbollah have developed a presence in Latin America, opening 17 cultural centers, and forming relations with
the Mexican drug cartels. 200,000 immigrants from Lebanon and Syria, many of whom are illegal residents, live in Mexico, and have established residence with the help of drug cartels like Los Zetas, the most technically advanced of Mexico’s drug cartels. Those who
are sympathetic to Islamic extremist movements make perfect recruits for the drug trade because they understand how illegal activity in the Americas empowers whoever wishes to weaken the power of U.S. sovereignty. A s shown by the increase of Islamic
missionaries in Mexico, as well as the growing influence of Hezbollah and Iran, it is clear that Islamists are trying to win the hearts and minds of the Mexican people. However, beneath these seemingly peaceful developments lie the fact that Iran’s Islamic
Hezbollah has training
bases and sleeper cells in Mexico and South America
Hezbollah
created
tunnels on the American border that are extremely similar to those dividing Gaza and Egypt. These
tunnels are perfect for the transport of illegal conventional and biological weapons to contacts in the U
S
¶
an attack on U.S.
personnel installations by Hezbollah is possible
The relationship between Hezbollah and Los Zetas has almost touched down on American soil
Why is the combination of well-connected drug dealers, terrorist
organizations like Hezbollah, and the Zetas such a dangerous combination? It is a money laundering
operation that has the power to supersede local government, weaken communities, and make people
subject to criminal tyranny. It is highly possible that this threat could become a reality in the United
States.
¶
Revolutionary Guard and Quds forces are partnering with major Mexican drug cartels. They are learning Mexican culture, as well as Spanish, and are starting to blend in with native-born Mexicans.¶
. They also assist drug cartels with skills in bomb-making and explosives.
has also
nited
tates. Weaponry created by Hezbollah is capable of killing hundreds of thousands of people in major U.S. cities.
Former Assistant Secretary of State for Western Hemisphere Affairs, Roger Noriega believes that
. It is known that they have expanded from their operations in Paraguay, Brazil and Argentina, and are gaining ground in Central America and
Mexico.
. Los Zetas was to be
paid to bomb the Israeli Embassy in Washington, and the Saudi and Israeli embassy in Argentina.
In 2011, Iran’s Quds forces attempted an assassination against the Saudi Ambassador to the United States enlisting the use of the Los Zetas cartel. Luckily, this plot was thwarted by agents in the United States Drug Enforcement Agency (DEA).
The
Los Zetas Cartel is a deadly crime machine that diversifies in illegal drugs, human trade, money laundering, and the exchange of illegal weaponry. Many of its members were recruited from police and armed forces in Mexico. Techniques involving ambushes,
defensive positions, and intelligence used by the military are now applied by Mexico’s criminal syndicates. Los Zetas is prominent in 6 Mexican states, and actively infringes on government solvency in northeastern Tamaulipas. Many view the Mexican state of
Guerrero as one where the power of Los Zetas narco-criminals is equal to that of the local authorities. Los Zetas has even siphoned $1billion dollars in fuels from state-run oil producer, Pemex through their pipelines. In Tamaulipas, five people were killed as Los
Zetas sought to take control of a Pemex well. Some of Los Zetas’ allies are among the most powerful cartels in the world, including Beltrán-Leyva, the Juarez and Tijuana cartels, Bolivian drug clans, and ’Ndrangheta. ¶ It is understandable why the Mexican
government would be apprehensive about marginalizing the power of Mexican drug cartels. They have seen many of their people die as a result of the war against the cartels. The Mexican economy also benefits greatly from the high profit margins of illicit drugs and
other forms of illegal contraband. Latin America is home to one of the largest underground economies in the world. 600,000-800,000 people are smuggled through international borders every year, generating $16 billion each year in human trafficking and sexual
The lure of criminal activity and the drug trade,
coupled with the presence of Hezbollah and Iranian Quds forces in neighboring Mexico present the
United States with a major threat at its borders
Hezbollah’s ties to Latin American drug smugglers poses a “significant” threat for U.S.
national security and
having a militant organization like Hezbollah on
our border
does pose a threat
exploitation. These staggering financial statistics have won over many law officers in Mexico who initially fought against th e cartels.¶
. Dr. Matthew Levitt, senior fellow and director of terrorism studies at The Washington Institute for Near East Policy, as reported in CNS
News.com in 2010 stated that
“In the event the nuclear confrontation with Iran gets worse rather than better,
within
- it certainly
, and even
”. The obvious question is whether or not the United States is taking the necessary precautions to counter what is likely to become an even larger problem if left undeterred.
Extinction
Nathan Myhrvold 13, PhD in theoretical and mathematical physics from Princeton, and founded
Intellectual Ventures after retiring as chief strategist and chief technology officer of Microsoft Corporation
, July 2013, "Strategic Terrorism: A Call to Action," The Lawfare Research Paper Series No.2,
http://www.lawfareblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/07/Strategic-Terrorism-Myhrvold-7-3-2013.pdf
A virus genetically engineered to infect its host quickly, to generate symptoms slowly—say, only after weeks or months—
and to spread easily through the air or by casual contact would be vastly more devastating than HIV. It could silently
penetrate the population to unleash its deadly effects suddenly. This type of epidemic would be almost impossible to combat because most of the infections would occur before
. A technologically sophisticated terrorist group could develop such a virus and kill a large
humanity with it. Indeed, terrorists may not have to develop it themselves: some scientist may do so first
and publish the details.¶ Given the rate at which biologists are making discoveries about viruses and the immune system, at some point in the near
future, someone may create artificial pathogens that could drive the human race to extinction . Indeed, a ¶
the epidemic became obvious
part of
detailed species-elimination plan of this nature was openly ¶ proposed in a scientific journal. ¶ The ostensible purpose of that particular research was ¶ to suggest a way to
extirpate the malaria mosquito, but ¶ similar techniques could be directed toward humans.16 ¶ When I’ve talked to molecular biologists about this method, they are quick to
point out that it is slow and easily ¶ detectable and could be fought with biotech remedies. If ¶ you challenge them to come up with improvements to the ¶ suggested attack plan,
Modern biotechnology will soon be capable, if it is not already, of bringing about the
demise of the human race—¶ or at least of killing a sufficient number of people to end ¶ high-tech civilization and set humanity back 1,000 years or ¶ more.
That terrorist groups could achieve this level of technological sophistication may seem far-fetched, but keep
in mind that it takes only a handful of individuals to accomplish these tasks. Never has lethal power of this
potency been accessible to so few, so easily. Even more dramatically ¶ than nuclear proliferation, modern biological science has ¶ frighteningly
undermined the correlation between the lethality of a weapon and its cost, a fundamentally stabilizing ¶ mechanism throughout history. Access to extremely
lethal agents—lethal enough to exterminate Homo sapiens —will be available to anybody with a solid
background in biology, terrorists included.¶ The 9/11 attacks involved at least four pilots, each of ¶ whom had sufficient education to enroll in flight
however, they have plenty of ideas.¶
schools ¶ and complete several years of training. Bin laden had a degree in civil engineering. Mohammed Atta attended a German university, where he earned a master’s degree
A future set of terrorists could just as easily be students of
molecular biology who enter their studies innocently enough but later put their skills to homicidal use . ¶
in urban ¶ planning—not a field he likely chose for its relevance to ¶ terrorism.
Hundreds of universities in Europe and Asia have curricula ¶ sufficient to train people in the skills necessary to make a ¶ sophisticated biological weapon, and hundreds more in
it seems likely that sometime in the near future a small band of
terrorists, or even a single misanthropic individual, will overcome our best defenses and do something truly terrible, such
as fashion a bioweapon that could kill ¶ millions or even billions of people. Indeed, the creation of such weapons within
the next 20 years seems to be a virtual certainty .
the ¶ United States accept students from all over the world. ¶ Thus
Drug violence undermines foreign investment and PEMEX reform, which
are key to avoid oil production collapse
VOA 14, Mexico Opens Energy Sector, but Investors May Hesitate, Aug 14,
http://www.bignewsnetwork.com/index.php/sid/224755851
Mexican President Enrique Pena Nieto signed into law on August 11 a number of changes to his country's energy
sector that are designed to open it to private investment for the first time since it was nationalized on March 18, 1938.
That day is celebrated in Mexico as a national holiday and many Mexicans are opposed to reform. Without outside help,
though, Mexico's oil production will continue to fall.¶ As output from Mexico's main oil fields has dropped,
the country's future prosperity has become cloudy. That is why Pena Nieto made energy reform a priority
and convinced lawmakers to act.¶ "The vast majority of Mexicans should receive the benefits that this transformative reform will
bring," he said.¶ Previously, national oil company Pemex controlled all energy exploration and production, with foreign companies
sometimes working under contract to provide services. Now, foreign oil companies can participate in some joint ventures and bring
their expertise to Mexican fields.¶ George Baker, who runs the newsletter Mexico Energy Intelligence, said energy companies in
Houston and elsewhere are being cautious about the reform.¶ "Mexico is a very Pemex-centric country, and as such, there is built-in
resistance to change. The government has very high expectations, private industry is more on the side of wait and see," he said.¶ The
success of the reform is critical for Mexico as its oil production of 3.4 million barrels a day has now
slipped to 2.5 million barrels. Mexico, which borders the booming shale gas fields in Texas, imports natural gas because it
lacks the technical expertise to fully exploit its own fields. Baker said government officials are determined to change that. ¶ "The
government believes it has the fourth largest shale gas endowment in the world and they are saying, lsquo;why are we paying high
prices for gas when we have this great endowment?'" he said.¶ Much of the oil produced by the United States now comes from
offshore operations in the U.S. zone of the Gulf of Mexico, but Baker said there is very little activity in the Mexico zone. ¶ "The
Mexican side of the Gulf of Mexico is the largest unexplored petroleum province on the planet, perhaps outside the North Pole," he
said.¶ Baker said big oil companies like Exxon-Mobil and Shell could transform that zone, which has many
advantages over the North Pole in climate, nearby infrastructure and easily accessible services. He said Mexico must compete
for investment money with projects in U.S. fields, however, which now are the most competitive energy
players in the world. He said if a major oil company develops a project in Mexico, it might encourage others to follow.¶ Another
problem is security. Mexico political expert George Grayson, who teaches at the College of William and Mary in
Virginia, said violent drug cartels could threaten the energy industry.¶ "Los Zetas, which are the most sadistic
members of cartels in Mexico, have tapped into oil and gas pipelines, and I wonder if the foreign investors are
going to be willing to go into northern Mexico where Los Zetas and other cartels operate," said Grayson.
PEMEX reform and a stable investment climate are key to Chinese
purchases of Mexican oil—key to diversification of export markets
Evan Ellis 14, assistant professor of national security studies at the William J. Perry Center for
Hemispheric Defense Studies, interviewed in: What Are the Benefits of China-Mexico Energy
Cooperation?, June 27, http://www.economonitor.com/blog/2014/06/what-are-the-benefits-of-chinamexico-energy-cooperation/
“The proposed $4 billion fund is similar to the $10 billion China Development Bank loan to Petrobras in 2009. With Pemex, as with
Petrobras, the deal provides symbolic ‘fruit’ for the deeper and better relationship sought by both the Mexican and Chinese
presidents. As with Petrobras, Pemex has good access to Western financial markets, and thus doesn’t ‘need’ Chinese financing as
does PDVSA in Venezuela.¶ Yet the Chinese line of credit is welcome for a company struggling to invest to offset
declining production from its core mature assets in the Campeche basin.¶ Future oil shipments to China would also
offset declining petroleum exports to the United States and the persistent Mexican deficit with China in manufactured
goods. For the PRC, the loan offers ‘insider’ access to Pemex and the Mexican oil industry, useful to the
Chinese national oil companies (NOCs) in evaluating future acquisitions and bids , as ongoing reforms open up the
Mexican petroleum sector to foreign investment, just as the CDB loan to Petrobras arguably paved the way for Chinese
acquisitions of Repsol and Statoil assets in Brazil, and most recently, CNPC and CNOOC participation in the Libra auction. ¶ The
signing of the deal, which was accidentally disclosed in May, was probably anticipated as a highlight of President Peña Nieto’s trip to
the PRC, programmed for this November.Ӧ Answer: Sun Hongbo, associate professor at the Institute of Latin American Studies of
the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences in Beijing:¶ “Mexico is now becoming an important potential country for China to extend its
energy cooperation in Latin America. In view of the current Mexican energy reform, both Pemex and Chinese
national oil companies expect to tap great commercial opportunities within the oil sector, possibly supported by the
future Sino-Mex Energy Fund. More importantly, Mexico
regards China as a necessary partner to diversify its
foreign investment and crude oil export markets .¶ In 2013, Pemex signed crude oil trading, financing and other
cooperation framework agreements with Chinese companies and financial institutions. The energy interests of both China
and Mexico have good convergence in energy trade, finance and infrastructure building because of the two countries’
relative economic advantages and the complementarities in the energy industry.¶ In fact, Chinese national companies have entered
into Mexico’s upstream oil market by providing technical services in the last decade, and Mexico has been exporting crude oil to
China since 2009. Considering the decline of the proven oil reserves and production, Mexican oil exports to China will not increase
rapidly in the short term.¶ Chinese companies may consider financing, technical services and equipment trade
and energy infrastructure participation as cooperation priorities . On June 13, President Xi Jinping¶ emphasized
the importance of international energy cooperation and effective use of international resources for China’s energy security. ¶ He also
stressed that China shall strengthen international energy cooperation in a comprehensive way and
safeguard China’s energy security under open-market conditions. Without any doubt, Chinese companies will
look forward to diverse cooperation deals with Mexico if the Mexican investment environment is
favourable.
Specifically, PEMEX imports allow China to diversify away from Middle
East oil
Yang Jingjie 13, Increase in Mexican oil exports indicates thawing ties, Global Times Published: 2013-
4-9, http://www.globaltimes.cn/content/773515.shtml
Observers say Mexican state oil company Pemex's decision to significantly boost oil exports to China will help
optimize the imbalanced bilateral trade structure and indicates thawing ties following their leadership transitions.¶ On the
sidelines of the Boao Forum for Asia on Saturday, Pemex Chief Executive Emilio Lozoya said the company would begin increasing
exports to China by 30,000 barrels a day starting this month, according to a two-year agreement between Pemex and China's
Sinopec, Reuters reported.¶ The level of exports to China could increase over time as part of the agreement, he
added.¶ Mexico, the seventh largest oil producer in the world, exports nearly 80 percent of its oil to the US and only some
50,000 barrels to China each month, according to China Radio International.¶ Lin Boqiang, director of the China Center for
Energy Economics Research at Xiamen University, told the Global Times that the increase stemmed from China's
potential for growth in demand, against the backdrop of shrinking US imports as a result of its shale boom.¶ A report
released by OPEC last week expected China to overtake the US as the world's largest oil importer by 2014.¶ This would also
diversify China's sources of oil imports, "as only about 9 percent of the imports came from Latin America last year," Lin
added.¶ Data from the China Petroleum and Chemical Industry Federation showed last year nearly half of China's oil
imports came from the Middle East.
Chinese overreliance on Middle East oil makes conflict with the US
inevitable
Gal Luft 9, executive director of the Institute for the Analysis of Global Security, Dependence on Middle
East energy and its impact on global security,
http://www.iags.org/luft_dependence_on_middle_east_energy.pdf
Impact on global security As nations become increasingly dependent on oil, it becomes strategically imperative for ¶ them to secure
their access to the Middle East. This means building strong alliances with ¶ the region’s suppliers, providing them with diplomatic
support and military aid and often ¶ turning a blind eye to their human rights transgressions. Since the famous 1945 meeting ¶
between U.S. President Franklin D. Roosevelt and the Saudi King Abdul Aziz ibn Saud ¶ aboard the USS Quincy in Egypt's Great
Bitter Lake, it was the U.S. that served as the ¶ guarantor of security and stability in the Persian Gulf. In fact, the use of military
power to ¶ ensure free flow of oil from the Persian Gulf has been a tenet of U.S. national security ¶ strategy. According to the Carter
Doctrine, put forth by President Jimmy Carter in 1980, ¶ any effort by a hostile power to block the flow of oil from the Persian Gulf to
the U.S. ¶ will be viewed as an attack on America’s vital interests and will be repelled by any means ¶ necessary including military
force. Since then, the U.S. has exercised the Carter doctrine ¶ several times. When, during the Iran-Iraq War, Iranian forces attacked
Kuwaiti tankers, ¶ President Ronald Reagan authorized “reflagging” and provided them with U.S. Navy ¶ protection. Then, following
Iraq’s invasion of Kuwait in 1990 President H.W. Bush¶ authorized military action aimed to defend Saudi Arabia’s oil fields and
restore Kuwait’s ¶ sovereignty. In the decade between the Gulf War and the 2003 Operation Iraqi Freedom, ¶ the U.S. strengthened
its military presence in the region, building bases in Qatar, Bahrain, ¶ and Kuwait. At a cost of $50-$60 billion per year it patrolled
the waters of the Gulf, ¶ imposed no-fly zone in Iraq and provided training and equipment to the region's ¶ militaries. Throughout
the Cold War years, the Pax Americana in the Middle East was ¶ rarely challenged. The Soviets had strategic
interests in the region but being oil rich their ¶ economy was hardly dependent on Middle Eastern oil. All this is going to
change with ¶ the economic ascendance of oil poor China and India. In the coming decades, the Middle ¶ East will turn
increasingly to Asia to market its oil and gas. By far the most important ¶ growth market for countries like Iran and Saudi Arabia is
China, which is today the ¶ world’s second largest oil consumer and which by 2030 is expected to import as much oil ¶ as the U.S.
does today. To fuel its growing economy, China is following America’s footsteps, subjugating its foreign
policy to its energy needs. China attempts to gain a ¶ foothold in the Middle East and build up long-term strategic links with
the region’s ¶ producers. Though some optimists think that China’s pursuit of energy could present an ¶ opportunity to enhance
cooperation, integration and interdependence with the U.S., there ¶ are ample signs that China and the U.S. could
already be on a collision course over oil. ¶ For China, the biggest prize in the Middle East is Saudi Arabia, home of a
quarter of the ¶ world’s reserves. Since September 11, tension in U.S.-Saudi relations has provided the ¶ Chinese with an opportunity
to win the heart of the House of Saud. As mentioned before, ¶ to Washington’s dismay, China has also set its sights on
Iran, announcing that it will not ¶ support sanctions against Iran in the UN Security Council. No doubt that as
China’s oil ¶ demand grows so will its involvement in Middle East politics. China is likely to provide ¶ the
region’s energy exporters not only with diplomatic support but also with weapons, ¶ including assistance
in the development of WMD. India is no less of a challenge. Unlike ¶ China whose geography allows oil imports from
neighboring Russia, India’s only nearby ¶ source of oil and gas is the Middle East. In recent years, India has grown increasingly¶
interested in signing energy deals with Iran, Saudi Arabia and the UAE. Just like China’s, ¶ India’s engagement with Iran provides
the Islamic Republic an economic lifeline at a ¶ time when the West is trying to isolate it. Such growing bonds have already
compromised ¶ India’s relations with the U.S. All this means that in the long run, as China and India’s ¶ dependence on the
Middle East grows, they are likely to increasingly challenge U.S. ¶ policy in the Middle East, turning the
region from a unipolar region in which the U.S. ¶ enjoys a near uncontested hegemony into a multipolar
system in which more and more ¶ global powers vie for influence.
Escalates to nuclear war
Sydney J. Freedberg Jr. 13, deputy editor for defense publication Breaking Defense and 13 year
journalist at National Journal and has won awards from the association of Military Reporters & Editors in
2008 and 2009, as well as an honorable mention in 2010, 10/1/13, China’s Fear Of US May Tempt Them
To Preempt: Sinologists, http://breakingdefense.com/2013/10/chinas-fear-of-us-may-tempt-them-topreempt-sinologists/
Because China believes it is much weaker than the United States, they are more likely to launch a massive
preemptive strike in a crisis. Here’s the other bad news: The current US concept for high-tech warfare, known
as Air-Sea Battle, might escalate the conflict even further towards a “limited” nuclear war , says one of the
top American experts on the Chinese military. [This is one in an occasional series on the crucial strategic relationship and
the military capabilities of the US, its allies and China.] What US analysts call an “anti-access/area denial” strategy is
what China calls “counter-intervention” and “active defense,” and the Chinese appraoch is born of a deep
sense of vulnerability that dates back 200 years, China analyst Larry Wortzel said at the Institute of World
Politics: “The People’s Liberation Army still sees themselves as an inferior force to the American military,
and that’s who they think their most likely enemy is.” That’s fine as long as it deters China from attacking its neighbors.
But if deterrence fails, the Chinese are likely to go big or go home. Chinese military history from the Korean
War in 1950 to the Chinese invasion of Vietnam in 1979 to more recent, albeit vigorous but non-violent,
grabs for the disputed Scarborough Shoal suggests a preference for a sudden use of overwhelming force at
a crucial point, what Clausewitz would call the enemy’s “center of gravity.” “What they do is very heavily built on
preemption,” Wortzel said. “The problem with the striking the enemy’s center of gravity is, for the United
States, they see it as being in Japan, Hawaii, and the West Coast….That’s very escalatory .” (Students of the
American military will nod sagely, of course, as we remind everyone that President George Bush made preemption a centerpiece of
American strategy after the terror attacks of 2001.) Wortzel argued that the current version of US Air-Sea Battle concept
is also likely to lead to escalation. “China’s dependent on these ballistic missiles and anti-ship missiles and
satellite links,” he said. Since those are almost all land-based, any attack on them “involves striking the
Chinese mainland, which is pretty escalatory.” “You don’t know how they’re going to react,” he said. “They
do have nuclear missiles. They actually think we’re more allergic to nuclear missiles landing on our soil
than they are on their soil. They think they can withstand a limited nuclear attack, or even a big nuclear
attack, and retaliate .”
US-Sino war is highly likely --- even small disputes will escalate to full-scale
nuclear exchange --- diplomacy, deterrence, and crisis management can’t
check
Avery Goldstein October 2013, the David M. Knott Professor of Global Politics and IR and
Director of the Center for the Study of Contemporary China @ the University of Pennsylvania, “China’s
Real and Present Danger,” September/October, Foreign Affairs,
http://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/139651/avery-goldstein/chinas-real-and-presentdanger?cid=soc-twitter-in-essays-chinas_clear_and_present_danger-100713
Much of the debate about China’s rise in recent years has focused on the potential dangers China could pose as an eventual peer competitor to the
United States bent on challenging the existing international order. But another issue is far more pressing. For at least the next decade, while China
remains relatively weak compared to the United States, there
is a real danger that Beijing and Washington will find
themselves in a crisis that could quickly escalate to military conflict . Unlike a long-term great-power strategic rivalry that
might or might not develop down the road, the danger of a crisis involving the two nuclear-armed countries is a
tangible, near-term concern -- and the events of the past few years suggest the risk might be increasing.¶ Since the
end of the Cold War, Beijing and Washington have managed to avoid perilous showdowns on several occasions: in 1995–
96, when the United States responded to Chinese missile tests intended to warn Taiwanese voters about the danger of pushing for independence; in
1999, when U.S. warplanes accidentally bombed the Chinese embassy in Belgrade during the NATO air assault on Serbia; and in 2001, when a U.S. spy
plane collided with a Chinese fighter jet, leading to the death of the Chinese pilot and Beijing’s detention of the U.S. plane and crew. But
the lack
of serious escalation during those episodes should not breed complacency. None of them met the definition of a
genuine crisis: a confrontation that threatens vital interests on both sides and thus sharply increases the risk of war. If Beijing and
Washington were to find themselves in that sort of showdown in the near future, they would both have strong incentives
to resort to force. Moreover, the temptations and pressures to escalate would likely be highest in the early
stages of the face-off, making it hard er for diplomacy to prevent war.¶ THIN RED LINES¶ It might seem that the
prospects for a crisis of this sort in U.S.-Chinese relations have diminished in recent years as tensions over Taiwan have cooled, defusing the powder
keg that has driven much Chinese and U.S. military planning in East Asia since the mid-1990s. But other potential flash points have emerged. As China
and its neighbors squabble over islands and maritime rights in the East China and South China seas, the United States has reiterated its treaty
commitments to defend two of the countries that are contesting China’s claims (Japan and the Philippines) and has nurtured increasingly close ties
with a third (Vietnam). Moreover, the Obama administration’s “pivot,” or “rebalancing,” to Asia, a diplomatic turn matched by planned military
redeployments, has signaled that Washington is prepared to get involved in the event of a regional conflict .¶ China
might be less cautious
about triggering a crisis -- and less cautious about firing the first shot if a crisis ensued. ¶ Also, the United States
insists that international law affords it freedom of navigation in international waters and airspace, defined as lying beyond a country’s 12-mile
territorial limit. China, by contrast, asserts that other countries’ military vessels and aircraft are not free to enter its roughly 200-mile-wide “exclusive
economic zone” without express permission -- a prohibition that, given Beijing’s territorial claims, could place much of the South China Sea and the
airspace above it off-limits to U.S. military ships and planes. Disputes over freedom of navigation have already caused confrontations between China
and the United States, and they remain a possible trigger for a serious crisis. ¶ It
is true that China and the United States are not
currently adversaries -- certainly not in the way that the Soviet Union and the United States were during the Cold
War. But the risk of a U.S.-Chinese crisis might actually be great er than it would be if Beijing and Washington were locked
in a zero-sum, life-and-death struggle. As armed adversaries on hair-trigger alert, the Soviet Union and the United States understood that their
fundamentally opposed interests might bring about a war. After going through several nerve-racking confrontations over Berlin and Cuba, they gained
an understanding of each other’s vital interests -- not to be challenged without risking a crisis -- and developed mechanisms to avoid escalation.
China and the United States have yet to reach a similar shared understanding about vital interests or to
develop reliable means for crisis management .¶ Neither China nor the United States has clearly defined its vital interests across
broad areas of the western Pacific. In recent years, China has issued various unofficial statements about its “core interests” that have sometimes gone
beyond simply ensuring the territorial and political integrity of the mainland and its claim to sovereignty over Taiwan. Beijing has suggested, for
example, that it might consider the disputed areas of the East China and South China seas to be core interests.¶ Washington has also been vague about
what it sees as its vital interests in the region. The United States hedges on the question of whether Taiwan falls under a U.S. security umbrella. And the
United States’ stance on the maritime disputes involving China and its neighbors is somewhat confusing: Washington has remained neutral on the rival
sovereignty claims and insisted that the disputes be resolved peacefully but has also reaffirmed its commitment to stand by its allies in the event that a
conflict erupts. Such Chinese
and U.S. ambiguity about the “redlines” that cannot be crossed without risking conflict
increases the chances that either side could take steps that it believes are safe but that turn out to be unexpectedly
provocative.¶ MORE DANGEROUS THAN THE COLD WAR?¶ Uncertainty about what could lead either Beijing or
Washington to risk war makes a crisis far more likely, since neither side knows when, where, or just how hard it
can push without the other side pushing back. This situation bears some resemblance to that of the early Cold War, when it took a
number of serious crises for the two sides to feel each other out and learn the rules of the road. But today’s environment might be even more
dangerous.¶ The
balance of nuclear and conventional military power between China and the United States, for
example, is much more lopsided than the one that existed between the Soviet Union and the United States. Should Beijing and Washington find
themselves in a conflict, the
huge U.S. advantage in conventional forces would increase the temptation for
Washington to threaten to or actually use force. Recognizing the temptation facing Washington, Beijing might in turn feel
pressure to use its conventional forces before they are destroyed . Although China could not reverse the military
imbalance, it might believe that quickly imposing high costs on the U nited States would be the best way to get it to back
off.¶ The fact that both sides have nuclear arsenals would help keep the situation in check, because both sides would want to avoid actions that would
invite nuclear retaliation. Indeed, if only nuclear considerations mattered, U.S.-Chinese crises would be very stable and not worth worrying about too
much. But the
two sides’ conventional forces complicate matters and undermine the stability provided by
nuclear deterrence . During a crisis, either side might believe that using its conventional forces would
confer bargaining leverage, manipulating the other side’s fear of escalation through what the economist Thomas Schelling calls a
“competition in risk-taking.” In a crisis, China or the United States might believe that it valued what was at stake more than the other and would
therefore be willing to tolerate a higher level of risk. But
because using conventional forces would be only the first step in
an unpredictable process subject to misperception , missteps, and miscalc ulation, there is no guarantee that
brinkmanship would end before it led to an unanticipated nuclear catastrophe .¶ China, moreover, apparently
believes that nuclear deterrence opens the door to the safe use of conventional force. Since both countries would fear
a potential nuclear exchange, the Chinese seem to think that neither they nor the Americans would allow a military conflict to escalate too far. Soviet
leaders, by contrast, indicated that they would use whatever military means were necessary if war came -- which is one reason why war never came. In
addition, China’s official “no first use” nuclear policy, which guides the Chinese military’s preparation and training for conflict, might reinforce Beijing’s
confidence that limited war with the United States would not mean courting nuclear escalation. As
a result of its beliefs, Beijing might
be less cautious about taking steps that would risk triggering a crisis. And if a crisis ensued, China might also be
less cautious about firing the first shot.¶ Such beliefs are particularly worrisome given recent developments in
technology that have dramatically improved the precision and effectiveness of conventional military
capabilities. Their lethality might confer a dramatic advantage to the side that attacks first, something that was
generally not true of conventional military operations in the main European theater of U.S.-Soviet confrontation. Moreover, because the
sophisticated computer and satellite systems that guide contemporary weapons are highly vulnerable to
conventional military strikes or cyberattacks, today’s more precise weapons might be effective only if they are used before an adversary has struck or
adopted countermeasures. If peacetime restraint were to give way to a search for advantage in a crisis, neither
China nor the United
States could be confident about the durability of the systems managing its advanced conventional
weapons.¶ Chinese analysts seem to overestimate how easy it is to send signals through military actions and underestimate the
risks of miscommunication. ¶ Under such circumstances, both Beijing and Washington would have
incentives to initiate an attack. China would feel particularly strong pressure, since its advanced conventional weapons are more fully
dependent on vulnerable computer networks, fixed radar sites, and satellites. The effectiveness of U.S. advanced forces is less dependent on these most
vulnerable systems. The advantage held by the United States, however, might increase its temptation to strike first, especially against China’s satellites,
since it would be able to cope with Chinese retaliation in kind. ¶ COMMUNICATION BREAKDOWN¶ A
U.S.-Chinese crisis might also be
more dangerous than Cold War showdowns because of the unreliability of the existing channels of communication
between Beijing and Washington. After the Cuban missile crisis, the Soviet Union and the United States recognized the importance of
direct communication between their top leaders and set up the Moscow–Washington hot line. In 1998, China and the United States also set up a hot
line for direct communication between their presidents. But despite the hot line’s availability, the
White House was not able to contact
China’s top leaders in a timely fashion following the 1999 Belgrade embassy bombing or the 2001 spy-plane
incident. China’s failure to use the hot line as intended might have reflected the reluctance of its leaders to respond until they had reached an
internal consensus or until they had consulted widely with their military. The delay might also have reflected China’s difficulties in coordinating policy,
since China lacks a dependable counterpart to the U.S. National Security Council. Whatever the reason, experience
suggests that
frustrating delays in direct communication are likely during what would be the crucial early moments of
an unfolding U.S.-Chinese crisis.¶ Instead, communication between the two countries might initially be limited to either public
statements or tacit signals sent through actions. But public statements are aimed at multiple audiences, and nationalist passions in either
China or the United States, as well as pressure from allies, might force either side to take a more
aggressive public stance than it actually felt was warranted. Absent direct and confidential communication, the two countries might be unable to
discuss politically sensitive proposals. They might also be unable to share information that could help head off a disastrous escalation, such as classified
details about military capabilities or military maneuvers already under way. ¶ Communicating through actions is
also problematic,
with many possibilities for distortion in sending messages and for misinterpretation in receiving them. Chinese analysts
seem to overestimate how easy it is to send signals through military actions and underestimate the risks of
escalation resulting from miscommunication. For example, the analysts Andrew Erickson and David Yang have drawn attention to
Chinese military writings that propose using China’s antiship ballistic missile system, designed for targeting U.S. aircraft carriers, to convey Beijing’s
resolve during a crisis. Some Chinese
military thinkers have suggested that China could send a signal by firing
warning shots intended to land near a moving U.S. aircraft carrier or even by carefully aiming strikes at the command tower of the U.S. carrier
while sparing the rest of the vessel. But as the political scientist Owen Coté has noted, even a very accurate antiship ballistic missile system will
inevitably have some margin of error. Consequently, even
the smallest salvo of this kind would entail a risk of inadvertent
serious damage and thus unintended escalation .¶ A final important factor that could make a U.S.-Chinese crisis more dangerous
than those during the Cold War is geography. The focus of Cold War confrontations was primarily on land, especially in central Europe, whereas a
future confrontation between China and the United States would almost certainly begin at sea. This difference would shape a U.S.-Chinese crisis in a
number of ways, especially by requiring both sides to make some fateful choices early on. China’s small fleet of nuclear-armed ballistic missile
submarines (SSBNs) and its much larger fleet of conventionally armed attack submarines are most secure when they remain in the shallow waters near
the Chinese mainland, where poor acoustics compromise the effectiveness of U.S. undersea antisubmarine operations. Their proximity to Chinese landbased aircraft and air defenses also limits Washington’s ability to rely on its airpower and surface ships to counter them. For China’s submarine forces
to play a role in a showdown with the United States, however, they would have to move out of those safer waters. ¶ The prospect of China’s
submarines breaking out would dramatically increase the instability of a crisis. Although U.S. antisubmarine warfare
technology would be more effective against China’s submarines operating in less noisy open waters (where the United States also enjoys air
superiority), it would not be perfect: some U.S.
naval assets that came within range of surviving Chinese submarines would be at risk.
Early in a crisis, therefore, the United States would be tempted to minimize this risk by sinking Chinese attack
submarines as they tried to leave their home waters. Especially because there are only a few narrow routes through which
Chinese submarines can reach deeper waters, the United States would be tempted to strike early rather than accept an increased risk to U.S. naval
forces. Regardless of the U.S. decision, any Chinese
attack submarines that managed to reach distant deeper waters would face a
“use them or lose them” dilemma, thanks to their greater vulnerability to U.S. antisubmarine forces -- one more potential trigger for
escalation.¶ China’s nuclear-armed SSBNs present other risks. Under its no-first-use policy, China has clearly stated that any
attack on its strategic nuclear forces would justify nuclear retaliation , making a U.S. strike against its SSBNs seem
unlikely. Early in a crisis, therefore, Beijing would probably believe that it could safely deploy its SSBNs to distant, deeper waters, where they would be
best positioned to execute their launch orders. Such a deep-water deployment, however, would introduce new dangers. One is the possibility that U.S.
naval forces might mistake a Chinese SSBN for a conventional attack submarine and fire on it, inviting
Chinese nuclear retaliation . Another is the danger that a Chinese SSBN could escalate the conflict without
explicit orders from Beijing, owing to the limited communication such submarines maintain with the mainland in order to avoid detection.
1AC Advantage
CONTENTION 2: PREEMPTION
Current patchwork of federal/state marijuana laws make preemption likely
despite DOJ assurances
Robert Mikos 14, Professor of Law at Vanderbilt, "The lingering threat of preemption", January 13,
lawprofessors.typepad.com/marijuana_law/2014/01/the-lingering-threat-of-preemption.html
To my mind, federal preemption constitutes a very potent threat to some state marijuana reforms,
notwithstanding the Department of Justice’s assurances that it has no plans to challenge state marijuana
reforms. While I believe the DOJ, it isn’t the only entity that can challenge state law on preemption
grounds, and there is no shortage of persons interested in doing so . Indeed, over the past decade, local officials and
private firms have filed dozens of lawsuits asking courts to block state marijuana reforms as preempted .¶ To
be sure, I think most of the suits that have been brought to date lack merit. Many of them have failed to
acknowledge that federal supremacy has some limits. Chief among these is a constitutional doctrine called the anti-commandeering rule. In a
nutshell, this rule says Congress may not force a state to regulate marijuana or to help the federal government enforce its own brand of marijuana regulations. In other words,
But most states don’t want to simply
legalize marijuana, they want to regulate the drug. Think licensing requirements for distributors, labeling requirements for marijuana products,
and employment protections for some users. And herein lies the problem. Any state regulation of the private marijuana
market can be preempted by Congress. Of course, Congress doesn’t want to preempt all state regulation. After all, many state regulations short of
states may always adopt a laissez faire approach toward marijuana, regardless of how Congress treats it.¶
prohibition will still further federal objectives. Requiring vendors to obtain a state license, for example, should help limit access to marijuana, and Congress probably prefers
there are some types of state regulation that arguably impede federal objectives and
are thus vulnerable under classic conflict preemption principles. These include state redistribution of
marijuana (per the Cuomo New York plan, as Sam discussed last week) and perhaps even state enforcement of marijuana contracts. I’ll be
some state controls to none at all.¶ But
writing about these issues in greater detail in the coming days and weeks. In the meantime, thanks again for having me!
The plan solves federal-state patchwork --- allows for a cooperative
approach to drug policy
Douglas Farr 9, JD from BYU, "Up in Smoke: Federal Preemption and Medicinal Marijuana ID Cards in
County of San Diego v. San Diego NORML", 3/1,
digitalcommons.law.byu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1421&context=jpl
IV. Conclusion¶ The inconsistencies between federal drug laws and state drug laws remain. Federal and state
courts have yet to resolve these inconsistencies. Federal courts have affirmed Congress's right to regulate
medicinal marijuana under the Commerce Power, and state courts have affirmed the stale's police power
to legalize marijuana for medicinal purposes. San Diego NORML, was one of the few cases lo get past the standing issue
and affirmatively attack the constitutionality of state laws that contradict and pose an obstacle to federal laws. But because the
counties in San Diego NORML, were only permitted to challenge the provisions that imposed specific duties, federal preemption was
largely avoided. Currently, the inconsistencies between federal and state law are harming individuals who
live on the fence obeying and disobeying the law at the same lime. It is a disservice to the people affected by these
laws to allow the inconsistencies to remain. Of all the possible solutions, congressional modification of
the CSA faces the fewest impediments and is the most likely to succeed . A simple modification would
allow the federal government and state governments to fight the "War on Drugs" together. The DOJ and the State
of California are worried about abuse of the CUA and the MMP. If federal drug laws did not conflict with California's
laws, a joint effort enforcing these laws would be much more effective .¶ Peter Tosh may have realized the
challenges facing the legalization of marijuana when he encouraged his listeners to "legalize it."1" but it is unlikely that he
foresaw the battle between federal and state laws. As for now, medicinal marijuana is simultaneously legal
in thirteen states and illegal in all fifty states. But California counties are nonetheless required to provide medicinal
marijuana ID cards to any person with a valid prescription, even though these ID cards assist Californians in affirmatively violating
federal law.
Cooperative federalism is being disrupted now by inconsistent laws--remedying the gray area resolves the most important modern controversy
Todd Garbarsky 12, Law Clerk, United States Court, Northern District of California, “CONFLICTING
FEDERAL AND STATE MEDICAL MARIJUANA POLICIES: A THREAT TO COOPERATIVE
FEDERALISM”, works.bepress.com/todd_grabarsky/1
A looming problem with the changes in the federal executive policy involves the way in which the federal drug
prohibition is enforced. Essentially, federal enforcement agents rely on the assistance, infrastructure, and know-how of the states; just one example of this is the
estimate that ninety-nine percent of drug-related investigations and arrests are carried out by state agents. As such, the regulation of marijuana can
be seen as a cooperation between the states and the federal government—what this Article will refer to as
“cooperative federalism,” a term that refers not just to a state-federal cooperation, but also a collaboration where states preserve authority to make policy and
enforcement decisions. Conflicts and changes in marijuana laws and enforcement policy —especially one as exemplified
by the Ogden-Cole Memos shift— poses a potential disruption of this scheme of cooperation. The recent 2012
Election has raised the stakes and heightened the issue. On November 6, 2012, voters in two states, Washington and Colorado, approved ballot initiatives, which essentially
legalized the limited cultivation, distribution, possession and usage of marijuana for recreational—in contrast to medical—purposes. Since then, these two referenda have been
the legalization of recreational
marijuana in Washington and Colorado is but one chapter in the history of the drug in the United States. Novel about
signed into law, making Washington and Colorado the only two states to have legalized non-medical marijuana. But
those ballot measures is that they legalize marijuana for recreational purposes; as has already been noted, medical marijuana has been legal in California since 1996, and is now
As states began to take control of legislative
policy with regard to medical marijuana by passing laws permitting its limited usage, a gray area of legality
precipitated . On the one hand, the cultivation, distribution, and usage of medical marijuana is permitted
and, arguably, encouraged, by many of the states, through their systems of taxation and regulation; yet on the other hand it remains
categorically forbidden at the federal level. This gray area of legality begs greater questions about
federalism and the federal system implemented at the United States’ founding. Indeed, one prominent scholar concerned with these
questions has deemed the state-federal conflict of marijuana laws to be “one of the most important
federalism disputes in a generation .” This Article will focus on this nebulous zone of law enforcement, in
which an activity remains both a violation of federal law and one that is permitted and even, perhaps, encouraged by
states and their regulatory schemes, which provide a structure in which it is regulated. The about-face in federal Executive policy as shown
by the shift from the Ogden to Cole Memos suggests that state regulation over the medical marijuana can
be de facto undermined by the federal government through prosecution of individuals following state laws and guidelines.
This can be seen as a threat to cooperative federalism : At one moment, state legislative acts and the voter
referenda assure states that they will be permitted to regulate medical marijuana and implement the necessary
bureaucracies and infrastructure to do so; at the next, changes in federal law enforcement initiatives disrupt states’
regulatory schemes.
permitted in one form or another in over one-third of the fifty states as well as the District of Columbia.
The plan’s resolution of preemption spills over to create cooperative
federalism on immigration and healthcare
Emily Crick 13, research associate at Transform Drug Policy Foundation, w/ Heather J. Haase and
Dave Bewley-Taylor, Legally regulated cannabis markets in the US: Implications and possibilities, Policy
Report 1 | November, http://www.swansea.ac.uk/media/Leg%20Reg%20Cannabis%20digital%20new1.pdf
The same analysis can be applied to legalisation laws when the issue is the simple removal of the possession of marijuana from the state penal code. Indeed, many scholars believe that
simple legalisation would not be pre-empted under the CSA.l4i Nevertheless,¶ the analysis becomes more
complicated under the doctrine of pre-emption when the scheme involves state licensing, regulation
and/or tax. Although these laws present a stronger¶ case for pre-emption, whether a state tax and regulate law technically would, as a
legal matter, present a 'positive conflict' to the¶ CSA such that it would be pre-empted by the federal law is still unsettled in the US.144 This
could help explain why the federal government has decided not to pursue a legal challenge to the
Washington and Colorado laws on pre- emption grounds. ¶ Without the support of state law enforcement,¶ however, it could prove difficult if not¶
impossible for the federal government to¶ enforce federal marijuana prohibition. As¶ the Department of Justice also referenced¶ in its recent memorandum (see Box 3),145 for¶ years the federal government has
relied on¶ state law enforcement agents to implement¶ the CSA, using various methods such as¶ investigation cooperation, referrals, and¶ shared forfeiture.146 This was effective¶ as long as state and federal laws
were¶ consistent with one another and enforcement¶ goals overlapped. Yet, as acknowledged in¶ the memorandum, when state laws diverge¶ from this scheme the support of state law¶ enforcement falls
away.147 There is little that¶ the federal government can do about this, as¶ under the 'anti-commandeering' principle¶ the federal government may not compel ¶ states to enforce federal laws.148 However,¶ the
federal government simply does not have¶ the law enforcement manpower to clamp¶ down by itself: the DEA only employs 4,400¶ official and federal law enforcement agents¶ only accounted for ^% of cannabis
arrests¶ in 2007.149 This situation leads the federal¶ government to rely on the willingness of¶ state law enforcement officials to enforce¶ the policy, an arrangement that is far from¶ certain in states where the
majority of voters¶ support some form of tax and regulation¶ framework for marijuana. This is clearly a¶ concern for those favouring the pre-eminence of the CSA within US states, with, for example, in March
2013 former Drug Enforcement¶ Administration (DEA> chiefs calling on the¶ federal government to sue Washington and¶ Colorado in the Supreme Court.150 ¶ Furthermore, the CSA calls on the federal¶
government 'to enter into contractual¶ agreements... to provide for cooperative¶ enforcement and regulatory activities.'151 This¶ means that in theory the federal government ¶ could come to agreements with the
individual¶ states on their cannabis regulation policies,¶ which may be exactly what the Department of¶ Justice is seeking to do in issuing its guidance.¶ Indeed, some have argued that it would be¶ preferable for
them to do so rather than let¶ the states merely give up enforcing the federal¶ prohibition on marijuana.1" It has also been¶ argued that despite the recent Department¶ of Justice guidance there are no
guarantees¶ that state attorneys will cease to prosecute¶ those who work in the marijuana industry¶ especially in the light of federal crackdowns¶ on the medical marijuana industry.151 In a¶ recent hearing held
by the Senate Judiciary¶ Committee on the issue, James M. Cole, US¶ Deputy Attorney General (and author of the¶ memorandum) attempted to put many of ¶ these concerns to rest.154 Needless to say, the¶
these state-federal tensions must be considered in
a wider context, and it has been argued that allowing states to determine their own cannabis policy may
result in other states demanding further independence with regards to other aspects of federal policy
such as gun control, immigration and health care .1"
situation is evolving gradually and it remains to¶ be seen how this guidance is applied in practice.¶ Moreover,
Cooperative federalism over immigration creates effective border security
and results in federal comprehensive reform
Cristina M. Rodriguez 8, Associate Professor of Law at NYU, "The Significance of the Local in
Immigration Regulation", February, www.michiganlawreview.org/assets/pdfs/106/4/rodriguez.pdf
In addition to resisting preemption, Congress should actively promote power-sharing or cooperative activity between
state and local officials and the federal government. A model for federal-state consultation can be found in the Canadian system,
where the federal and provincial governments have concurrent jurisdiction over immigration policy.278
Though Canada’s federal government has exclusive jurisdiction over naturalization, and the provinces cannot obstruct immigrant travel among the provinces, the British North
America Act gives the provinces the power to “make Laws in relation to . . . Immigration into the Province,” insofar as those laws “are not repugnant” to any act of
Parliament.279 To negotiate the potential for conflict in this arrangement, Parliament passed an Immigration Act in 1976, which it later amended in 2001, to create a framework
for federal-provincial cooperation. ¶ The Act authorizes the federal government to consult and enter into agreements with the provincial governments on immigration and
refugee policy, in order to capture the particular and varied effects of immigration on the different regions of the country.280 But not only does the Act permit cooperation
generally, it also requires specific forms of cooperation. The federal government must consult the provinces on the subject of the number of immigrants to be admitted each year
The purpose of this requirement is to ensure that the federal government takes
into account regional economic and demographic needs and considers provincial views when contemplating what measures should be
in the various categories set by law.281
adopted to “facilitate [immigrants’] integration into Canadian society.”282 In other words, though Parliament remains supreme, the provinces have an explicit role in the
constitutional structure to help manage “immigrant settlement” in response to “regional demographic requirements,” to which the provinces are presumably best attuned.283¶
a coherent immigration system must begin by assuming primary federal control over admissions
limits and removal standards, largely because such control performs a critical coordinating function. The one voice argument, at least from the perspective of
To be sure,
efficiency, still has purchase in this context: the system would be chaotic if individual states could set visa limits and create their own standards for removal. In the United States,
centralization has made direct enforcement of federal immigration standards extraordinarily complex ,
this
because the federal government has adopted intricate admissions and visa standards over time. Centralization thus supports tight congressional control over state-federal
cooperation should nonetheless be possible . As I have shown throughout this
the federal government depends on the states to manage migration, but the federal exclusivity
principle blocks efforts to leverage this relationship because it supports the assumption that the power
Congress would cede in these cooperative ventures is exclusively federal and therefore not capable of
being devolved. But cooperation can provide states with an avenue to deal directly with the consequences of
immigration that clearly implicate state interests, while providing a form of federal supervision that
creates an extra check to ensure that a state’s action is not motivated by animus, or is consistent with
federal objectives. ¶ The cooperation I envision could take several forms. First, Congress could expressly authorize states to adopt measures that state officials might
enforcement collaboration through mechanisms such as 287(g).284¶ But
Article,
otherwise worry are outside their power or that are politically unpalatable without some cover from Congress, as with the DREAM Act. Similarly, Congress could devolve
authority to states to exercise decision-making capacity in areas that might otherwise be off limits to the states under current law, such as state implementation of federally
funded programs like Medicaid.285 The touchstone for congressional policymaking in this area should be not whether Congress is authorizing states and localities to do positive
or negative things vis-à-vis immigrants, but whether the policy enhances or shuts down state decision-making capacity over how best to approach immigrant populations and
whether the policy ultimately balances the competing goals of the system. ¶ In its most productive form, cooperation would involve enlisting the states in immigration-related
policy, as Congress already has with the 287(g) agreements.286 Though Governor Vilsack’s “immigrant enterprise zones” never got going in Iowa, his plan could serve as a
model for direct state involvement in setting labor admissions standards.287 States could provide their relative preferences and expertise directly to an administrative policy
collaboration would involve state
governments and bureaucrats, who are likely to have expertise related to the challenges facing state governments
that is quite distinct from the expertise of their state’s federal delegates . ¶ It may be the case that some of these cooperative
process, rather than indirectly through representation in the Congresses that set visa limits. This form of
ventures will prove to be misguided. It is possible that the states will not act as faithful agents of the federal government.288 Little is known, for example, about how the 287(g)
agreements are functioning. Because state and local police are far more likely to come into contact with individuals through quotidian interactions, such as traffic stops, the
possibility of racial profiling of Latinos and mistaken identity rises substantially with state and local involvement. Moreover, as police chiefs around the country have cautioned,
state and local engagement in immigration enforcement may seriously undermine the confidence and trust of immigrant communities in law enforcement.289 At the same time,
evidence suggests that federal-state-local collaboration in this area helps to restrain state and local
enforcement that may occur in an ad hoc manner anyway. Because public pressure to crack down on criminal aliens, in particular, is
powerful, federal-state-local law enforcement partnerships may help restore public confidence in law
enforcement while ensuring that state and local enforcement efforts are overseen by the federal
government.290¶ Because cooperation has the potential to produce a variety of benefits, it should be
pursued. As the regulatory trends discussed in Part II make clear, states have a strong interest in federal success when it comes to
enforcement, and so cooperation may well enhance federal capacities . In addition, in the face of federal
inaction and resource constraints, states can act as a kind of clean-up crew for the federal government.291 Of course, some of
these states may be more invested in successful enforcement than the federal government, which has an
arguable interest in underenforcement. But cooperation would not diminish the federal government’s discretion
anecdotal
with respect to whether to pursue removal of an unlawful alien apprehended by a state official. And when it comes to immigrant admissions, some states may seek more
presumably a collaborative admissions-setting process would
enable the federal government to develop both a more accurate assessment of the labor market, as well as
a clearer picture of how much immigration particular pockets of the country are willing to tolerate . ¶ State
immigration-related action also might serve as a catalyst for federal reform by heightening awareness of
crucial issues that might not enter the federal government’s purview otherwise . That is, a legislative trend in
the states might pressure the federal government to address an issue that has become national in scope or to
revisit a law that clearly buts up against states’ judgments with respect to integration policy. States, through their regulatory efforts, also can help make the
federal government aware of the costs of the latter’s policies, thus helping to set the agenda for federal
immigrants with different statuses than the federal government. But
reform by bringing notoriety and perhaps infamy to an issue.292 ¶ The current and accelerating trend of state and
local regulation in the enforcement vein, for example, is highlighting to federal lawmakers the need to reconsider their
policy of underenforcement, which has resulted in stepped-up enforcement and may eventually produce
more comprehensive reform .293 The same dynamic is at work with the in-state tuition issue. Despite the federal government’s attempt in 1996 to prevent
states from making in-state tuition rates available to unauthorized students, several states persisted in creating this option, making clear to the federal government the
importance of the measure for long-term integration objectives. The appeal of the in-state tuition measure may yet lead Congress to pass the DREAM Act, which would not only
authorize what states are already doing, but also take the crucial next step of giving certain unauthorized students legal status—a move that only the federal government can
federal regulation lends credence to the belief that we must have a national or uniform policy on matters
prevents us from effectively channeling the powerful
tendency toward decentralized decision making and thus from exploring the potential benefits of federalstate-local cooperation. Federal exclusivity in the lawmaking context must therefore be set aside as well .
make. ¶ In the end, the flattening tendency of exclusive
concerning the regulation and status of immigrants in this country. The principle also
Border terrorist threat is real and growing---only cooperative immigration
policy solves ISIS
Tom Leonard 9/17, retired Army officer and War College graduate, served as senior policy advisor to
the Chairman of the House Committee on Homeland Security, and Joshua Katz, former Army Ranger and
CIA operations officer, "It's Time for a National Border Security Strategy", 2014,
warontherocks.com/2014/09/its-time-for-a-national-border-security-strategy/#_
*TCOs = transnational criminal organizations*
The 2010 National Security Strategy, in addressing threats, notes:¶ Transnational criminal threats and illicit trafficking
networks continue to expand dramatically in size, scope, and influence – posing significant national
security challenges for the United States and our partner countries.¶ And yet, none of the legislative or administrative
border security solutions proposed thus far will counter these threats without first understanding the scope of the
threats. The threats from terrorists and TCOs are evolving in complexity . As the administration and Congress
continue the policy of delayed leadership, these complexities mount, making solutions even more challenging and ultimately impact
the national security of the United States.¶ The threats
facing the United States within the international border
environment are real, dynamic, and multi-dimensional ; those who wish us harm – terrorists, criminal
organizations, and nation states – remain flexible and act without regard to our laws. These adversaries
are not only able to exploit the gaps in our laws, border security infrastructure, and response capabilities,
but also in our policies and our own failure to implement existing law. In short, our adversaries are quicker to adapt to the
changing border security environment than we are at identifying and correcting our own security shortfalls.¶ Although there are
potential threats present at each border, the danger posed by the accumulation of those threats (TCOs,
terrorists, adversarial nation states) is particularly acute along the Southwest border . Competing drug cartels are
engaged in an unprecedented inter-organizational conflict over smuggling routes into the United States. Furthermore, with billions
of dollars in operating capital, TCOs are capable of buying, corrupting, building, and/or coercing the necessary freedom of action to
counter and respond to law enforcement efforts to curtail their activities. TCOs have spent decades refining the transportation routes
to bring illicit material (drugs) into the country and to engage in human trafficking.¶ TCOs have also realized that these routes are
more valuable than for just transporting drugs, that others will pay high sums to use these routes for their own purposes. The
additional funds from transporting people and other material do not impact the transportation of their main product, meaning any
revenues received are pure profit. On this basis, there is little downside to transporting people or dangerous materials
into the United States (product is product),and it thus provides a proven conduit for terrorist organizations
to enter the U nited S tates undetected .¶ There is speculation that the TCO risk/reward analysis would
prevent them from partnering with a terrorist organization, as such a relationship would heighten the
pressure they might face from the United States government. However, at least one publicly acknowledged incident —
the attempted assassination of the Saudi Arabian ambassador to the United States by a suspected agent of the government of Iran —
seems to contradict this argument. This case suggests the possibility of a worrying, if ad hoc, relationship between the Iranian
government (or, more specifically its intelligence service) and a Mexican cartel to manage the transportation of the Iranian operative
into the United States. It also highlights the need for heightened awareness of the narco-terrorist nexus within
the Mexican cartels and the possibility that these relationships are growing stronger as the development
of a true border security strategy continues to be delayed .¶ TCOs, like terrorist organizations, are more like
hydras than snakes. They cannot be destroyed by decapitation. There is a ready supply of lieutenants to take
the place of any captured or killed leader. The rewards of a leadership position, tangible or otherwise, far outweigh the risk of
capture or death, as has been demonstrated by the Zeta cartel in Mexico and al-Qaeda’s core leadership in Pakistan, Afghanistan,
Yemen, and elsewhere. Removal of one leader may lead to infighting, especially within TCOs, as evidenced by the rising violence in
Mexico since 2006, but this in no way impedes the TCO business model. The Foreign Terrorist Organizations FTOs with members
closely aligned with and loyal to their ideology seem to be less susceptible to this power struggle. With recent congressional
comments regarding possible connections between FTOs and TCOs, our border security situation seems ever more in need of an
overhaul.¶ Tactical Failures¶ One of the most glaring border security failures occurred prior to World War II in France. The French,
like the U.S. today on the Southwest border, identified that they needed a border security plan to protect the country against a
German invasion. In order to achieve that goal, they developed a strategy to stop an advance from the most likely avenue of
approach. The Maginot Line, an immoveable border security apparatus, was aimed at blocking any invasion mounted from the east.
In response, the German Army simply bypassed the defenses, invaded Belgium, and captured Paris some six weeks later. The
Maginot Line, with all of its resources, was at once a tactical success (preventing an attack from the east) and a strategic failure
(failing to defend against an adaptable and intelligent adversary).¶ There were other military consequences of the Maginot Line’s
construction as well. While it was considered state-of-the-art, the fixed infrastructure was too costly to maintain and led to other
parts of the French defenses being underfunded. This linear approach that focused on a tactical solution to the strategic problem of
the German advance prevented the French forces from having the ability to surge to where the threat actually was.¶ Similarly, the
traditional response to increased illicit border crossings into the United States has been to build a linear defense along the physical
border of the United States. Yet, much like the Maginot Line, this linear approach continues to be an investment in failure, as it does
not take into account the threat’s capability to adapt, ultimately hindering our ability to employ new strategies and tactics quickly.¶
Illegal groups have always found ways to bypass countermeasures, not only in the United States but alsoinhyper-vigilant states like
Israel. These illegal groups are nimble, can quickly identify weakness, and move to exploit the weakness by employing tactics such as
ultra-light aircraft and tunnels while simultaneously continuing to exploit heavy traffic areas at all ports of entry. Controlling one’s
border 100% is not realistic and will be so costly that it is prohibitive. Even in those areas where lethal force is employed against
illegal border crossers such as in Israel, there are still successful attempts to cross. Similarly, even the East German Stasi security
apparatus was not 100% successful in preventing illegal crossings to the West.¶ Without clearly defined metrics however, there is no
real way to verify that the border is secure. For instance, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) created and then quickly
abandoned the Border Condition Index, an index that combined many non-security related indices. It was determined that the
subjective nature of its criteria (for example, economic development) had little to no bearing on the actual security of the border.
Historically, DHS has also used the number of apprehensions to define border security. This particular measure is problematic in
that it can be interpreted as being “good” regardless of whether apprehensions increase or decrease. Increased apprehensions show
progress (more people caught), as do decreases in apprehensions (fewer people attempting). Clearly defined metrics are not
subjective and cannot be used to show a “win” no matter the outcome. Statistics can be manipulated and therefore, solid intelligence
supporting an understanding of the actual situation on the border will be the best indication of a secure border.¶ Strategic Solutions¶
The National Security Strategy further includes the requirement to “deny hostile actors the ability to operate within our borders.” It
points to the need to “maintain effective control of our physical borders…disrupt and dismantle transnational terrorist, and criminal
organizations…[and] support a homeland that is safe and secure from terrorism and other hazards.” In this context, it recognizes
that efforts to secure the borders must extend beyond the borders themselves:¶ Stability and security in Mexico are indispensable to
building a strong economic partnership, fighting the illicit drug and arms trade….Combating transnational criminal and trafficking
networks requires a multidimensional strategy.¶ By viewing border security as a multi-dimensional issue, the
paradigm shifts, encouraging an effort to look at challenges and solutions beyond the border , a critical
element of a strategy of security in depth. The center of gravity for the United States’ border problem is therefore not at the border
but rather, it is the source nations from which illicit traffic emanates.¶ Situational awareness of border activity is key. Only through
intelligence collection can we truly understand the situation and how to deal with it. Reducing, as much as possible, the
overall number of illegal immigrants attempting to cross the border will aid in our clarity of activity at the
border and assist in identifying border crossers that pose significant challenges to U.S. national security. Those with no
economic or survival incentive to make the deadly trek through Mexico or across the sea are more likely to
stay in their home country, which will ease the task of law enforcement agencies in identifying criminal
actors and those looking to do the United States harm, such as ISIS . This will deny TCOs and terrorists
the ability to hide and move with illegal immigrants, taking away a vital “camouflage” that has aided these
groups for decades.¶ While any investment in other countries such as those in Central and South America could be costly, there will
still be significant savings in the reduction of people being detained, tried and removed from the United States. Estimates show that
the average cost to detain and remove an illegal immigrant is $20,000. With over 400,000 apprehensions in 2013, that equates to
$8 billion in taxpayer cost. Conversely, the United States Agency for International Development spent roughly $80 million in
Guatemala, or one percent of the cost of apprehensions. Of the monies spent, a mere $2 million went towards the security sector,
and $17 million for economic development. Clearly, even an incremental increase in foreign assistance will pale in comparison to the
amounts proposed by Congress for additional manpower and infrastructure along the border.¶ Conclusion¶ The U.S. government can
and must do more to disrupt illicit activities before they reach the U.S. border. This must start with a clear understanding of the
threat and must consist of a two-prong strategy that integrates operations at home and abroad. At home, the administration
must develop an integrated national border security strategy, to be implemented at the federal and state
level , which coordinates resources and provides clear direction to all relevant government agencies. This
should include the creation of national TCO and FTO fusion centers aimed at coordinating state and local
governments while also providing an accurate picture of evolving threats to federal agencies. The strategy
should also implement adaptable tactics as well as techniques and procedures; identify clearly defined metrics; and ultimately
ensure that objectives are incorporated into supporting complementary department and agency plans.
Extinction
Brent Budowsky 8/22, LL.M. degree in international financial law from the London School of
Economics, former aide to former Sen. Lloyd Bentsen and Bill Alexander, then chief deputy majority whip
of the House, “ISIS poses nuclear 9/11 threat”, 2014, http://www.opednews.com/articles/ISIS-posesnuclear-9-11-th-by-Brent-Budowsky-ISI_Military_Nuclear_insanity_Threat-To-World-Peace-140822911.html
After the latest grotesque atrocity by the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria (ISIS), the beheading of an American journalist, American and European policymakers must clearly understand the near certainty that
unless it is defeated and destroyed,
ISIS will launch a major terror attack on American or European soil . Analysts estimate that ISIS has
amassed a cash hoard of between $400 million and $2 billion. It is highly probable that ISIS will attempt
to use some of this money to obtain nuclear, chemical, biological or other w eapons of m ass d eath on the
international black market or from corrupt officials in nations such as Russia, China, Pakistan or North
Korea to use in attacks against New York, Washington, London, Paris, Berlin, Rome, Brussels or other nations it considers infidel enemies. This danger is magnified
by the fact that ISIS has recruited nationals of the United States and Europe, who possess American and European passports and are
physically indistinguishable from local populations in America and Europe. It is extraordinary that the mass murdering butchery of ISIS is so demented than even al Qaeda is offended. It
is alarming that the CIA, which launched intelligence operations even against the United States Senate, and the NSA, which launched massive and unprecedented eavesdropping operations, and intelligence
the most barbaric terrorists in modern history had taken over
almost a third of Iraq and are on the brink of creating a terrorist super-state that dwarfs al Qaeda's efforts
prior to 9/11. I vehemently opposed the misguided Iraq War from the moment it was proposed by former President George W. Bush and have never been a neoconservative, warmonger or super-hawk.
But aggressive action against ISIS is urgently needed. ISIS has stated its intention to attack the United States and Europe to advance
its evil, messianic and genocidal ideology and ambitions. ISIS has the money to purchase the most deadly weapons
in the world , and has recruited American and European traitors with above-average capability to execute
an attack . The odds that ISIS can obtain nuclear, chemical, biological or other forms of mass destruction weapons are impossible to ascertain but in a world of vast illegal
arms trafficking, with so many corrupt officials in nations possessing arsenals of destruction, the danger
is real . The fact that WMD scares prior to the Iraq War ranged from mistaken to deceitful does not mean that the WMD danger does not exist today. It does. I applaud the
services of leading European nations were blind to the magnitude of the ISIS threat until
recent actions taken by President Obama. Obama's airstrikes saved tens of thousands of Yazidis from genocide, took back the Mosul Dam from ISIS and saved countless Iraqis, Kurds and Syrians from slaughter.
The airstrikes inflicted material damage to ISIS. The diplomacy of Obama and Secretary of State John Kerry contributed mightily to the replacement of a disastrous Iraqi government by a government can unite
Iraqi Sunnis, Shiites and Kurds. The Obama-Kerry initiatives will lead to the creation of a stable Afghan government and avoid the collapse that was possible after the recent controversial Afghan elections. These
the danger of ISIS
pulling off a nuclear, chemical, biological or other mass death 9/11-style attack in a major American or
European city is real. Even with dirty or primitive WMD weapons, the casualty totals could be
catastrophic . ISIS must be defeated and destroyed. This will not be achieved with "boots on the ground" proxies from Iraqi or Kurd forces alone, though Kurdish forces should immediately receive
are real successes. In the current political climate, Obama seems to get credit for nothing, but he deserves great credit for some important successes in recent weeks. And yet
strong military assistance. America should not initiate another massive Iraq ground war. What is needed is a multinational special ops strike force made up of 10,000 troops from NATO nations and possibly Arab
League nations.
Comprehensive immigration reform’s key to heg
Joseph S. Nye 12, a former US assistant secretary of defense and chairman of the US National
Intelligence Council, is University Professor at Harvard University. “Immigration and American Power,”
December 10, Project Syndicate, http://www.project-syndicate.org/commentary/obama-needsimmigration-reform-to-maintain-america-s-strength-by-joseph-s--nye
CAMBRIDGE – The United States is a nation of immigrants. Except for a small number of Native Americans, everyone is originally from somewhere else, and even recent
immigrants can rise to top economic and political roles. President Franklin Roosevelt once famously addressed the Daughters of the American Revolution – a group that prided itself on the early arrival of its
In recent years, however, US politics has had a strong anti-immigration slant, and the issue played an
But Barack Obama’s re-election demonstrated the electoral power of Latino voters, who rejected Republican presidential
candidate Mitt Romney by a 3-1 majority, as did Asian-Americans.¶ As a result, several prominent Republican politicians are now urging their
party to reconsider its anti-immigration policies, and plans for immigration reform will be on the agenda
at the beginning of Obama’s second term. Successful reform will be an important step in preventing the
decline of American power .¶ Fears about the impact of immigration on national values and on a coherent sense of American identity are not new. The nineteenth-century “Know
ancestors – as “fellow immigrants.”¶
important role in the Republican Party’s presidential nomination battle in 2012.
Nothing” movement was built on opposition to immigrants, particularly the Irish. Chinese were singled out for exclusion from 1882 onward, and, with the more restrictive Immigration Act of 1924, immigration in
general slowed for the next four decades.¶ During the twentieth century, the US recorded its highest percentage of foreign-born residents, 14.7%, in 1910. A century later, according to the 2010 census, 13% of the
American population is foreign born. But, despite being a nation of immigrants, more Americans are skeptical about immigration than are sympathetic to it. Various opinion polls show either a plurality or a
majority favoring less immigration. The recession exacerbated such views: in 2009, one-half of the US public favored allowing fewer immigrants, up from 39% in 2008.¶ Both the number of immigrants and their
origin have caused concerns about immigration’s effects on American culture. Demographers portray a country in 2050 in which non-Hispanic whites will be only a slim majority. Hispanics will comprise 25% of
the population, with African- and Asian-Americans making up 14% and 8%, respectively.¶ But mass communications and market forces produce powerful incentives to master the English language and accept a
degree of assimilation. Modern media help new immigrants to learn more about their new country beforehand than immigrants did a century ago. Indeed, most of the evidence suggests that the latest immigrants
immigration strengthens US
power. It is estimated that at least 83 countries and territories currently have fertility rates that are below the level
needed to keep their population constant. Whereas most developed countries will experience a shortage of people as the century progresses, America is one
of the few that may avoid demographic decline and maintain its share of world population.¶ For example, to maintain its
are assimilating at least as quickly as their predecessors.¶ While too rapid a rate of immigration can cause social problems, over the long term,
current population size, Japan would have to accept 350,000 newcomers annually for the next 50 years, which is difficult for a culture that has historically been hostile to immigration. In contrast, the Census
Today, the US is the world’s third most populous country; 50
years from now it is still likely to be third (after only China and India). This is highly relevant to economic power :
whereas nearly all other developed countries will face a growing burden of providing for the older
generation, immigration could help to attenuate the policy problem for the US.¶ In addition, though studies suggest that the shortterm economic benefits of immigration are relatively small, and that unskilled workers may suffer from competition, skilled immigrants can be important to particular
sectors – and to long-term growth . There is a strong correlation between the number of visas for skilled
applicants and patents filed in the US. At the beginning of this century, Chinese- and Indian-born
engineers were running one-quarter of Silicon Valley’s technology businesses, which accounted for $17.8 billion in sales; and, in 2005,
immigrants had helped to start one-quarter of all US technology start-ups during the previous decade. Immigrants or children of immigrants founded
roughly 40% of the 2010 Fortune 500 companies.¶ Equally important are immigration’s benefits for
Bureau projects that the US population will grow by 49% over the next four decades.¶
America’s soft power. The fact that people want to come to the US enhances its appeal, and immigrants’
upward mobility is attractive to people in other countries. The US is a magnet , and many people can
envisage themselves as Americans, in part because so many successful Americans look like them. Moreover,
connections between immigrants and their families and friends back home help to convey accurate and
positive information about the US.¶ Likewise, because the presence of many cultures creates avenues of connection with other countries, it helps to broaden
Americans’ attitudes and views of the world in an era of globalization. Rather than diluting hard and soft
power, immigration enhances both .¶ Singapore’s former leader, Lee Kwan Yew, an astute observer of both the US and China, argues that China will not
surpass the US as the leading power of the twenty-first century, precisely because the US attracts the best
and brightest from the rest of the world and melds them into a diverse culture of creativity. China has a larger population to recruit from domestically, but, in Lee’s view, its Sino-centric culture will
make it less creative than the US.¶ That is a view that Americans should take to heart. If Obama succeeds in enacting immigration reform in his
second term, he will have gone a long way toward fulfilling his promise to maintain the strength of the
US.
Heg prevents great power wars and solves a laundry list of governance
issues
Zachary Keck 14, Assistant Editor at The Diplomat, M.A. candidate in the Department of Public and
International Affairs at George Mason University, “America’s Relative Decline: Should We Panic?”, 1-24,
http://thediplomat.com/2014/01/americas-relative-decline-should-we-panic/
Still, 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 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 Asia-Pacific (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
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
has only fought weak powers and thus its wars
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.
Independently, cooperative federalism on marijuana spills over to the
environment
Michael M. O'Hear 4, Professor at Marquette University Law School, "Federalism and Drug Control",
1/1, scholarship.law.marquette.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1179&context=facpub
Even taking the more sanguine view, though, there may still be good reason to wish reform of current arrangements. Lines
of public accountability are blurred by federal assertions of leadership and by the complex and largely invisible day-today interactions of federal, state, and local enforcers. Clarifying lines of accountability may promote even
greater responsiveness and innovation in policymaking . The challenge is how to accomplish this, while at the
same time preserving the effectiveness of necessary federal protections for the get-tough communities.¶ With an eye to these
competing objectives, the Article has proposed a preliminary, three-part reform agenda (the Competitive Alternative), intended to: (1)
reduce the federal distortion of drug policy debates at the state and local level ; (2) subject federal drug
enforcement decisions to a greater degree of local political control; and (3) increase the accountability of local
law enforcement to local political institutions.¶ Among other things, the analysis here seeks to highlight the importance
of local governmental institutions in a cooperative federalism scheme. Local institutions often play a
crucial role in implementing federal and state policy choices, not just in drug and crime policy , but also in
other areas ranging from education to welfare to housing to the environment . Adding local institutions to
the mix may dramatically change the way that federalism problems are viewed. Policies that appear quite centralized
from a federal-state perspective alone may seem much less so from a federal-state-local point of view.
That prevents runaway warming --- cooperation is vital
Patricia E. Salkin 10, Raymond and Ella Smith Distinguished Professor of Law at Albany Law School
and Director of the Government Law School, “Cooperative Federalism and Climate Change: New Meaning
to ‘Think Globally—Act Locally’,” Environmental Law Reporter, 2010,
http://www.law.pace.edu/lawschool/files/landuse/SalkinCooprtveFederalismClmtChng.pdf
The potential impacts of global warming and climate change are well documented in the international scientific
literature. In the United States, James Hansen, a leading National Aero- nautics and Space Administration (NASA) scientist, warned that there is
only a brief window of opportunity to meaning- fully address this world crisis. From an international policy
standpoint, it may be easy to point fingers at other countries and stall activity until others demonstrate movement. Further, the negotiation of
traditional treaties, accords, and international diplomacy on these issues can take years to reach realization. Nationally, the
federal
government has only recently acknowledged the critical importance of more immediate action, and while
much more must be done at the federal level, most state governments have not waited, and governors
have made climate change mitigation strate- gies state priorities.2 What has been missing at the federal
and state levels is recognition of the critically important role and responsibility that local governments
have to play in addressing the root causes of greenhouse gas (GHG) emis- sions and the implementation of effective strategies.¶ While the federal
government, through the U.S. Envi- ronmental Protection Agency (EPA), has subtly begun to recognize the opportunities of municipal government
part- nerships, the fact remains that more must be done. EPA recently issued for comment a report on the connections between local land use controls
and climate change in the area of land preservation,3 and there is a special area of the EPA website focused on local government.4 EPA’s Local Climate Program attempts to provide local governments with the resources and tools they will need to develop and imple- ment their own climate action
plans.5 The program’s primary focus is on reducing GHG emissions, with an emphasis on promoting energy efficiency and renewable energy. Some of
the resources
available to local governments include strategy guides, training, and information from groups
working in collaboration with EPA.6 In 2009, EPA allocated $10 million to assist local governments in
reducing their GHG emissions as well as other climate change activities.7 The goal of the Climate Showcase Communities Grant program is “to cre- ate
replicable models of sustainable community action that generate cost-effective and persistent greenhouse gas reduc- tions while improving
The federal
government must, however, do more to incentivize increased cooperative federalism to more aggressively
engage local governments in programs and policies that are national priorities. 10¶ Although state
governments have, in large number, appointed task forces and study commissions on climate change and adopted
environmental . . . conditions in the community.”8 Awards are expected to be announced in the first quarter of 2010.9
climate action plans,11 the fact remains that most of these efforts focus almost exclusively on opportunities and recommendations for state-level
agencies to improve their own actions, e.g., energy efficiency initiatives for agencies’ buildings and construction projects, greening state vehicle fleets,
green procurement strategies, etc. What
is missing from the majority of the states’ plans are goals and strategies for the
involvement of local government officials and recognition of the benefits of municipal actions.12 The lack
of focus on local governments is troubling. It will be impossible for the United States to meaningfully
respond to the complexities of climate change without a full partner- ship between local governments and
governments at other levels, since local governments possess broad local land use planning and control
authority,13 and in many states, they are on the front line of local environmental review, conducting
N ational E nvironmental P olicy A ct-type evaluations that may include GHG emissions and carbon footprint-reduction
strategies.14
Warming is real, anthropogenic, and causes extinction
Richard Schiffman 13, environmental writer @ The Atlantic citing the Fifth Intergovernmental Panel
on Climate Change, “What Leading Scientists Want You to Know About Today's Frightening Climate
Report,” The Atlantic, 9/27, http://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2013/09/leading-scientistsweigh-in-on-the-mother-of-all-climate-reports/280045/
The polar icecaps are melting faster than we thought they would; seas are rising faster than we thought
they would; extreme weather events are increasing. Have a nice day! That’s a less than scientifically rigorous summary of the
findings of the Fifth Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) report released this morning in Stockholm.¶ Appearing exhausted after
a nearly two sleepless days fine-tuning the language of the report, co-chair Thomas Stocker called climate change “the greatest
challenge of our time," adding that “each of the last three decades has been successively warmer than the
past,” and that this trend is likely to continue into the foreseeable future.¶ Pledging further action to cut carbon dioxide (CO2)
emissions, U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry said, "This isn’t a run of the mill report to be dumped in a filing cabinet. This isn’t a political document
produced by politicians... It’s science."¶ And that science needs to be communicated to the public, loudly and clearly. I canvassed leading climate
researchers for their take on the findings of the vastly influential IPCC report. What headline would they put on the news? What do they hope people hear about this report?¶
Mann, the Director of the Earth Systems Science Center at Penn State (a former IPCC
suggested: "Jury In: Climate Change Real, Caused by Us, and a Threat We Must Deal With." ¶ Ted
When I asked him for his headline, Michael
author himself)
Scambos, a glaciologist and head scientist of the National Snow and Ice Data Center (NSIDC) based in Boulder would lead with: "IPCC 2013, Similar Forecasts, Better
the report, which is issued every six to seven years, offers no radically new or alarming news, Scambos told me, it puts an exclamation
point on what we already know, and refines our evolving understanding of global warming.¶ The IPCC, the
Certainty." While
indisputable rock star of UN documents, serves as the basis for global climate negotiations, like the ones that took place in Kyoto, Rio, and, more recently, Copenhagen. (The
is also arguably the most elaborately vetted and exhaustively
researched scientific paper in existence. Founded in 1988 by the United Nations and the World Meteorological Organization, the IPCC
represents the distilled wisdom of over 600 climate researchers in 32 countries on changes in the Earth’s atmosphere, ice
next big international climate meeting is scheduled for 2015 in Paris.) It
and seas. It endeavors to answer the late New York mayor Ed Koch’s famous question “How am I doing?” for all of us. The answer, which won’t surprise anyone who has been
It is now 95 percent likely that human spewed heat-trapping gases —
rather than natural variability — are the main cause of climate change, according to today’s report. In 2007 the IPCC’s confidence
level was 90 percent, and in 2001 it was 66 percent, and just over 50 percent in 1995. ¶ What’s more, things are getting worse more quickly than
almost anyone thought would happen a few years back.¶ “If you look at the early IPCC predictions back from 1990 and what has taken place
following the climate change story, is not very well at all. ¶
since, climate change is proceeding faster than we expected,” Mann told me by email. Mann helped develop the famous hockey-stick graph, which Al Gore used in his film “An
Given the current
trajectory, we're on track for ice-free summer conditions in the Arctic in a matter of a decade or two... There is
Inconvenient Truth” to dramatize the sharp rise in temperatures in recent times. ¶ Mann cites the decline of Arctic sea ice to explain : “
a similar story with the continental ice sheets, which are losing ice — and contributing to sea level rise — at a faster rate than the [earlier IPCC] models had predicted.”¶ But there
is a lot that we still don’t understand. Reuters noted in a sneak preview of IPCC draft which was leaked in August that, while the broad global trends are clear, climate scientists
hotspots are not consistent, but move
erratically around the globe . The same has been true of heat waves, mega-storms and catastrophic floods, like the recent ones that ravaged the Colorado
Front Range. There is broad agreement that climate change is increasing the severity of extreme weather
events, but we’re not yet able to predict where and when these will show up. ¶ “It is like watching a pot boil,” Danish astrophysicist and climate scientist
Peter Thejll told me. “We understand why it boils but cannot predict where the next bubble will be.” ¶ There is also uncertainty about an
apparent slowdown over the last decade in the rate of air temperature increase. While some critics claim that global warming has
“stalled,” others point out that, when rising ocean temperatures are factored in, the Earth is actually gaining heat
faster than previously anticipated .¶ “Temperatures measured over the short term are just one parameter,” said Dr Tim
Barnett of the Scripps Institute of Oceanography in an interview. “ There are far more critical things going on; the acidification of the
ocean is happening a lot faster than anybody thought that it would, it’s sucking up more CO2, plankton,
the basic food chain of the planet , are dying, it’s such a hugely important signal. Why aren’t people using that as a measure
of what is going on?Ӧ Barnett thinks that recent increases in volcanic activity, which spews smog-forming aerosols into the air that deflect solar radiation and
cool the atmosphere, might help account for the temporary slowing of global temperature rise. But he says we shouldn’t let short
were “finding it harder than expected to predict the impact in specific regions in coming decades.”¶ From year to year, the world’s
term fluctuations cause us to lose sight of the big picture.¶ The dispute over temperatures underscores just how formidable the IPCC’s task of modeling the complexity of climate
change is. Issued in three parts (the next two installments are due out in the spring), the full version of the IPCC will end up several times the length of Leo Tolstoy’s epic War
I do not know of any other area of any
complexity and importance at all where there is unanimous agreement ... and the statements so strong ,” Mike MacCracken, Chief
and Peace. Yet every last word of the U.N. document needs to be signed off on by all of the nations on earth. ¶ “
Scientist for Climate Change Programs, Climate Institute in Washington, D.C. told me in an email. “What IPCC has achieved is remarkable (and why it merited the Nobel Peace
Prize granted in 2007).Ӧ Not surprisingly,
the IPCC’s conclusions tend to be “ conservative by design,” Ken Caldeira, an atmospheric
The IPCC is not supposed to represent the controversial
forefront of climate science. It is supposed to represents what nearly all scientists agree on, and it does
that quite effectively.Ӧ Nevertheless, even these understated findings are inevitably controversial. Roger Pielke Jr., the Director of the Center for Science and
scientist with the Carnegie Institution’s Department of Global Ecology told me: “
Technology Policy Research at the University of Colorado, Boulder suggested a headline that focuses on the cat fight that today’s report is sure to revive: "Fresh Red Meat
Offered Up in the Climate Debate, Activists and Skeptics Continue Fighting Over It." Pielke should know. A critic of Al Gore, who has called his own detractors "climate
McCarthyists," Pielke has been a lightning rod for the political controversy which continues to swirl around the question of global warming, and what, if anything, we should do
about it. ¶ The public’s skepticism of climate change took a dive after Hurricane Sandy. Fifty-four percent of Americans are now saying that the effects of global warming have
already begun. But 41 percent surveyed in the same Gallup poll believe news about global warming is generally exaggerated, and there is a smaller but highly passionate minority
For most climate experts, however, the battle is long over — at least when it
comes to the science. What remains in dispute is not whether climate change is happening, but how fast things are going to get worse.¶ There are some possibilities
that continues to believe the whole thing is a hoax. ¶
that are deliberately left out of the IPCC projections, because we simply don’t have enough data yet to model them. Jason Box, a visiting scholar at the Byrd Polar Research
Center told me in an email interview that: “
The scary elephant in the closet is terrestrial and oceanic methane release
triggered by
warming.” The IPCC projections don’t include the possibility — some scientists say likelihood — that huge quantities of methane (a greenhouse gas thirty times as potent as CO2)
the threshhold “when humans lose
control of potential management of the problem, may be sooner than expected.Ӧ Box, whose work has been instrumental
in documenting the rapid deterioration of the Greenland ice sheet, also believes that the latest IPCC predictions (of a maximum just under three foot ocean rise
by the end of the century) may turn out to be wildly optimistic , if the Greenland ice sheet breaks up. “We are heading into uncharted
territory” he said. “ We are creating a different climate than the Earth has ever seen. ” ¶ The head of the IPCC, Rajendra
Pachauri, speaks for the scientific consensus when he says that time is fast running out to avoid the catastrophic collapse of the
natural systems on which human life depends. What he recently told a group of climate scientist could be the most chilling headline of all for the
U.N. report: ¶ "We have five minutes before midnight."
will eventually be released from thawing permafrost and undersea methane hydrate reserves. Box said that
CO2 acidifies the oceans---causes extinction
Romm 9 Joe, Fellow at American Progress and is the editor of Climate Progress, holds a Ph.D. in
physics from MIT, “Imagine a World without Fish: Deadly ocean acidification — hard to deny, harder to
geo-engineer, but not hard to stop — is subject of documentary,”
http://thinkprogress.org/romm/2009/09/02/204589/a-sea-change-imagine-a-world-without-fishocean-acidification-film/
Global warming is “capable of wrecking the marine ecosystem and depriving future generations of the
harvest of the seas” (see Ocean dead zones to expand, “remain for thousands of years”). A post on ocean acidification from the
new Conservation Law Foundation blog has brought to my attention that the first documentary on the subject, A Sea Change:
Imagine a World without Fish, is coming out. Ocean acidification must be a core climate message, since it is hard
to deny and impervious to the delusion that geoengineering is the silver bullet. Indeed, a major 2009 study
GRL study, “Sensitivity of ocean acidification to geoengineered climate stabilization” (subs. req’d), concluded: The
results of this paper support the view that climate engineering will not resolve the problem of ocean acidification,
and that therefore deep and rapid cuts in CO2 emissions are likely to be the most effective strategy to
avoid environmental damage from future ocean acidification. If you want to understand ocean acidification better,
see this BBC story, which explains: Man-made pollution is raising ocean acidity at least 10 times faster
than previously thought, a study says. Or see this Science magazine study, “Evidence for Upwelling of Corrosive
“Acidified” Water onto the Continental Shelf” (subs. req’), which found Our results show for the first time that a large section of
the North American continental shelf is impacted by ocean acidification . Other continental shelf regions may also
be impacted where anthropogenic CO2-enriched water is being upwelled onto the shelf. Or listen to the Australia’s ARC Centre of
Excellence for Coral Reef Studies, which warns: The world’s oceans are becoming more acid, with potentially
devastating consequences for corals and the marine organisms that build reefs and provide much of the
Earth’s breathable oxygen. The acidity is caused by the gradual buildup of carbon dioxide (CO2) in the
atmosphere, dissolving into the oceans. Scientists fear it could be lethal for animals with chalky skeletons which make up
more than a third of the planet’s marine life”¦. Corals and plankton with chalky skeletons are at the base of the
marine food web. They rely on sea water saturated with calcium carbonate to form their skeletons . However,
as acidity intensifies, the saturation declines, making it harder for the animals to form their skeletal
structures (calcify). “Analysis of coral cores shows a steady drop in calcification over the last 20 years,” says Professor Ove HoeghGuldberg of CoECRS and the University of Queensland. “There’s not much debate about how it happens: put more CO2 into the air
above and it dissolves into the oceans. “When CO2 levels in the atmosphere reach about 500 parts per million, you put calcification
out of business in the oceans.” (Atmospheric CO2 levels are presently 385 ppm, up from 305 in 1960.) I’d like to see an analysis of
what happens when you get to 850 to 1000+ ppm because that is where we’re headed (see U.S. media largely ignores latest warning
from climate scientists: “Recent observations confirm “¦ the worst-case IPCC scenario trajectories (or even worse) are being realised”
“” 1000 ppm). The CLF post notes: Dr. Jane Lubchenco, Administrator of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
(NOAA) warns that an acidic ocean is the “equally evil twin” of climate change. Scott Doney, a senior scientist at the Woods Hole
Oceanographic Institution noted in a public presentation that “New England is the most vulnerable region in the country to ocean
acidification.” In June, dozens of Academies of Science, including ours and China’s, issued a joint statement on
ocean acidification, warned “Marine food supplies are likely to be reduced with significant implications for
food production and security in regions dependent on fish protein, and human health and wellbeing” and
“Ocean acidification is irreversible on timescales of at least tens of thousands of years.” They conclude: Ocean
acidification is a direct consequence of increasing atmospheric CO2 concentrations. To avoid substantial damage to ocean
ecosystems, deep and rapid reductions of global CO2 emissions by at least 50% by 2050, and much more thereafter are needed. We,
the academies of science working through the InterAcademy Panel on International Issues (IAP), call on world leaders to: “¢
Acknowledge that ocean acidification is a direct and real consequence of increasing atmospheric CO2
concentrations, is already having an effect at current concentrations, and is likely to cause grave harm
to important marine ecosystems as CO2 concentrations reach 450 ppm and above; “¢
Recognise that reducing the build up of CO2 in the atmosphere is the only practicable solution to mitigating ocean acidification; “¢
Within the context of the UNFCCC negotiations in the run up to Copenhagen 2009, recognise the direct threats posed by increasing
atmospheric CO2 emissions to the oceans and therefore society, and take action to mitigate this threat; “¢ Implement action to
reduce global CO2 emissions by at least 50% of 1990 levels by 2050 and continue to reduce them thereafter. If we want to save
life in the oceans “” and save ourselves , since we depend on that life “” the time to start slashing carbon
dioxide emissions is now.
It’s not too late---reductions can avoid and delay catastrophic impacts
Chestney 13 Nina, senior environmental correspondent, 1/13, “Climate Change Study: Emissions
Limits Could Avoid Damage By Two-Thirds,” http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/01/13/climatechange-study-emissions-limits_n_2467995.html
The world could avoid much of the damaging effects of climate change this century if greenhouse gas emissions are
curbed more sharply, research showed on Sunday. The study, published in the journal Nature Climate Change, is the
first comprehensive assessment of the benefits of cutting emissions to keep the global temperature rise to
within 2 degrees Celsius by 2100, a level which scientists say would avoid the worst effects of climate change. It
found 20 to 65 percent of the adverse impacts by the end of this century could be avoided. "Our research clearly
identifies the benefits of reducing greenhouse gas emissions - less severe impacts on flooding and crops are two areas of particular benefit," said Nigel
Arnell, director of the University of Reading's Walker Institute, which led the study. In 2010, governments agreed to curb emissions to keep
temperatures from rising above 2 degrees C, but current
emissions reduction targets are on track to lead to a
temperature rise of 4 degrees or more by 2100. The World Bank has warned more extreme weather will become the "new normal" if
global temperature rises by 4 degrees. Extreme heatwaves could devastate areas from the Middle East to the United States, while sea levels could rise by
up to 91 cm (3 feet), flooding cities in countries such as Vietnam and Bangladesh, the bank has said. The latest research involved scientists from British
institutions including the University of Reading, the Met Office Hadley Centre and the Tyndall Centre for Climate Change, as well as Germany's
Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research. It examined a range of emissions-cut scenarios and their impact on factors including flooding, drought,
water availability and crop productivity. The
strictest scenario kept global temperature rise to 2 degrees C with
emissions peaking in 2016 and declining by 5 percent a year to 2050. FLOODING Adverse effects such as declining crop
productivity and exposure to river flooding could be reduced by 40 to 65 percent by 2100 if warming is
limited to 2 degrees, the study said. Global average sea level rise could be reduced to 30cm (12 inches) by 2100, compared to 47-55cm (18-22
inches) if no action to cut emissions is taken, it said. Some adverse climate impacts could also be delayed by many decades. The
global productivity of spring wheat could drop by 20 percent by the 2050s, but the fall in yield could be
delayed until 2100 if strict emissions curbs were enforced. "Reducing greenhouse gas emissions won't avoid the
impacts of climate change altogether of course, but our research shows it will buy time to make things like
buildings, transport systems and agriculture more resilient to climate change," Arnell said.
2AC
Cartels
AT: Diversification
Prohibition is what funds diversification---comparative ev that we solve
diversification
David Borden 14, Founder of the Drug Reform Coordination Network, "Out from the Shadows:
Ending Drug Prohibition in the 21st Century, Summer 2014 “IF HARD DRUGS WERE LEGALIZED,
WOULD MORE PEOPLE USE THEM?” 12 Cardozo Pub. L. Pol'y & Ethics J. 569
A final point is that the most dangerous harms which need to be considered in a cost-benefit calculation may be the most difficult to
know about before they happen, and therefore the most difficult to plan for . As Kleiman notes, a major cost of
heroin prohibition was the rapid spread of HIV through the drug-injecting population at the time the virus hit, but we didn't know
in advance about HIV. n116 The changes in the inner-city drug trade that occurred as part of the crack trade, and its impact on gun prevalence, were
unpredicted consequences going beyond those previously seen for cocaine prohibition - arguably of crackdowns on the marijuana trade and of
intensified federal sentencing as well - and of the marketing innovation in the cocaine trade that crack represented, itself unpredicted. Felbab-
Brown notes success in "suppressing production [of the drug trade] in one location will only shift
production elsewhere," absent reduced global demand. n117 Should the production "re-emerge, for example, in an area dominated by a major
terrorist group ... it could bring the terrorists windfall gains, both in military strength and in political capital." n118 This "balloon effect" can cause the
greatest trauma. n119 Among these traumas is that "criminal activity ... frequently ... is rechanneled into the production and smuggling of other illicit
commodities... that [can] be even more pernicious and difficult to control." n120 [*598] All of this is not to argue that legalization will simply reverse
every bad situation that was created by prohibition, or that every move toward legalization will have straightforward consequences. Felbab-Brown
posits that following marijuana legalization in Mexico, drug trafficking organizations (hereinafter " DTOs"), having
lost that revenue
stream, "could intensify their effort to take over other illegal economies ... and also ... [try] to franchise who
[gets to participate in the informal economy... to mitigate their financial losses." n121 Interestingly, she adds, , "the shrinkage of the U.S. cocaine
market is one of the factors that precipitated the current [Mexico] DTO wars." n122 But
prohibition likely does more to increase
DTO control over the economy than legalization could , at least in the long term, by providing DTOs with much of
their investment capital. Jonathan Haken warns, "Any profits that are made [by DTOs] rarely serve to bolster the official
economy or the capacity of the state... . In many cases, profits will be funneled into an unofficial 'shadow' economy where
they fund other criminal enterprises like human trafficking, prostitution, arms dealing, and more." n123 Felbab-Brown likewise notes
that DTOs "are already" expanding their tentacles into more areas. n124 Drug trade profits have also jeopardized the integrity of
political systems at a time of democratic reform. Kevin Casas-Zamora writes, for example, "the confluence of a vigorous, regionwide democratic process
[in Latin America] with the noticeable expansion of organized crime ... has attracted the attention of political reformers... . The risk that money from ...
drug trafficking in particular, poses to the integrity of political parties and electoral processes has been cited in country after country." n125 The
instabilities discussed here lie on both the supply side and the consumption side of the drugs chain. They include instabilities in how drugs are provided
and the crime associated with drug selling. They [*599] include instabilities in how drugs are used, what drugs are used and how damaging they are. A
public health success, a reduction in addictive drug use in the United States, has contributed to the outbreak of horrific violence seen in Mexico. Success
suppressing the drug trade in one place helps insurgent groups in other places. The instability reaches into the realm of deadly epidemic diseases, the
spread of HIV and AIDS, even more devastating to parts of the world like South Asia and Eastern Europe than it's been here. n126 It has even affected
the process of democratization, in Latin America, in Jamaica, n127 and undoubtedly elsewhere, by adding all the fuel to organized crime and its
capacity that drug trade profits bring. It may be possible to more readily posit what some short-term reactions by DTOs following legalization could be for example, redoubled efforts to control and exploit their remaining possible business areas - than it is to project for the long term how a substantial
reduction in the scale of the global illicit economy may help with all of the concerns that it impacts. But if
the scale of an illicit economy is
a likely factor in the prevalence of instabilities of the type described here, that is another reason to consider
undertaking the climb down from prohibition, rather than continuing to finance organized criminal activities
at the substantial level that drug trade profits have so far enabled. Surely any social systems, even licit, aboveground ones, have
the potential for instabilities and consequent harms that are difficult to predict. But the instabilities seen
to commonly occur in underground systems seem to have a greater propensity to wreak havoc , especially
systems that commonly make use of weaponry in their maintenance.
AT: Murray-Gtown
Murray thinks the aff solves DTOs and diversification—here are the
paragraphs IMMEDIATELY after their card (blue = gtown, yellow = NU)
Murray et al, 11 – Graduate candidate at George Washington (Chad, "Mexican Drug Trafficking
Organizations and Marijuana: The Potential Effects of U.S. Legalization", The George Washington
University Elliott School of International Affairs/Inter-American Drug Abuse Control Commission:
Capstone Report sponsored by the Organization of the American States,
https://elliott.gwu.edu/sites/elliott.gwu.edu/files/downloads/acad/lahs/mexico-marijuana-071111.pdf)
ShortMexican DTOs would likely branch
into other avenues of crime. Perhaps the most obvious short-term effect of marijuana legalization is that this would
rob the Sinaloa and Tijuana cartels of up to half of their total revenue.117 The economic strain placed on the
Sinaloa cartel and Tijuana cartel may not necessarily help Mexico in the short term. The short-term effects of legalization
could very well create chaos for Mexico. “The cartels compensate for their loss of drug revenue by
branching out into other criminal activities--kidnapping, murder-for-hire, contraband, illegal immigrant
smuggling, extortion , theft of oil and other items, loan-sharking, prostitution, selling protection, etc.”118
This means that if the social and economic environment remains the same then “they are not going to return
to the licit world.”119 If the Sinaloa cartel and the Tijuana cartel turn towards activities like kidnapping,
human trafficking and extortion, it could lead to a spike in violence that would prove to be destabilizing in
those organizations‟
addition, the loss of more than 40% of revenue would probably force them to downsize their operations. Like
any large business going through downsizing, employees will likely be shed first in order to maintain profitability.120 These
former DTO operatives will likely not return to earning a legitimate income, but rather will independently
find new revenue sources in a manner similar to their employers. Therefore it is possible that the legalization of
marijuana in the United States could cause territories currently under the control of the Sinaloa cartel and
Tijuana cartel to become more violent than they are today. This is troubling, as Sinaloa, Baja California, Sonora, and
Chihuahua states are already among the most violent areas of Mexico.12
[their card ends]
Medium-term effects on Mexican DTOs and Security Implications
The Sinaloa cartel’s ability to wage violence would likely be hampered . With a massive drop in the
revenue stream of the Sinaloa cartel, Mexico‟ s largest and most powerful DTO could be dealt a
potentially devastating blow . The Sinaloa cartel could be financially and thus logistically hampered from
expanding into other DTOs‟ territory. If inter-cartel conflicts due to territory disputes are diminished, this could lead
to a reduction of violence. ¶ The PRI might negotiate with Mexican DTOs. During the 1980s and 1990s the main
policy of the ¶ PRI in dealing with Mexico‟ s criminal organizations was to negotiate with these powerful groups.¶ 122 In exchange
for the agreement not to engage in violence against the state and civilians, the PRI tended to look the other way when it came to
DTO‟ s trafficking activities.123¶ Some experts speculate that if the PRI wins next year‟ s Presidential elections in Mexico
they will ¶ attempt to resolve Mexico‟ s drug violence through negotiation.124 However, the Sinaloa cartel ¶
would be unlikely to negotiate from its current position of strength, as it already has near total ¶ control of the areas
where it operates and would receive little benefit.125 It is possible, however, ¶ that a weakening of the Sinaloa cartel
could force it to break up in to smaller groups, as has ¶ happened to other major DTOs in the past. The Mexican
government would have a much easier ¶ time dealing with a splintered Sinaloa organization through
negotiations or force. Obviously, ¶ Mexican government negotiation with DTOs is not desirable from a U.S. perspective, and the
¶
United States would advocate force.
T
Spec
Legalization is a process of eliminating prohibitions
OAS 13, Scenario Team appointed by the Organization of American States, composed of drug policy
experts and officials from throughout the OAS, “SCENARIOS FOR THE DRUG PROBLEM IN THE
AMERICAS: 2013 – 2025,” http://reospartners.com/sites/default/files/Scenarios_Report.pdf
• Legalization ¶ The process of eliminating legal prohibitions on the production, distribution, and use of a
controlled substance for other than medi- cal or scientific purposes, generally through replacement with a
regulated market. The term has often been associated with ‘liber- alization’ or regimes in which the prohibition for certain drugs is ended without necessarily imposing strict state controls. It also
sometimes refers to regimes of regulation to control commercial- ized production and distribution. The term ‘legalization’ is therefore usefully qualified for the sake of clarity – for example, ‘legalization and
regulation’ or ‘free-market legalization’.
C/I: “To legalize” marijuana includes regulations
Dr. Jonathan P. Caulkins 12, Stever Prof of Operations Research and Public Policy at Carnegie
Mellon, Dr. Angela Hawkin, Associate Prof of Public Policy at Pepperdine University, Dr. Beau Kilmer,
Co-Director of the Rand Drug Policy Research Center, and Dr. Mark Kleiman, Prof of Public Policy at
UCLA, interview with Matt Ferner, Denver editor for the Huffington Post, "’Marijuana Legalization: What
Everyone Needs To Know’ Authors Discuss Risks And Rewards Of Legal Weed," September 4, Huffington
Post, www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/09/04/marijuana-legalization-research_n_1850470.html
But, marijuana legalization is a complex subject. So, to help better understand the issue, The Huffington Post recently chatted with the four authors
of "Marijuana Legalization: What Everyone Needs to Know," a book that details the research and conclusions of its four authors: Dr. Jonathan P. Caulkins (Stever Professor of
Operations Research and Public Policy at Carnegie Mellon University), Dr. Angela Hawken (Associate Professor of Public Policy at Pepperdine University), Dr. Beau Kilmer (CoDirector of the RAND Drug Policy Research Center), Dr. Mark Kleiman (Professor of Public Policy at UCLA). The four authors answered the following questions collectively:¶
When did marijuana prohibition begin?¶ The usual dating of the federal ban is 1937 Marijuana Tax Act, although 29 states had already prohibited by 1931. California was among
The term
legalization without any qualification means that the substance would be treated more or less like any
other article of commerce , with substance-specific regulations seeking only to shape the behavior of
producers and consumers, not to eliminate market activity . So, alcohol is legal even though it can only be
purchased by those over the age of 21, and automobiles are legal even though manufacturers selling in the U.S.
have to meet a range of regulatory requirements , including those pertaining to emissions, fuel economy, and crash safety. ¶
Decriminalization refers to reducing sanctions only for those possessing quantities suitable for personal
consumption . For marijuana, that is often interpreted to mean an ounce or less .¶ Amendment 64 seeks to
legalize marijuana in the first, more sweeping sense of allowing large-scale commercial production and distribution for
profit and not just for medical use. Its Section 3 pertains to legalization of personal use, but the subsequent sections legalize – with respect to state law – commercial
the first movers, banning marijuana in 1913.¶ Define the various kinds of legalization and what kind of legalization is Amendment 64 seeking? ¶
production and sale.
Resolved isn’t relevant
Webster’s Guide to Grammar and Writing – 2k http://ccc.commnet.edu/grammar/marks/colon.htmUse of
If the
introductory phrase preceding the colon is very brief and the clause following the colon
represents the real business of the sentence, begin the clause after the colon with a capital letter.
a colon before a list or an explanation that is preceded by a clause that can stand by itself. Think of the colon as a gate, inviting one to go on…
CP
Exec Discretion
Congress key to certainty- potential for executive rollback means the CP
can’t solve
Michael Vitiello, 13, Distinguished Professor of Law, University of the Pacific, McGeorge School of
Law, “Joints or the Joint: Colorado and Washington Square Off Against the United States,”
http://law.uoregon.edu/org/olr/volumes/91/4/documents/Vitiello.pdf
Several senators, including Patrick Leahy, have pushed the administration to take a position to accommodate
local marijuana laws.108 Other members of Congress, including Dana Rohrabacher, ¶ have begun proposing federal legislation
to recognize local ¶ options.109 If the Obama administration fails to take the lead on ¶ creating space for state law, Congress may give
him cover by ¶ enacting such legislation. The President and the Attorney General ¶ must factor in the probability of Congress taking
the lead on the issue ¶ if they fail to do so. And here, they must recognize how dysfunctional ¶ Congress has become.110¶ A
congressional solution may be more desirable from a number of ¶ perspectives, including greater certainty
for those interested in investing in the marijuana trade in Colorado and Washington. After all, a policy of
forbearance by the executive branch can be overturned by the next administration. Overturning
legislation would be more difficult.111 Either scenario would give Colorado and Washington the opportunity to implement
their laws without fear of aggressive federal intrusion. But that begs yet other questions and invites my concluding thoughts on the
road to legalization.
Non-enforcement statements fail
Jonathan P. Caulkins et al, 12, Prof of Operations Research and Public Policy at Carnegie Mellon,
Dr. Angela Hawkin, Associate Prof of Public Policy at Pepperdine University, Dr. Beau Kilmer, CoDirector of the Rand Drug Policy Research Center, and Dr. Mark Kleiman, Prof of Public Policy at UCLA,
MARIJUANA LEGALIZATION: WHAT EVERYONE NEEDS TO KNOW, p 191-2
In February 2009, U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder signaled that federal enforcement policy toward those
operating legally under state laws would change. The reversal became more formal in October 2009 when
Deputy Attorney General¶ Ogden released a memo suggesting that as a general matter, U.S. Attorneys should
not focus federal resources on "individ- uals whose actions are in clear and unambiguous compliance with
existing state laws providing for the medical use of mari-¶ juana." The memo reserved the option of targeting those vio-¶
lating state laws or attempting to make a profit from selling¶ medical marijuana, and federal agents have arrested dozens of¶
individuals involved in supplying medical marijuana since the¶ memo was released.¶ More recently,
some U nited S tates
Attorneys warned specific dispensaries to shut down or face enforcement, and in some cases have carried
out those threats against operations that did¶ not comply. A June 2011 memo from U.S. Deputy Attorney¶ General Cole
reiterated the warning of enforcement action against "commercial operations" and "persons in the business"¶ of
cultivating, selling, or distributing marijuana. It also argued¶ that those "who engage in transactions involving the proceeds¶ of such
activity may also be in violation of federal money laun-¶ dering statutes and other federal financial laws." Advocates¶ saw this as a
reversal of the Holder-Ogden policy. But the Ogden memo differentiated between individuals and their caregivers¶ on the one hand
and for-profit commercial enterprises on the¶ other. Likewise, since California law recognizes only "coopera-¶ tives," and many of the
medical marijuana dispensaries are¶ actually for-profit businesses, it's not clear that any of them are¶ in fact operating in compliance
with state law.¶ In October 2011, the four U.S. Attorneys in California pub-¶ licly described their plan to target the large, for-profit
medical¶ marijuana industry. Tactics will include criminal cases and civil¶ forfeiture cases against those who own properties involved
in¶ drug trafficking (e.g., landlords who rent to dispensaries). It¶ does not appear that all dispensaries are being targeted, but¶ U.S.
Attorney Melissa Haag suggests, "Although our initial¶ efforts in the Northern District focus on only certain marijuana¶ stores, we
will almost certainly be taking action against others.¶ None are immune from action by the federal government."¶ The
moral of
this back-and-forth saga is that the outcome of a state's making marijuana legally available depends on
whether and how the federal government chooses to enforce federal laws.
Links to midterms---still perceived the same way in ___---requires
congressional action
Mark Kleiman 13, Federal-state legal conflicts over cannabis, Sept 10,
http://www.samefacts.com/2013/09/drug-policy/federal-state-legal-conflicts-over-cannabis/
A second alternative – requiring new legislation – would be to create a formal “waiver” process under which states
would be allowed to experiment with taxed and regulated cannabis production and distribution, as states were allowed to experiment with
alternative forms of income support under AFDC waivers. The waiver process could be made as strict as Congress desired. With a waiver in place, state-legal activity would become legal under federal law as well, a
substantial improvement, for state regulators and industry participants alike, over simply being a low enforcement priority. That promise would provide a substantial incentive for states seeking waivers, or
wanting to hold on to waivers, once granted, to do their utmost to prevent sales out of state. That would also create an incentive for the newly-legal industries to self-police and to support enforcement efforts
against rogue licensees and entirely illicit traffickers, since the threat of having a waiver withdrawn as the result of misbehavior by a few bad actors or the state’s failure to rein in the illicit market would be a potent
one.
Clarification does NOTHING---confusion on marijuana
Kris Hermes 11, writer for Americans for Safe Access, 10/11/11, Elected Officials Push Back Against Threats by DOJ Over
Medical Marijuana, http://www.safeaccessnow.org/tags/obama?page=3
On Friday, President Obama’s Justice Department (DOJ) made clear its
motivations to disrupt and
undermine California’s medical marijuana laws. However, advocates argue that last week’s announcement
by the state’s four U.S. Attorneys, which included threats against property owners, comes after months of
aggressive DOJ attacks in several medical marijuana states. SWAT-style raids and threats of criminal
prosecution against local and state officials has become emblematic of Obama’s policy on medical
marijuana, a far cry from his pledge on the campaign trail that he was “not going to be using Justice
Department resources to try to circumvent state laws on this issue.” Yet, just as Obama’s confusing war
on medical marijuana has reached a fever pitch, condemnation could be heard from several state and
federal officials in California. Some state legislators and members of Congress are refusing to be
intimidated by this latest round of threats from the federal government. Congressional members Dana
Rohrabacher (R-CA) and Sam Farr (D-CA), as well as State Senator Mark Leno (D-San Francisco) and Assembly member Tom
Ammiano (D-San Francisco) all decried the recent DOJ announcement in California.
Hard law’s necessary for coop fism
Jacob Gerson 8, U. Chicago Ast. Professor Law, Eric Posner, U. Chicago Law Professor, December,
Article: Soft Law: Lessons from Congressional Practice, 61 Stan. L. Rev. 573
The binding effect of hard law is its straightforward advantage over soft law, and we need not dwell on this issue. A more
interesting possibility is that hard law better satisfies rule-of-law values such as publicity than soft law does. The main distinction
between hard law and soft law is that hard law complies with formalities that clearly distinguish binding law . A central
tenet of the rule of law is that law be public, so that people may debate it, object to it, and plan their lives around it. Secret law is
anathema and perhaps soft law resembles secret law. This concern can be easily overstated, however. If soft law is secret, then it cannot regulate, in
which case it cannot serve any useful purpose. Congressional resolutions themselves also comply with publicity formalities that distinguish them from unenacted bills.
Nonetheless, one might worry that unsophisticated people, or people who cannot get legal advice, are likely to misunderstand the importance of soft law, putting them at a
disadvantage with respect to savvier fellow citizens. Consider, for example, Susan Rose-Ackerman's critique of the Supreme Court's interpretation of The Developmentally
Disabled Assistance and Bill of Rights Act in Pennhurst State School v. Halderman. n95 The Court rejected the plaintiffs' argument that the statute created judicially enforceable
rights for the developmentally disabled, arguing instead that the weak language in the Act indicated that Congress intended to announce a policy in the hope of eliciting a
favorable response from states. n96 Rose-Ackerman argues that the Court's holding permitted Congress to earn public credit by enacting a statute that expressed popular
aspirations but did not have any effect. Perhaps the Court should have "repealed" the statute, which would have embarrassed Congress and forced it to enact clearer legislation.
n97 Importantly, the Act was not a soft statute but rather was a hortatory hard statute. It was duly enacted but had no formal legal effect. n98 Nonetheless, one concern is that
such a statute would deceive the public, leading it to extend credit to a Congress that accomplished nothing at all. The problem with this view is that Congress did, in fact, do
something: it announced a policy on the treatment of developmentally disabled people, a policy that was consistent with other hard-statute rules and could well have anticipated
further legislative developments. n99 Announcing the policy in advance might well have encouraged states and private actors to adjust their behavior in advance of hard
rule-of-law values might require
courts strike down statutes that are ambiguous and confusing , at least in certain conditions. The rule of lenity in criminal law
reflects this idea: people should not go to jail because they violate criminal statutes that they cannot understand. If this concern is valid for hard law, it
is even stronger for soft law, where people might not understand that a soft statute may affect behavior. If only sophisticated people can anticipate Congress's
legislation. It is possible therefore to view soft law as facilitating rule-of-law values rather than undermining them. However,
that
changing views about the treatment of developmentally disabled people on the basis of hortatory statutes or concurrent resolutions, then unsophisticated people are put at a
if the public typically associates hard statutes with binding obligations, then using the
hortatory statute with only precatory language creates confusion and ambiguity . If the public associates soft statutes with nonbinding
disadvantage. By the same token,
obligations, then the soft statute will be superior to the hard hortatory statute because it will accomplish the same communicative ends, but avoid the confusion produced by
using a hard statute. In terms of public knowledge of and reaction to soft law, rule-of-law problems are certainly not inevitable. A different rule-of-law objection concerns the
If Congress can regulate with soft statutes, then the constitutional
requirement of presentment is rendered void and the President's role in producing legislation is eliminated. The procedural
formalities of legislation do not just clarify congressional action; they also ensure that Congress does not cut
the President out of the picture. Just such a concern lay behind the Supreme Court's rejection of the legislative veto. The analogous concern can be found in
enactment of law without the consent of the President.
the literature on international soft law. If international law obtains its legitimacy from the consent of states, as is often argued, n100 how can international soft law that is,
international law that lacks [*599] the consent of at least some states have any legitimacy? n101 We address the constitutional question in Part IV.C. For now, consider two
points.
Lawsuits mean they don’t solve
Robert A. Mikos, 13, Professor of Law and Director of the Program in Law & Government, Vanderbilt
University Law School, SYMPOSIUM: BALANCING SCIENCE AND POLITICS: THE CHALLENGES OF
IMPLEMENTING MEDICAL MARIJUANA LAWS: SYMPOSIUM: PREEMPTION UNDER THE
CONTROLLED SUBSTANCES ACT, 16 J. Health Care L. & Pol'y 5
It is easy to see why Congress might want to spare state regulations that only indirectly promote marijuana-related activities.
Although these laws might undermine somewhat Congress's objective of curbing marijuana consumption, subjecting them
to
preemption challenges could prove enormously burdensome for the courts and for state and local officials.
After all, countless state laws, including many wholly unrelated to the drug law field, could promote drug
use at the margin. Suppose, for example, that a city imposes a special assessment to widen and abate congestion on a public
road that happens to be connected to a popular marijuana dispensary. One could argue that this expenditure of public funds would
undermine Congress's goal of combatting marijuana distribution; among other things, the road improvement would likely make it
easier for residents to shop at the dispensary. And any disgruntled payers of the special assessment would likely have standing (in
state court, if not federal) to challenge the roadway program as preempted. 114 But it seems hard to imagine that Congress
would want the CSA to be used as a sword against state laws having only tangential relevance to drug
abuse. After all, preemption lawsuits could wreak havoc on the administration of mundane state and local
government programs. As the Supreme Court has observed, it arguably [*23] "frustrates rather than effectuates legislative
intent simplistically to assume that whatever furthers the statute's primary objective must be the law, 115 given that ""no legislation
pursues its purposes at all costs.'" 116
Federal legalization is key to solve the water diversion threatening salmon
in California
ARIADNE ELLSWORTH 14, The Hidden Cost of the Emerald Cash Crop, march 16,
http://www.brownpoliticalreview.org/2014/03/the-hidden-cost-of-the-emerald-cash-crop/
The Emerald Triangle has been looking more brown than green recently. With California en route to what
may be the worst drought in 500 years, the Emerald Triangle — Mendocino, Humboldt and Trinity counties — is drying up
alongside the rest of California. But the Emerald Triangle has a particular problem: it’s the seat of
California’s biggest, quasi-legal cash crop — marijuana — and it’s using up millions of gallons of water while at the
same time generating millions in revenue and contributing to the production of medical marijuana for half a million people. In Mendocino County, County Sheriff Tom Allman
estimated that water thieves could be making off with as much as five million gallons of water a day. With some rural California counties in danger of running out of water in
illicit use of water in this way is something the environment simply cannot afford.¶
The liberalization of Americans’ views on marijuana — for the first time a majority of Americans, 58 percent, favor the legalization of
marijuana — happens to have come at a time when climate change is increasing the frequency, severity and
duration of droughts nationwide. The situation is especially dire on the West Coast where most marijuana
is grown. As marijuana becomes medically and recreationally legal throughout the country, growing
operations increase and so does their water use in drought-stricken states. But because marijuana use
remains illegal under federal law , states like California cannot regulate or impose environmental
restrictions on growers that would regulate water, fertilizer and pesticide use.¶ The federal government has an interest in
anywhere from 60 to 120 days, the
letting the marijuana industry flourish, especially in the recovering economy. The Emerald Triangle produces California’s biggest cash crop, worth $14 billion in sales since
2009, and generating $200 million in state medical marijuana sales taxes. And if California legalizes marijuana for recreational use it is projected to bring in $1.3 billion in much
needed revenue. In Colorado, the recent legalization of recreational marijuana by the state could add upwards of $100 million dollars to its coffers and reach $1 billion in sales.
The cash injection to Colorado’s economy in the first few months of legalization has Congress people in cash-strapped states like Rhode Island submitting legalization bills. Yet it
is important to note that despite the increased number of states legalizing medical or recreational marijuana, the drug remains illegal on the federal level both medically and
this increase in state-level legalization means an increase in production and an even more
pressing need for regulation. As the nation steadily moves towards further legalizing marijuana, while at the same
time grappling with the effects of climate change and historic droughts that affect all aspects of life — crippling the agricultural
industry and leading to record breaking wildfires — it is imperative that the federal government allow states to regulate the
marijuana industry and lift it from its quasi-legal status. While the federal government has chosen not to crack down on
many medical and recreational marijuana-growing operations in states where the practice is legalized, it has, in the past, used states’ attempts to regulate
the industry to gather information on growers and conduct federal crackdowns. Federal crackdowns using information collected for
regulation purposes have led to a fear of regulation within states like California.¶ Allowing regulation would help states to continue
recreationally. ¶ But
reaping the millions of dollars they collect in tax revenue from the marijuana industry, much needed cash in this time of economic crisis and ensure that the thousands of
creation
or regulation, local ordinances, and other oversight tools for the emerging industry are lagging well
behind,” because of the quasi-legal status of the industry. As a result of lack of regulation , marijuana
growers divert water from rivers and streams, or dig their own illegal wells. This water diversion has led to
uncontrolled use of water, with one plant using as much as 900 gallons in a season, and resulted in stream beds running dry
during the growing season, endangering animals like the coho and chinook salmon . ¶ The complete lack of
regulation has seen unscrupulous growers use pesticide fences to ward off or kill animals that damage the crops, store and use
Americans who now rely on medical marijuana have access to their medicine at affordable prices.¶ A July 2012 Humboldt Country report acknowledges that the “
dangerous pesticides in unsafe ways and litter their unkempt properties with “grow trash” and raw sewage. This is not to say that there aren’t ethical growers who harvest water
during the winter and respect the environment, but those who fail to do so are numerous enough to consume 20 to 30 percent of water in local streams during the growing
Gieringer, an economist for the marijuana legalization advocacy
CA NORML), blames the harmful lack of regulations
directly on the federal government : “U.S. government is directly to blame for [ending] established efforts
to regulate outdoor growth.” Gieringer emphasizes the regulation of outdoor growth because indoor growers in Southern California use high-tech indoor grow
operations that use a lot of electricity but much less water. In Mendocino County, where the majority of growing operations are outdoors and expanding, the
sheriff attempted regulation to much success before the federal government shut down the operation.
season, which also happens to coincide with the dry season: April through October. Dale
group California’s National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws (
Mendocino’s sheriff, Tom Allman, originally attempted instituting regulations in 2010 on the basis that regulating the number of plants a grower could have would cut down on
wasteful calls to the police department from concerned citizens who saw marijuana growing from “property line to property line” and save resources. The regulatory system
granted licenses to individuals with medical marijuana licenses, allowing them to grow at most six plants — the state-regulated number. It also allowed cooperatives made up of
at least five patients to grow 25 plants per patient, as long as the plots were secured with six-foot fences and locked gates. The application process incurred a fee of $1,050, and
once an application was accepted the grower was allowed to buy 99 zip ties per cooperative (where one zip tie per plant was required, which cost $25). There would be an
additional $600 fee per cooperative for monthly inspections to ensure the appropriate use of water and electricity. Allman estimated that the total cost of regulated plants for
success of regulation in Mendocino Country proves
that many growers are willing to pay for regulation and the assurance that they aren’t acting in a legal gray
area. Only one year after it began, Allman’s program had sold $110,000 worth of zip ties — or 4,400 plants worth — enlisting nearly 100 growers and bringing in a total of
over $600,000 in much needed funds to the county.¶ But then, right as the regulation program was taking off, the federal
government intervened, subpoenaing Mendocino County for the records of registered growers and eventually winning in court. With that the regulation program
growers would be between $7,500 and $10,000 per coop member. ¶ Despite the cost, the
shut down and the 100 or so regulated growers were forced underground, fearing that Drug Enforcement Agency (DEA) agents would come knocking on their doors. Adam Wolf,
the attorney representing two groups opposing the subpoena explained that, “the message this sends to people across the state trying to comply in good faith with medical
The federal crackdown shattered the increasing trust between the
growing community and law enforcement in Mendocino. ¶ The environment wasn’t the only loser after the federal crackdown: not only do
marijuana regulations is that they should operate below ground.”
the underground growers harm the environment, but they harm consumers as well. As Gwynn Guilfurd explains in her revelatory article for Quartz, the deregulation also
harmed consumers who could no longer count on purchasing pesticide-free, regulated medical marijuana. Not to mention that the deregulation caused the loss of hundreds of
thousands of dollars in revenue for the county — revenue that seemed to only be increasing.¶ The harm to consumers didn’t stop with the deregulation of pesticide use. As
deregulation leads back to harmful cultivation practices that exacerbate the drought, marijuana patients will see the cost of their ‘medicine’ rise. Ed Rosenthal, well-known
marijuana legalization advocate, has predicted a doubling in prices due to the drought. While some of those subject to higher prices will be “potheads” with dubiously acquired
medical cards, others will be cancer patients, multiple sclerosis patients or those suffering from chronic pain who rely on medical marijuana to lead a more comfortable life free
of pharmaceutical drugs.¶ While the regulation and taxation of marijuana might force some out of the industry and incur deadweight loss for cheap consumers and producers,
the benefits of regulation (environmental protection and consumer protection) far outweigh this harm. This is especially true
when considering that low-cost producers are probably growing at the expense of the environment and using toxic pesticides that could harm consumers. ¶ The federal
government has found itself at a crossroads: confronting a wave of states that have legalized medical marijuana and are now
moving towards recreational legalization while at the same time climate change worsens droughts in the
very states that are seeing the marijuana industry boom — California, Colorado and New Mexico. Marijuana has
proven to be a veritable cash cow for states like Colorado and California, which have just barely begun to make it out of the recession — bringing in $14 billion in sales in
California since 2009. With an increasing portion of the American population favoring legalization, it is hard to see the legalization trend regressing.
Extinction
Bernie Stephan 13, Protecting our salmon and our human survival, 10/24/2013,
http://www.ptreyeslight.com/article/protecting-our-salmon-and-our-human-survival
Biodiversity in our watershed is essential for many species and is
essential for ultimate human survival. We must protect our watersheds
Extinction is far more serious than anyone’s financial investment.¶ The cumulative effect of many small
land disturbances near a stream can be devastating Land-use restrictions to protect salmon streams have
successfully been implemented elsewhere in California
It’s time we valued our freshwater creeks—nature’s roads—for the value they bring in the long term.
, respecting the natural flows of water and the life they enable.
.
and around the United States. Marin’s failure to take permanent action is truly disturbing, considering that other counties a nd
cities have enacted stream protection measures. The need to control development, to protect Marin’s salmon, has been well understood for decades. ¶ Marin officials have watched coho salmon populations drop by 70 percent since the 1960’s. In 2010, the nonprofit
Salmon Protection and Watershed Network sued the county for its failure to protect salmon. Marin’s Superior Court imposed a ban on new development in San Geronimo Valley pending the adoption of an ordinance that had been promised since 1994. ¶ In June,
almost two decades after the ordinance had been proposed, the Board of Supervisors had before it a draft stream protection ordinance ready for adoption. But when it came to a vote, supervisors lacked the political courage to protect the salmon. Instead, they chose
to punt, appointing a subcommittee to make recommendations for revising the Countywide Plan once again. ¶ We can have development setbacks for coho and all the other species that don’t recognize our surveyed boundaries. Our creeks are roads for salmon,
whose annual migrations are a marvel of nature. When my family lived on San Geronimo Creek, the sighting of salmon always lifted our spirits, connecting us to the natural world. I envision Marin’s creeks as wildlife corridors where aquatic and terrestrial cr itter
alike would have their needs met. It’s time for us humans to see the bigger picture and begin limiting our development. ¶ Private property rights should take a back seat to the needs of nature. As a working realtor, I’m still speaking up for the fish. I value their right to
continue co-existing with us more highly than our right to expand real estate development. But will our supervisors do the same? Human activity, especially land development, has been the main cause of the collapse of the Lagunitas Creek salmon population, and
sustaining the salmon requires rigorous protection along the entire length of the creek and its ¶ tributaries. ¶ As our planet undergoes a biodiversity crisis everywhere, 16,000 species are threatened with extinction, including 12 percent of birds, 23 percent of
mammals and 32 percent of amphibians. Biologists are clear that humans are responsible for the declines we are witnessing. Th e aggregate effect of all our development continues to destroy the homes and habitat of wildlife, even when we as individuals take great
We should
human survival are not far behind
care not to.¶
move quickly to enact a rigorous, enforceable ordinance
to protect our salmon, or they will all be gone and the threats to
. Let’s listen to the scientists over the protestations of property owners. Let’s heed the dire warnings; there has been enough delay already.
exercise decisive leadership is reversing the tide that always seems to put private property rights ahead of nature’s rights.
species—of our precious coastal ecosystems
¶ I urge the county supervisors to
Salmon are the biological foundation—and keystone
. Let’s hope the supervisors stem the tide of ecocide and side with the fish on this important issue.
Legalization of marijuana solves industrial hemp
Jeff Siegel 14, financial consultant, author, managing editor of Energy and Capital and contributing
analyst for the Energy Investor, an independent investment research service that focuses primarily on
stocks in the oil and gas, modern energy, and infrastructure markets 6/11/14, This is Better Than Drug
Money!, Energy & Capital, http://www.energyandcapital.com/articles/investing-in-hemp/4455
But while the ban obliterated hemp cultivation except for a few special cases requiring federal permits, Americans were allowed to
import hemp products, oil, and seeds. In 2011, the U.S. imported some $11.5 million worth of hemp products, oil, and seeds, much of which was further
processed into cooking oils, animal feeds, even granola bars.¶ A
new farm bill enacted earlier this year would open up the
field once again. “This is big!” exclaimed Eric Steenstra, president of advocacy group Vote Hemp. “We've been pushing for this
a long time.Ӧ Advocates estimate hemp could develop into a $100 million a year industry, which could grow into a $10 billion a year market if the
loosening of hemp cultivation laws is a stepping-stone to the legalization of marijuana nationwide.¶ Steenstra anticipates precisely that. “This is
part of an overall look at cannabis policy, no doubt,” he affirms.¶ Still, the heavy hand of the federal
government will not move easily .¶ As the Associated Press reported last week, federal authorities ordered nearly 300
pounds of hemp seeds from Italy detained by U.S. customs officials in Louisville. In order to get the seeds released, Kentucky State
agriculture authorities had to take their case to court, suing the Justice Department, the Drug Enforcement Administration, U.S. Customs and Border
Protection, and even Attorney General Eric Holder.¶ Also worth noting is that while
fifteen states have availed themselves of the
new farm bill by removing hemp production barriers, in only two states — Colorado and Kentucky — have farmers
taken to cultivating it.¶ The hemp industry is in for a period of slow growth as it awaits other federal
agencies to loosen their restriction s on seed imports.¶ That being said, I'm...¶ Bullish on the Return of Hemp¶ As an industrial crop, it's
quite impressive.One
acre of hemp can produce four times more paper than one acre of trees.Hemp fiber is ten
times stronger than cotton, can be used to make clothing, and doesn't require nearly as much in the way
of pesticides as cotton.Hemp can serve as a substitute for wood in building materials. Not only is it
stronger than wood, but it's cheaper to produce.Hemp produces more biomass than any other plant that
can be grown in the U.S.Hemp can be grown anywhere in the United States, requires only moderate water,
and is frost tolerant.When we think about the legalization of marijuana, we often think about the massive
profit potential. And rightly so. With the legalization of marijuana will come an enormous opportunity for
savvy investors and entrepreneurs.Yet when you step back and look at the big picture, you'll find that
when it comes to cannabis, the real money's going to be in industrial hemp.¶ Unfortunately, with special
interests controlling the federal government, it's going to take some time before hemp comes back strong
enough to be a safe investment. That being said, the folks in Kentucky and Colorado who are actively moving forward with
the cultivation of hemp are embarking on a journey that could ultimately prove to be insanely lucrative .
And I wish them well.
Solves food wars
Nicole M. Keller 13, J.D. Drake University, Associate Attorney at Goodman Law, 2013, THE
LEGALIZATION OF INDUSTRIAL HEMP AND WHAT IT COULD MEAN FOR INDIANA'S BIOFUEL
INDUSTRY, Indiana International & Comparative Law Review, LexisNexis Academic
Currently, because Indiana is one of the nation's leading producers of corn, n202 it has naturally followed that corn is the main
input for the production of agricultural biofuel in the state. n203 However, funneling corn out of the food
supply into the fuel supply has cost Indiana export revenue, n204 and contributed to the increase in global
corn prices. n205 Before corn was used as an ethanol feedstock, Indiana exported over fifty percent of the corn produced by
Indiana farmers. n206 Now, that "extra" corn is not exported but kept at home to produce biofuel. n207 In response to the
decreased exports Indiana argues that, "as U.S. ethanol production expands, higher U.S. and world corn prices would provide
incentives for Brazil and Argentina to expand corn production and compete with U.S. corn in world markets." n208 However, the
price increases caused by taking corn out of the food chain for fuel production has increased food
shortages in areas where the food supply is already at risk for insufficiency. n209 For example, "[b]etween
2002 and 2007, world food prices increased by some 140 percent due to a number of factors including,
increased demand for biofuels feedstocks and rising agricultural fuel and fertilizer prices." n210 As a result of
[*577] these higher prices, "in 2008 . . . a further 100 million [were added] to the world's undernourished [population]." n211 While
Indiana's argument that increased competition would put downward pressure on the price of corn is true, and it would relieve some
of the effects affecting the world food crisis, it is not necessary to remove corn from the food supply, nor subject our corn industry to
the risk of lost market share. The introduction of hemp as a feedstock for biofuel would replace the corn that is
currently being removed from the food chain to supply biofuel needs. Replacing the corn with hemp
would lessen the pressure on global corn prices as the supply of corn increased , n212 thus helping to alleviate
some of the effects third world nations are suffering as a result of the global search for alternative fuel. Furthermore, foregoing
export revenue in Indiana is also unnecessary. Indiana has enough farmland n213 that it is fully capable of maintaining its preethanol corn export levels, while supporting its growing biofuel industry with industrial hemp. IX. Hemp vs. Corn Furthermore,
Indiana should switch to producing industrial hemp as a biofuel feedstock because it is a more efficient
resource. n214 There is no question that "corn ethanol is energy efficient." n215 It has "an energy ratio of 1.34 [, which means] for
every BTU dedicated to producing ethanol there is a 34 percent energy gain." n216 Unfortunately, corn puts high demands on
land and water resources, n217 and producing biofuel from it is energy and resource-intensive. n218
Industrial hemp, by comparison, because of its high cellulose content has an estimated 540 percent
energy gain. n219 Through Indiana's own research it knows that biofuel from cellulous is the direection the industry is taking.
n220 According to Alan Greenspan, "[c]orn ethanol, [*578] though valuable, can play only a limited role [in
energyindependence], because its ability to displace gasoline is modest at best. But cellulosic ethanol, should it
fulfill its promise, would help to wean us of our petroleum dependence." n221 In addition to hemp's high cellulous content,
hemp requires little from its growing environment. n222 It can be grown on land unsuitable for other feedstock crops.
n223 For example, China purports to grow industrial hemp on land that will not displace food crops, or as a rotational crop with soy
and wheat. n224 Furthermore, it can be harvested two or three times per season; n225 it requires nearly no
pesticides or herbicides to thrive; n226 and it coincidentally leaves the land in better shape than it was in
before planting, n227 thus creating a suitable plot for rotational crops where before there were none . n228
Moreover, industrial hemp would thrive in Indiana farmland because it "tends to grow best on land that produces high yields of
corn." n229The trend in feedstock crops is now towards cellulous-based ethanol production. n230 Indiana has
recognized that cellulose-based crops are the future for biofuel. n231 In its strategic outlook, Indiana has dedicated itself
to becoming a leader in this field. n232 With industrial
hemp's superiority over other cellulosic plants, n233 Indiana would
surely gain dominance in ethanol production in the United States if it were to employ industrial hemp as the main
biofuel feedstock.
Food shortages cause nuclear world war 3
FDI 12, Future Directions International, a Research institute providing strategic analysis of Australia’s
global interests; citing Lindsay Falvery, PhD in Agricultural Science and former Professor at the
University of Melbourne’s Institute of Land and Environment, “Food and Water Insecurity: International
Conflict Triggers & Potential Conflict Points,” http://www.futuredirections.org.au/workshop-papers/537international-conflict-triggers-and-potential-conflict-points-resulting-from-food-and-waterinsecurity.html
There is a growing appreciation that the conflicts in the next century will most likely be fought over a lack
of resources.¶ Yet, in a sense, this is not new. Researchers point to the French and Russian revolutions as conflicts
induced by a lack of food. More recently, Germany’s World War Two efforts are said to have been inspired, at
least in part, by its perceived need to gain access to more food. Yet the general sense among those that attended FDI’s recent
workshops, was that the scale of the problem in the future could be significantly greater as a result of population
pressures, changing weather, urbanisation, migration, loss of arable land and other farm inputs, and increased affluence in the developing world. ¶ In
his book, Small Farmers Secure Food, Lindsay
Falvey, a participant in FDI’s March 2012 workshop on the issue of food and conflict, clearly
expresses the problem and why countries across the globe are starting to take note. .¶ He writes (p.36), “…if people are hungry,
especially in cities, the state is not stable – riots, violence, breakdown of law and order and migration result.” ¶ “Hunger feeds anarchy.”¶ This
view is also shared by Julian Cribb, who in his book, The Coming Famine, writes that if “large regions of the world run short
of food, land or water in the decades that lie ahead, then wholesale, bloody wars are liable to follow.” ¶ He continues: “An
increasingly credible scenario for World War 3 is not so much a confrontation of super powers and their allies, as a festering ,
self-perpetuating chain of resource conflicts.” He also says: “The wars of the 21st Century are less likely to be global conflicts with
sharply defined sides and huge armies, than a scrappy mass of failed states, rebellions, civil strife, insurgencies, terrorism and genocides, sparked by
bloody competition over dwindling resources.Ӧ As another workshop participant put it, people do not go to war to kill; they go to war over resources,
either to protect or to gain the resources for themselves.¶ Another observed that hunger results in passivity not conflict. Conflict is over resources, not
because people are going hungry.¶ A
study by the I nternational P eace R esearch I nstitute indicates that where
food security is an issue, it is more likely to result in some form of conflict. Darfur, Rwanda, Eritrea and
the Balkans experienced such wars. Governments, especially in developed countries, are increasingly aware of this phenomenon.¶ The
UK Ministry of Defence, the CIA, the US C enter for S trategic and I nternational S tudies and the Oslo Peace Research
Institute, all identify famine as a potential trigger for conflicts and possibly even nuclear war .
DA
Treaty DA
The UN Drug Conventions will collapse now
Martin Jelsma 14, co-oordinated TNI's Drugs & Democracy Programme, w/ Tom Blickman, “The Rise
and Decline of Cannabis Prohibition¶ the History of cannabis in the UN drug control system and options
for reform: Treaty reform options,” http://www.tni.org/files/download/rise_and_decline_ch4.pdf
Decades of doubts, soft defections, legal hypocrisy and policy experimentation have now reached the point
where de jure legal regulation of the whole cannabis market is gaining political acceptability, even if it
violates certain outdated elements of the UN conventions. Tensions between countries seeking more
flexibility and the UN drug control system and its specialized agencies, as well as with countries strongly in favour of
defending the status quo, are likely to further increase . This seems inevitable because the trend towards
cannabis regulation appears irreversible and is rapidly gaining more support across the Americas, as well
as among many local authorities in Europe that have to face the difficulties and consequences¶ of implementing current control mechanisms.¶ In
the untidy conflict of procedural and political constraints on treaty reforms versus the movement towards
a¶ modernized more flexible global drug control regime, the system will likely go through a period of legally
dubious interpretations and questionable if not at times hypocritical justifications for national reforms.
And the situation is unlikely to change until a tipping point is reached and a group of like-minded
countries is ready to engage in the challenge to reconcile the multiple and increasing legal inconsistencies
and disputes. The question appearing on the international policy agenda is now no longer whether or not there is a
need to reassess and modernize the UN drug control system, but rather when and how . The question is if
a mechanism can be found soon enough to deal with the growing tensions and to transform the current
system in an orderly fashion into ¶ one more adaptable to local concerns and priorities, and ¶ one that is more compatible with basic
scientific norms and UN standards of today. If not, a critical mass of dissenters will soon feel forced to opt out of the
current system’s strictures, and, using any of the available reservation, modification or denunciation
options, use or create a legal mechanism or interpretation to pursue the drug policy reforms they are convinced
will most protect the health and safety of their people.
State legalization pounder
Emily Crick 13, research associate at Transform Drug Policy Foundation, w/ Heather J. Haase and
Dave Bewley-Taylor, Legally regulated cannabis markets in the US: Implications and possibilities, Policy
Report 1 | November 2013,
http://www.swansea.ac.uk/media/Leg%20Reg%20Cannabis%20digital%20new-1.pdf
The INCB is, of course, unlikely to agree with the view that since the CSA remains in place across the
nation the US is not in breach.197¶ And admittedly on this point it is standing on strong legal ground. It is
certainly correct when it claims that the situation within the¶ country 'constitutes a significant challenge to
the objective of the international drug¶ control treaties to which the United States¶ is a party'.198 Furthermore, there
is clearly concern that any accommodation by the US federal government of regulative frameworks¶
within Washington and Colorado would further destabilise an increasingly creaky international drug
control system .199 Whether or not the US is technically in 'breach' of the treaties, that it was a key player
in the establishment of¶ the current treaty framework and continues¶ to play a major role in its
implementation¶ certainly adds a degree of irony to the present situation. Moreover, in more practical terms, if¶ the
Uruguayan marijuana regulation bill makes¶ it onto the statute books, the US's awkward domestic predicament will
reduce its ability to exert pressure to defend the existing UN treaty structure within the CND and beyond.
'The US, which so far has always been the first and¶ quickest to denounce if countries breach the¶
treaties...now cannot really exercise pressure' ¶ says Jelsma. The federal government, he¶ continues, 'is not in a
position to criticise¶ other countries that are basically doing the¶ same as internally some states in the Unites¶ States are doing.' In
terms of cannabis policies,¶ 'this relieves the whole global system of the¶ pressure' exerted by the US and
'gives oxygen'¶ to reform oriented processes — processes that¶ will surely receive significant attention at the¶ next CND
meeting in March 2014 (See Box 5).
Plan is critical to 2016 treaty reform success
Jeffrey Dhywood 12, author of World War D. The Case against prohibitionism, roadmap to
controlled re-legalization, also a European-born investigative writer, lecturer and public speaker, “What
to expect from the 2016 special UN session on global drug policy?,” December 2, : http://www.world-ward.com/2012/12/02/un-special-session-on-global-drug-policy-2016/#sthash.6pIQKa8F.dpuf
So, what does the prospect of a UN summit on drug policy means for the drug policy reform movement, and what can be expected from it? There have
been after all quite a few similar events since the Adoption of the 1961 Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs. Will
2016 be the year when
reality finally sinks in within the international community that drug prohibition has failed and that it is
time to look for more sustainable alternatives? There are good reasons to believe so. ¶ The 1971 Convention on
Psychotropic Substances set lofty goals of complete eradication of drug use, toned down to a 50% reduction within 10 years in 1988, a goal reiterated in
1998, but abandoned altogether in 2008 amidst growing restlessness within the UN community. Furthermore, the “soft on drugs” label is rapidly losing
its stickiness as the political risk of drug reformist positions is plummeting rapidly. Drug policy reform may even start turning into political asset in
some circumscriptions, as was the case in Washington this November, when most of the Democrat political establishment lined up behind the
legalization initiative.¶ As the consensus behind the War on Drugs starts crumbling, and as countries start breaking ranks and reject the dominant
approach to drug policy altogether, the international community will see reduced opportunities for reprisals and sanctions. Uruguay’s intention to
legalize marijuana under state control has been met with rather muted UN opposition so far. Sanctions against Uruguay will be hard to justify if similar
sanctions are not imposed on Washington and Colorado, a prospect not even remotely likely, and may just galvanize regional rancor. Other Latin
American countries might emulate the Uruguayan model, with neighboring Argentina a real potential candidate.¶ In
the US, the number of
medical marijuana states is likely to reach 20 in 2013 as proposals are set to be presented to several state legislatures, including
New Hampshire, Illinois and New York. Rhode Island, Maine, Vermont, and Massachusetts, as well as Oregon and Montana may also try to adopt full
The battle has
even been brought to the US Congress, with a bipartisan bill that would enable the states to make their own marijuana laws. The bill is
marijuana legalization through their legislatures, while a legalization initiative is already on the drawing board in California.
probably still symbolic at this stage, and stands very little chances, but it may be a harbinger of things to come. ¶ Embroiled in a deep economic and
financial crisis, Europe is staying relatively on the sidelines on drug policy issues, even though (or maybe because), European drug policies are generally
leaning on the liberal side and drug abuse is substantially lower there than in the US. ¶ Ultimately,
the fate of the 2016 special
session lies most likely in Washington DC . The US has been the initiator, main architect and chief
sponsor of the prohibitionist approach for over a century, and has over the years imposed her prohibitionist
policies to the rest of the world. All current international treaties on illicit drugs having been produced and backed by successive US
administrations over the past 50 years, a complete U-turn seems unlikely. But with 18 states and the district of Colombia in oblique violation of the
international treaties and Colorado and Washington now squarely confronting them, the “tough on drugs” stance
is increasingly untenable. Unless it reverses its attitude and draws the lessons from a century of failed
prohibitionist rule, the US will be increasingly stuck between a rock and a hard place and her prohibitionistin-chief posture will become more and more indefensible.¶ I have argued for quite some time that drug policy reform will
be achieved by cracking the US prohibitionist backbone through the combined internal pressure from the states and external
pressure from the US allies, principally, in Latin America. In a truly historic year for drug policy reform, the pieces of the global drug
policy reform puzzle appeared to be falling into place one by one in 2012, and the US resolve seems to be
faltering. The Obama administration appears hesitant after the decisive victories for marijuana legalization in
Colorado and Washington. By intensifying the crackdown on medical marijuana over the past few years, Obama brought the War on Drugs
to the Caucasian community, which may have further galvanized support for legalization. Whether hidden agenda or law of unintended consequences,
it clearly narrowed the administration’s margins of maneuver and crackdowns on the newly legalized marijuana states may backfire even more, further
stiffening support for legalization. ¶ While
the 2016 special session could easily be derailed , if drug policy reformists,
the US, use the next three years to keep resolutely pushing for reform, we
may see the emergence of a global coalition and a new global consensus on drug policy . This is an opportunity
especially in Latin American and within
that reform activists cannot afford to waste.
US violates I-law NOW
Dave Lindorff 14, an American investigative reporter, a columnist for CounterPunch, and a
contributor to Businessweek, The Nation, Extra! and Salon.com, “How Can the US Accuse Russia of
Violating International Law?,” March 4, http://www.counterpunch.org/2014/03/04/how-can-the-usaccuse-russia-of-violating-international-law/
And when it comes to hypocritical nations that make pious criticisms of other countries about the “rule of
law” and the sanctity of “international law,” it’s hard to find a better laughing stock than the U nited S tates of
America.¶ After invading Iraq illegally in 2003, with no sanction from the UN, and no imminent threat being posed by that
country to either the US or to any of Iraq’s neighbors, after years of launching bombing raids, special forces assaults and
drone-fired missile launches into countries like Yemen, Pakistan and Somalia, and killing hundreds of innocent
men, women and children, after illegally capturing and holding, without charge or trial, hundreds of people it accuses
of being terrorists and illegal combatants, after torturing thousands of captives, the US now accuses Russia of
violating international law by sending troops into Crimea to protect a Russian population threatened by a violently
anti-Russian Ukrainian government just installed in a coup.¶ How many times has the US sent troops into
neighboring countries based upon the claim that it had to protect American citizens during a time of turmoil. We have
Grenada in 1983, Panama in 1989, the Dominican Republic in 1965, and Haiti in 2003, for starters. Would the US
hesitate for even a moment to send troops into Mexico if the Mexican government were overthrown in an antiAmerican coup, and if demonstrators who had led to that overthrow were attacking Americans? Of course not.
The plan is net better for I-law
Damon Barrett 12, Director of the International Centre on Human Rights and Drug Policy, Marijuana
legalisation: Sometimes Violations of International Law Are Cause for Celebration, 08/11/2012,
http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/damon-barett/marijuana-legalisation_b_2087887.html
The United States is again in violation of international law. That is a strong statement and one that reminds us of the
invasion of Iraq, Guantanamo bay, water-boarding, rendition, and the strong international legal arguments made about these
situations.¶ But in this case the violation will be hailed by many as a positive step.¶ On 6 November various ballot
initiatives were voted on in the US, from abolishing the death penalty to allowing assisted suicide, to legalising gay marriage.
Three had the clearest potential to render the US in breach of international law if they succeeded. With the
votes in Colorado and Washington which established a legally regulated framework for non-medical production and sale of
marijuana, that breach has now occurred .¶ The laws in question are the 1961 UN Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs and
the 1988 UN drug trafficking conventions (which has a longer, duller title). Alongside one other treaty (which deals with synthetics)
these form the bedrock legal foundation of the global drug control regime. Most countries follow them very closely, including the
US.¶ Some states have been pushing at the boundaries of these treaties for some time, however, on particular points of contention
that have developed in the decades since the treaties were negotiated. Times have changed since 1961. Grey areas have been
exploited, arcane scheduling systems utilised, and interpretations adopted that allow more room for manoeuvre.¶ But what sets
these ballot initiatives apart is that there is no grey area to exploit, and it would take some legal gymnastics to interpret your way
past that. This is straight up legalisation of recreational use, production, and sale, which is not permitted. It's what the system was
set up in large part to prohibit, with marijuana receiving particular attention alongside coca and opium. While most substances are
listed in annexed schedules, these three are written into the very terms of the treaties ('cannabis' is the term used).¶ The US
(alongside over 180 other states) is required, under a very robust and politically supported regime, to 'limit exclusively to medical
and scientific purposes the production, manufacture, export, import, distribution of, trade in, use and possession of drugs'. ¶ There is
more, of course, and there are various provisos and caveats on certain provisions, but this is a 'general obligation' of the regime
around which all else revolves. In other words, the US is not just in breach of some marginal aspect of the system,
now, but a fundamental requirement of it that goes to the heart of prohibition. ¶ Millions of US citizens are now
permitted to buy and sell marijuana for recreational purposes (regulations pending). These laws apply to a population far exceeding
that of Sweden (where I am currently sitting) and way over twice the size of Ireland (where I'm from). This would be supported by
neither government, which have signed contracts with the US in the form of these international agreements to the effect that none of
them would allow it. The fact that this has happened at state and not federal level does not rectify the legal
dilemma the US government now faces.¶ Many in the US and worldwide are celebrating the results in
Colorado and Washington as the beginning of the end of the war on drugs - and appropriately through a
democratic process. People have voted for the US to breach international law . That very few would have cared or
knew about this is not relevant. This is the fact of it.¶ There are now four possible scenarios. The US Federal Government can fight it
out, stepping all over state sovereignty. The US can withdraw from the treaties in question. The treaties themselves can be changed
by international processes. Or the US can carry on in breach and turn a blind eye. I think the fourth is the most likely. Ironically, this
leads inexorably to arguments for broader reform, but this is something the US overnment has ardently opposed, even signing a
recent declaration with the Russians to that effect. ¶ So the implications for international law and the place of the UN drugs
conventions within it must be considered.¶ We would not celebrate an ongoing breach by the US of the Convention on
I nternational C ovenant on C ivil and P olitical R ights, to which it is also bound.
Nor would we tolerate (though they happen regularly) violations of the Geneva Conventions, the Torture
Convention, the Nuclear N on- P roliferation T reaty or environmental protocols. Indeed, there is a hierarchy in
international law that is exposed by the Colorado and Washington votes .¶ But it is one within which the drug
the Elimination of Racial Discrimination or the
control regime has an unnaturally elevated position due to the widespread political consensus around prohibition, and fears that
have been intentionally fuelled over the years. Drugs, in the UN conventions, are seen as a threat to mankind, and an 'evil' to be
fought. Over time, respect for the UN drugs conventions has been equated with respect for the rule of law itself. 'The three United
Nations drug control conventions...set the international rule of law that all States have agreed to respect and implement' said the
President of the UN's International Narcotics Control Board (INCB) in a recent speech. (The INCB is the body that monitors States'
implementation of the drugs conventions). He has confused the rule of law with specific laws.¶ There are some things that are wrong
in themselves (malum in se) and things that are wrong because they are prohibited (malum prohibitum). But when it comes to drug
laws, fighting something that is prohibited has resulted in widespread acts that are wrong in themselves and that breach basic legal
principles - the rule of law.¶ The racially discriminatory nature of drug laws is common knowledge. Some governments rely on the
international regime to justify executions of people convicted of drug offences (in violation of international law, in fact). Police
violence, mass incarceration, denial of due process are routine in States' pursuit of the general obligation the US now breaches.¶ The
international legal arguments about the Colorado and Washington results will certainly arise. They must, though it will likely be in
the rather closed and stale environment of UN drugs diplomacy. When that happens it must emerge is that these ballots are a victory
for the rule of law even as they bring the US into conflict with the drugs conventions. Fundamental legal principles of
proportionality, fairness and justice, not to mention democracy, have won out over arbitrary and
unreasonable controls on human behaviour. ¶ Ending the war on drugs, moreover, will be a victory for
international human rights law. It will be a victory for international law itself - for environmental law,
anti-corruption agreements, international security, for the achievement of international development
agreements and improved health - all of which have been damaged by decades of prohibition . Colorado
and Washington have taken us one step closer. For that we should all celebrate.
2AC Dems Good – Alaska (GT)
GOP win now in Alaska- their polls that show Begich ahead are flawed
Nate Silver 9-14, Senate Update: Alaska, A Frontier For Bad Polling,
http://fivethirtyeight.com/datalab/senate-update-alaska-a-frontier-for-bad-polling/
The Senate race in Alaska is as important as any in the country. As we’ve described previously, Republicans can win a
Senate majority by winning the race there along with those in five other deeply red states: Arkansas, Louisiana, Montana,
South Dakota and West Virginia. But Alaska is probably the toughest “get” of the six for the GOP.¶ Unfortunately,
Alaska has received very little polling — and just about every poll we do have from the state has been either an
Internet poll, an automated poll or a partisan poll. The stronger pollsters seem to be avoiding the state —
perhaps for good reason.¶ A new, partisan poll of Alaska came out over the weekend. The survey, conducted for Senate Majority
PAC by Harstad Strategic Research, shows the Democratic incumbent Mark Begich leading his Republican opponent Dan
Sullivan 45 percent to 40 percent. That contradicts the last two nonpartisan polls of the state, which had shown
Sullivan ahead.¶ Senate Majority PAC’s goals are pretty clear; its mission is to “protect and expand the Democratic majority in
the U.S. Senate.” Longtime readers will know that we’re not fans of partisan polls, which tend to be inaccurate and
biased.¶ But defining a partisan poll can be tricky. Many pollsters release some polls on behalf of campaigns, while publishing other
results under their own names. Some polls have ties to interest groups that aren’t well disclosed: For instance, the polling firm We
Ask America is a subsidiary of the Illinois’ Manufacturers Association. Explicitly partisan blogs and websites have been
commissioning more of their own polls in recent years (of course, many people would claim that traditional media outlets like Fox
News and the New York Times have their own biases).¶ We’ve experimented a lot with different definitions of what constitutes a
partisan poll over the years and decided we’re not inclined to play “poll police” in borderline cases. So since 2012, we’ve been
excluding only polls conducted directly on behalf of campaigns or party groups like the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee
and the Republican National Committee. Everything else gets included in the FiveThirtyEight model — including this weekend’s
Alaska poll.¶ But the model has a defense mechanism: its house effects adjustment, which evaluates polls for
signs of a partisan lean and adjusts them accordingly. In this case, the model detects a significant
Democratic house effect in Harstad’s polls, and it treats the Alaska survey as showing the equivalent of a 1 or 2
percentage-point lead for Begich, instead of a 5-point advantage. The poll still helps Begich some — his chances of winning the race
jumped from 31 percent to 38 percent — but not nearly as much as if a nonpartisan pollster had shown the same result.¶ But
there’s another reason to be suspicious of the poll — and others that purport to show Begich ahead in
Alaska. As other commentators have noted, Alaska is a hard state to poll accurately. What we haven’t seen remarked
upon is how those misses have come in one direction, almost always overestimating the performance of
Democrats.¶ The table below lists Alaska results from our pollster ratings database, which covers polls conducted in the last three
weeks of campaigns since 1998. (We’ll be publicly releasing this database soon.) For each race, I’ve compared the polling average
against the actual margin, excluding the 2010 Senate campaign where the top two finishers were both Republicans, Joe Miller and
Sen. Lisa Murkowski (who ran as a write-in candidate after losing her primary).¶ In every single race, the polls have shown
a Democratic bias. In 2008, for instance, Begich was favored by almost 10 percentage points in the polls
against the Republican incumbent Ted Stevens, but won by barely more than a percentage point. Also that year, the polls
favored the Democrat Ethan Berkowitz to win the state’s at-large House district from the Republican incumbent Don Young, but
Young prevailed instead. In 2004, the polls had the Democrat Tony Knowles, the state’s former governor, tied in his race against
Murkowski, but Murkowski won by three points. In 2010, the Republican gubernatorial candidate Sean Parnell by a margin much
larger than the polls anticipated. On average since 1998, polls of Alaska have had a 7-point bias toward Democrats.¶ The
FiveThirtyEight model does not account for this property, but it’s something to keep in mind as you peruse polls of the state. The
model does, however, include a “state fundamentals” estimate for each state, based on factors like fundraising and state
partisanship, and includes it along with the polls.¶ The state fundamentals estimate does not receive very much weight in the model
— it represents only about 15 percent of the projection in Alaska, for example, and as little as 5 percent in some other key states with
more abundant polling.¶ Still, it can be interesting to look at. In Alaska, while our adjusted polling average puts Sullivan
ahead by just one percentage point, the fundamentals estimate has him as an 8- or 9-point favorite instead. That gap of
about seven points is right in line with the historical Democratic bias in Alaska polls.¶ Overall — also accounting for new polls in
Louisiana and Georgia — the FiveThirtyEight forecast is not much changed. It shows Republicans with a 58 percent
chance of winning the Senate majority, down just slightly from 59 percent Friday.
No one state key
John Harwood 9/19, chief Washington correspondent for CNBC and a political writer for The New
York Times, 9/19/14, An essential guide to the midterm elections, http://www.cnbc.com/id/102009794#.
Either party can still emerge with a Senate majority. Republicans, who need a net gain of six, have powerful
advantages. Their candidates hold commanding positions to gain two of them—in Montana and South Dakota. Eight of 12 other
critical races take place in states Mitt Romney carried two years ago. So far, their candidates have avoided the sort of
crippling gaffes that led them to blow winnable Senate races in 2010 and 2012. But as they showed in those last two
elections, Democrats won't be easy to dislodge. Three of their endangered incumbents—in Alaska, Arkansas
and Louisiana—come from name-brand political families with multigenerational records of electoral success .
In Georgia, Michelle Nunn brings the tailwind of her father Sam Nunn's popularity to her bid for an open Senate seat. Democrats
have, at least for the moment, captured the high ground from Republicans in use of campaign data and technology.
The Obama administration's new offensive against Islamic State in Iraq and Syria represents a wildcard. Americans tend to rally
around their presidents during military conflicts, as the bipartisan congressional vote to authorize the White House strategy
indicates. Battlefield successes could at minimum stabilize Obama's approval ratings, and perhaps raise them a little.That would
reduce a drag on Democratic prospects. Given the gridlock that already exists, does the outcome of the battle for the Senate even
matter? It does. Rare as they are, bipartisan compromises occasionally emerge from the Senate, as on immigration in 2013. Majority
control influences those compromises. Control gives one party or the other a greater ability to set and shape the national political
dialogue heading into the 2016 campaign. It determines whether, and how quickly, Obama's nominees to the Cabinet and the courts
will get confirmation votes. The reality of contemporary politics, however, is that neither party can count on its short-term
advantages for very long. Partisan control of the House has shifted twice in the last decade. And if the Senate flips toward
Republicans in 2014, it could flip right back two years later. In 2016, both the shape of the electorate and the electoral map favors
Democrats. Republicans must defend seven seats in states that Obama carried twice. And so the permanent war
will rage on.
Begich screwed- ISIS vote
Cameron Joseph 9-20, politics writer for the National Journal, Terror politics return to campaign
trail, http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/218407-terror-politics-return-to-campaign-trail
Democrats privately admit the issue isn’t what they want to be focused on this close to the election, and the
longer they’re forced to talk about ISIS and Obama, the worse it will be for them on Election Day.¶ The
political fight over ISIS has become the most pronounced in a trio of states where armed forces veterans are
challenging Senate Democrats.¶ In Alaska, Begich has been vocal about his opposition to arming the rebels,
voting against Thursday’s resolution after taking to the Senate floor to denounce it. A spokesman warned in a statement it
could move “our nation closer to putting American boots on the ground. ¶ His GOP opponent Dan Sullivan, a Marine
veteran who served under former Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice in the State Department, immediately fired back.¶ "The
Obama Administration has yet to clearly lay out such a strategy and has consistently shown weakness overseas. Mark Begich has
been enabling this weak approach by only focusing on what we shouldn't do and taking options off the table – this encourages our
enemies,” Sullivan said in a statement saying he would have backed the funding for Syrian rebels.¶ Some Democrats are
nervous that Begich’s vote might haunt him. Alaska has a strong contingent of non-interventionist libertarian-leaning
voters, but also has a large number of veterans and several military bases.¶ “I really don't know what Sen.
Begich is thinking,” said one Democratic strategist who knows Alaska well. “The attack ad on him is going
to be so easy to do.”
The plan doesn’t change the election
Nate Silver 14, Elections expert, 6/4, “The Political Media Still Fall for the Hot-Hand Fallacy”,
FiveThirtyEight, http://fivethirtyeight.com/datalab/the-political-media-still-falls-for-the-hot-handfallacy/
The most important lesson of the 2012 presidential campaign, in my view, was not that polling-based models are foolproof
ways to assess the political environment, but instead that undisciplined ways of evaluating polls and political events
can lead to flawed conclusions. On several occasions during the race, news media commentators either overrated
the amount of information contained in outlier polls and jumped the gun on declaring a change in
momentum — or insisted that a candidate had the “momentum” in the race when there was little evidence of it.¶ The past yearand-a-half hasn’t made me optimistic that things are getting better. Late last year, the news media badly overrated the
political consequences of the government shutdown. Just a couple of months later, it somewhat overhyped the lasting
impact of the botched rollout of Obamacare. (I think that case is more debatable, but President Obama’s approval ratings have
improved by about 4 percentage points from their lows in December.)¶ The general flaw is in overestimating the
importance of recent events and assuming that short-term trends will continue indefinitely: that a candidate
rising in the polls will continue to do so, for example. In fact, especially in general elections, candidates gaining in the polls
see their position revert to the mean as often as they continue to gain ground.¶ The political news media are by no
means alone in committing this mistake. It’s a close cousin of the hot-hand fallacy. This is the tendency — also evident in sports
commentary — to place too much evidence on recent events, which may be idiosyncratic or essentially random compared with
longer-term averages and patterns. Still, the news media may be especially prone toward overhyping purported
“game-changers” that make for snappy headlines . Two weeks ago, after Sen. Mitch McConnell beat a more conservative
rival in the Republican primary in Kentucky, some in the political media were ready to declare another momentum shift, claiming
that the tea party was “losing steam” to the GOP establishment. But Tuesday night in Mississippi, incumbent Sen. Thad Cochran
received fewer votes than challenger Chris McDaniel, a state senator who is often associated with the tea party. (McDaniel appears as
though he’ll finish with just under 50 percent of the vote, however, so the race is probably headed to a June 24 runoff.)
Obamacare outweighs
Drew MacKenzie 14, writer for Newsmax citing a USA Today/Pew poll, “Poll: Democratic
Candidates Hurt by Obamacare Support”, April 10, 2014,
http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/Obamacare-healthcare-poll-Democrat/2014/04/10/id/564833/
An overwhelming percentage of registered voters have admitted that a candidate’s position on the troubled
health care law will play an important part in deciding their vote in the upcoming elections, according to a
new poll. Republican senatorial candidates have been constantly hammering at Democrats who have supported
Obamacare as the GOP bids to capture the Senate in November – and it appears from a USA Today/Pew Research Center poll that
the tactic will pay big dividends. The poll shows that more than eight out of every 10 voters say that the stance of a
candidate in the midterms will
play a key role in their decision-making on who to vote for in November. The survey also
found that 54 percent of respondents called it a "very important" part of their vote process, while two out very three people
said they disapproved of Obamacare. "That means it is more likely to motivate opponents than supporters to vote — a critical
element in midterm elections when turnout often is low," wrote Susan Page of USA Today.
No impact to removing ballot initiatives--Alaskans oppose marijuana
MMJB 8/19, MMJ Business Daily, a newsource about Cannabis Investment,
http://mmjbusinessdaily.com/poll-support-for-rec-marijuana-erodes-in-alaska/
Marijuana advocates in Alaska may be in for a disappointment come November.¶ The latest survey by
Public Policy Polling found that support for a measure to legalize recreational cannabis has slipped among
voters, with 44% saying they back legalization vs. 49% who oppose. Roughly 8% are undecided.¶ When the
organization last polled Alaskans in May, 48% of respondents favored the measure compared with 45% who opposed.¶ The
campaign behind the legalization bill (Measure 2) still has a chance to sway more voters heading into the last few months of the
election season, but this could come down to the wire.¶ In the latest poll, almost 60% of Democrats backed Measure 2, but only a
quarter of Republicans polled are behind it. Nearly 50% of registered unaffiliated voters support the measure.¶
MJBizExpo 300 Speaker CohenB Poll: Support for Rec Marijuana Erodes in Alaska. While 48% of younger voters are in
favor of Measure 2, the percentage shrinks with age — just 30% of voters older than 65 are in favor of
legalizing recreational marijuana. .¶Measure 2 would allow residents to grow up to six plants and possess
up to an ounce of marijuana, and it would make the manufacturing and sale of recreational cannabis legal.
Legalization doesn’t guarantee a Democratic win
John Hudak 8/20, Fellow in Governance Studies at Brookings, "Harry Reid Should Love Marijuana:
How Legalization Could Keep the Senate Blue", 2014,
www.brookings.edu/blogs/fixgov/posts/2014/08/20-harry-reid-marijuana-keep-the-senate-blue-hudak
Nevertheless, marijuana legalization efforts are quite different than 2004 same sex marriage initiatives—even beyond
the nature of the issues themselves. Same sex marriage initiatives were pushed by the Republican Party in 2004. Efforts in the White House, Congress,
and in statehouses drove such initiatives and the political planning around them. On the other hand, the Democratic Party is not spearheading legalization efforts. In fact, there
legalization supporters are the ones pushing
legalization initiatives. They compose an odd combination of liberal Democrats , libertarian and conservative
Republicans, and apathetic moderates. In many ways, Democratic Party institutions are still not ready or too timid to spearhead legalization
movements.¶ And frankly, legalization supporters would likely resist such party control of the movement —and for good
reason. Including legalization initiatives on midterm ballots would almost certainly change the composition of the
electorate, but they do not guarantee a win . In fact, the standard composition of midterm electorates—which
favors older, wealthier, and more conservative voters—will likely discourage initiatives in many states because of
the risk of failure. When a state rejects an initiative, it serves as a blow to the momentum of that
movement within the state—something legalization supporters would prefer to avoid.
are many factions of the Democratic Party still quite resistant to legalization.¶ Instead,
Legalization drives youth vote --- “hearing about it more” increases strength
of this effect
Matt Viser 14, Boston Globe staff writer, “Marijuana backers hit a political chord,” 2/10/14,
http://www.bostonglobe.com/news/politics/2014/02/10/tip-neill-former-caddy-spearheads-push-forlegalizing-marijuana-across-country/L4tGZTZNscQO9ThB8nbieI/story.html
WASHINGTON — Not long ago, Allen St. Pierre couldn’t get an audience with many politicians. When he tried to send them campaign contributions, the checks were returned. His efforts to
persuade the political establishment to take seriously the legalization of marijuana were met with blank
stares, or worse.¶ But now lawmakers are beating a path to his door for meetings and advice, hoping to harness this new energy behind an issue
that had been on the fringe of American politics. The once-quixotic goal of St. Pierre’s group — NORML, the National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws — is
now one of Washington’s most-discussed issues.¶ Representatives of an array of potential presidential
candidates have contacted him, asking for meetings to seek NORML’s endorsement and tap its donor
base. Campaign checks are being cashed at a greater rate.¶ “We’re no longer talking about whether marijuana should be legal, [but] about when it should be legal,” St. Pierre said.¶ It is a
dizzying degree of change in a relatively short time. “I ask the staff every day to nonsexually pinch me,” St. Pierre said. “You have to remind yourself how far
we’ve come.”¶ The signs of a shifting political environment are hard to miss. President Obama, who famously revealed he had smoked pot in his high
school “Choom Gang,” said in an interview published last month that marijuana was no more dangerous than alcohol.¶ Colorado and Washington state have legalized recreational marijuana.¶ Twenty
states, including Massachusetts, make cannabis legal for medical use, and a number of others, also including Massachusetts, are
preparing ballot initiatives or legislation that would authorize recreational purchases. ¶ If you were to cast for an affable, cleancut New Englander, St. Pierre would surely get the part. His salt-and-pepper hair is trimmed neatly above his ears. On a recent day, he wore navy slacks, loafers, and a V-neck sweater over a green flannel shirt. The
48-year-old from Chatham used to be a caddy for the late House speaker Thomas P. “Tip’’ O’Neill.¶ There’s just one thing: His office, which is on K Street about two blocks from the White House, is a practically a
museum to marijuana. There’s marijuana leaves on T-shirts and hats, candles that look like joints, and the latest issue of High Times magazine. A marijuana plant sits on his desk, and a giant joint on a bookshelf
(both are fake).¶ High Times, indeed.¶ With the march toward legalization begun, there is much to be decided in Washington. Obama’s recent comments effectively cast the issue as “Who will sell it, who will get
rich from it.” said St. Pierre.¶ He would not reveal which prospective presidential candidates have contacted his organization, but he did note that no one from Hillary Clinton’s network has reached out — though
In October, nearly 60 percent of Americans said the drug should be
legalized , the first time that a clear majority felt that way in a Gallup Poll. It was a jump of 10 percentage points from the previous year.¶
A CNN poll released last month had similar findings, with senior citizens, Republicans, and Southerners now the only large demographic groups still opposed to legalized marijuana. Sixty-two
percent of Democrats and 59 percent of independents backed legalizing the drug , compared with 36 percent of Republicans.¶
With the vast majorities of Democrats and those between the ages of 18 and 34 in support of legalizing
marijuana. Some Democratic consultants see the issue as a way to reenergize young voters who have
soured on Obama. In Florida, Democrats are hoping a ballot initiative on medical marijuana will drive up turnout this November for their
he suspects they will as public opinion continues to move in his direction.¶
gubernatorial hopeful, Charlie Crist.¶ Alaska is expected to vote on legalizing marijuana in August, and Oregon is likely to follow in November.¶ In the Northeast, 60 percent of those surveyed by CNN supported
legalizing marijuana, greater than any other region in the country. As a result, marijuana advocates are targeting New England, with plans to have the issue before voters or state lawmakers in almost every state by
2016.¶ The New Hampshire House last month became the first legislative body to approve a bill legalizing marijuana, although Governor Maggie Hassan has said she would veto the bill.¶ “There’s been more
public dialogue about marijuana and marijuana policy than ever before,” said Mason Tvert, communications director for the Marijuana Policy Project, another group advocating for legalizing marijuana.
“The more people talk about marijuana and more they hear about it, the more support we see
for ending
prohibition.”
CIR’s critical to economic growth---multiple internals
Ezra Klein 13, a columnist for The Washington Post. “To Fix the U.S. Economy, Fix Immigration,”
1/29, http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-01-29/to-fix-the-u-s-economy-fix-immigration.html
Washington tends to have a narrow view of what counts as “economic policy.” Anything we do to the tax code is in. So is any
stimulus we pass, or any deficit reduction we try. Most of this mistakes the federal budget for the economy.¶ The truth is, the most
important piece of economic policy we pass -- or don’t pass -- in 2013 may be something we don’t think of as
economic policy at all: immigration reform.¶ Congress certainly doesn’t consider it economic policy, at least not officially.
Immigration laws go through the House and Senate judiciary committees. But consider a few facts about immigrants in the
American economy: About a tenth of the U.S. population is foreign-born. More than a quarter of U.S. technology and
engineering businesses started from 1995 to 2005 had a foreign-born owner. In Silicon Valley, half of all
tech startups had a foreign-born founder.¶ Immigrants begin businesses and file patents at a much higher
rate than their native-born counterparts, and while there are disputes about the effect immigrants have on the wages of
low-income Americans, there’s little dispute about their effect on wages overall: They lift them. ¶ The economic case
for immigration is best made by way of analogy. Everyone agrees that aging economies with low birth rates are in
trouble; this, for example, is a thoroughly conventional view of Japan. It’s even conventional wisdom about the U.S. The
retirement of the baby boomers is correctly understood as an economic challenge. The ratio of working
Americans to retirees will fall from 5-to-1 today to 3-to-1 in 2050. Fewer workers and more retirees is tough on any
economy.¶ Importing Workers¶ There’s nothing controversial about that analysis. But if that’s not controversial, then immigration
shouldn’t be, either. Immigration is essentially the importation of new workers. It’s akin to raising the birth
rate, only easier, because most of the newcomers are old enough to work. And because living in the U.S. is considered
such a blessing that even very skilled, very industrious workers are willing to leave their home countries
and come to ours, the U.S. has an unusual amount to gain from immigration. When it comes to the global
draft for talent, we almost always get the first-round picks -- at least, if we want them, and if we make it
relatively easy for them to come here.¶ From the vantage of naked self-interest, the wonder isn’t that we might fix our
broken immigration system in 2013. It’s that we might not.¶ Few economic problems wouldn’t be improved by more
immigration.
If you’re worried about deficits, more young, healthy workers paying into Social Security and Medicare are
an obvious boon. If you’re concerned about the slowdown in new company formation and its attendant
effects on economic growth, more immigrant entrepreneurs should cheer you. If you’re worried about the
dearth of science and engineering majors in our universities, an influx of foreign-born students is the
most obvious solution you’ll find.
1AR
Cartels
AT: Nieto Solves
Nieto’s strategy fails---there’s no actual strategy and the government cooks
the books
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-livingdangerously-pe%C3%B1a-nieto%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 .
AT: Lash-Out
Cartel financial power vis-à-vis the state is critical to their control over
force- risks Mexican state collapse—legalization solves
David Pedigo, 12, writer for the Santiago Times, BA from Beloit College in International Relations &
Latin American affairs, “The Drug War and State Failure in Mexico,”
http://research.monm.edu/mjur/files/2012/2012-7.pdf
U.S. Domestic Policy It is widely recognized that the profitability of the drug trade is fueled by the massive demand
from the United States. Every year, the United States¶ illegally imports more than 200 tons of cocaine, 1500 tons of marijuana,
15¶ tons of heroin, and 20 tons of methamphetamines.54 More than 90 percent of¶ the cocaine and most of the marijuana and
methamphetamines come through¶ Mexico.'5 These drugs feed a S200 billion a year industry that caters to 13¶ million Americans
every month.'6 The success of efforts to decrease this de-¶ mand has been minimal; between 2002 and 2008, the number of illicit
drug¶ users in the US decreased by less than half of one percent."¶ Jorge Castaneda and George Grayson both agree that
the only effective way to address this huge rate of consumption may be to legalize drugs on¶ both sides of the
border. To be sure, this would not actually decrease the de-¶ mand for drugs; rather, it would transform the dynamics of
the drug market so that drug dealers do not reap such immense profits from it. Legalization is an example
of what prominent drug expert Ethan Nadelmann refers to as a "harm reduction" policy, rather than a
"demand reduction" policy. Reducing demand, as Nadelmann observes, is next to impossible; "There's
virtually never been a¶ drug-free society, and more drugs are discovered and devised every year.* A¶ harm reduction policy, by
contrast, would focus on curbing the negative social¶ effects of drugs, rather than the supply or demand of drugs themselves. There¶
is no doubt that drugs have negative effects on one's health, but at least in¶ Mexico the costs of prohibition far outweigh the health
costs of drugs.¶ Research Design¶ Drug and security policies in Mexico have thus far failed to eliminate ¶ the
threat of state failure or state capture. State institutions continue to be penetrated by criminal elements and
in some regions the cartels have more authority over the legitimate application of force and rule of law
than the state does.¶ This is because many past policies have either ignored or failed to significantly impact
the underlying problem of cartel power. The U.S.-dominated security¶ paradigm for the region has historically focused on
blocking the flows of drugs¶ and violence into the United States, yet as Monica Serrano notes, "while all of¶ these problems meet at
the border, none of them have their roots there."*9 To¶ wait until the problems associated with the drug trade reach the border is to¶
ignore the true threat: the possibility of state failure or state capture in Mexico.¶ In the next section, I will provide my own analysis of
the conflict in¶ Mexico and examine why exactly Mexico is descending toward failed state¶ status. In diagnosing the cause of state
failure in Mexico, I also hope to build¶ policy suggestions that may effectively cure it. In the following pages, I will¶ argue that the
central catalyst of state failure in Mexico is the loss of the state's monopoly on the application of force
within its territory.¶ However, to say that Mexico is descending toward failed state status¶ because the state has lost its
monopoly on the legitimate use of force would be¶ to ignore the full spectrum of causality. Max Weber has already made mis¶
analysis, albeit not through a specific case study, and so to point out this con-nection would be a touch repetitive. Therefore, I will
further argue that the loss of the Mexican state's monopoly on the application of force is caused by the¶ power
of drug cartels relative to the state, which in turn is maintained through the ability of the cartels to outbid
the state in both quasi-military and economic terms . The full spectrum of causality, then, is as follows:
cartels are able to influence virtually any state or non-state actor (since this is a relatively micro¶ case study,
individuals will be considered actors) through either intimidation or¶ bribery, giving them the ability to operate with
impunity and even eclipse the¶ state in some areas of Mexico. This, in turn, undermines the state's monopoly ¶
on the legitimate use of physical force, which puts Mexico in danger of becom-¶ ing a failed state.
Therefore, I argue that in order to avoid state failure , the Mexican government must assert its monopoly on
the legitimate use of force by curbing the power of cartels. This will be no easy task, so as I provide an¶ analysis of the
methods through which cartels obtain and maintain their power,¶ I will also outline specific policy suggestions for how these
methods can be¶ stopped.
Marijuana legalization alone is sufficient to trigger Mexican deal-making
with the cartels
JORGE CASTAÑEDA, 10, former foreign minister of Mexico, De-Narcotize US-Mexican Relations,
New Perspectives Quarterly, Volume 27, Issue 3, Article first published online: 20 JUL 2010
A third, much more ambitious alternative, would entail a major revision in both capitals. First, it would lead Mexico to lobby
for decriminalization of at least marijuana ¶ in the US, since this is both a growing tide in the US and Mexico
cannot proceed alone¶ on this score.¶ There is a certain urgency to this. If, come November, California were to vote¶ on—and pass—
a popular initiative on cannabis legalization (and polls show this is¶ possible), this could open the floodgates in the
US, and leave Mexico in an untenable and absurd situation: having troops and civilians dying in Tijuana to
stop Mexican marijuana from entering the US, where, once it does enter, it could be consumed,
transported and sold legally.¶ On Mexico’s part, this would imply an about-face— pulling the army out of the¶ towns
and from the highways and, up to a point, letting the cartels bleed themselves to death, while over a couple of years the abovementioned National Police is created¶ and deployed.¶ It would, most controversially, require some sort of a tacit deal with some
cartels¶ and "the full force of the law" against others. This may seem outrageous to many¶ readers, but it is less scandalous
than it may appear. Mexico has traditionally made these arrangements; one of the most emblematic figures of Calderon's
own party has¶ accused him of already doing so, and it is pretty much what the Obama administra-tion is carrying out with die poppy growers and
heroin producers in Afghanistan.
Legalization undercuts cartel’s finances—undermines recruitment, bribery,
and weapons purchases—and frees up resources to fight violence
Laura Carlsen 10, director of the CIP Americas Program, “How Legalizing Marijuana Would Weaken
Mexican Drug Cartels,” Nov 3, http://www.cipamericas.org/wp-content/uploads/wp-post-to-pdfcache/1/how-legalizing-marijuana-would-weaken-mexican-drug-cartels.pdf
In the months leading up to the vote, opponents of legalization issued a barrage of confused and¶ contradictory arguments aimed at
convincing voters to ignore a basic common-sense fact: legal sourcing erodes the black-market profits of organized
crime. But organized crime is a business . Reducing demand through providing legal sources would hurt
that business and cut deeply into resources used to recruit youth, buy off politicians and purchase
weapons.¶ The most recent argument thrown out in the anti-Prop. 19 campaign, claims that the California marijuana¶ market is
insignificant to Mexican drug traffickers.¶ That argument was blown out of the water on October 18 when the Mexican Army and
police seized 134¶ tons of marijuana, wrapped and ready to be smuggled from Tijuana across the border. The huge cache¶ was
estimated to be worth at least $338 million dollars on the street. Mexican authorities guessed that it¶ was owned by the nation's
most powerful drug-trafficking organization, the Sinaloa Cartel.¶ Even if much of that is distributed to other states, the sheer size of
the potential shipment shows that the¶ U.S. marijuana market for Mexican traffickers, calculated at $20 billion a year, is well worth
fighting for.¶ Since before Prop. 19 came along, reports showed that Mexico's drug cartels were concerned about
how U.S. production and legalization of medical marijuana cut into their profits.¶ Prohibition creates the
underground market that generates their economic, political and military strength. With the drop in
income from marijuana sales, cartels have less money for buying arms and politicians, or recruiting young
people into the trade.¶ The drug cartels also consider the marijuana black market worth killing for. Just days after the historic
bust, thirteen young men were massacred at a drug rehabilitation center. An anonymous voice came over¶ police radio saying the act
was "a taste of Juarez" and that up to 135 people could be murdered in¶ retaliation for the bust--one per ton.¶ Although calculating
Mexican cartel earnings from marijuana sales will always be a guessing game, it's¶ indisputable that as long as it's illegal every penny
of those earnings goes into the pockets of organized¶ crime. From the peasant who converts his land from corn to pot to feed his
family, to the truckdriver who¶ takes on a bonus cargo, to the Mexican and U.S. border officials who open "windows" in
international¶ customs controls, to the youth gangs who sell in U.S. cities--all are sucked into a highly organized and¶ brutal system
of contraband.¶ Legalization in part of the world's leading market would take a huge chunk out of this
transnational business.¶ The government of Mexican president Felipe Calderon, along with Colombian president Juan Manuel¶
Santos, has redoubled efforts in U.S. media and international forums to oppose the California legalization¶ measure. This is not
surprising. These two nations are deeply entrenched in a military-model drug war¶ that has channeled a combined total of nearly $9
billion dollars in U.S. government funds to their¶ governments. As in any war, powerful political and economic interests are at stake
in perpetuating the¶ drug war.¶ It's interesting to see what they say though. Neither President Santos nor Calderon argue that
legalization¶ will strengthen drug cartels. Instead, both complain that legalization will erode their drug war by¶ heightening the
contradiction between violent crackdowns on growers and traffickers in their countries¶ and the lax attitude toward consumption of
marijuana in the United States.¶ At a recent meeting of the Tuxtla Dialogue in Cartagena, Colombia's President Juan Manuel Santos
said,¶ "It's confusing for our people to see that, while we lose lives and invest resources in the fight against drug¶ trafficking, in
consuming countries initiatives like California's referendum are being promoted."¶ It's about time that contradiction was exposed.
But the way to resolve it is not to increase fumigation¶ operations that destroy peasant livelihoods and the environment and seizures
of marijuana shipments that¶ lead to the deaths of innocent civilians, while further criminalizing consumption in the U.S. The way
to resolve it is to halt ineffective measures to stop marijuana use, and focus scarce resources on attacking
the financial and violent aspects of transnational organized crime, and providing employment and
services for vulnerable sectors. Legalization of marijuana, in addition to reducing the economic base of the
cartels, frees up resources to do just that.
AT: Diversification
No impact to a shift---other activities don’t provide enough profits
Paul Armentano 09, Deputy Director of the National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana
Laws, an expert in the field of marijuana policy, health, and pharmacology, has served as a consultant for
Health Canada and the Canadian Public Health Association, “How to End Mexico's Deadly Drug War”,
1/18/09, The Foundation for Economic Education, http://www.fee.org/the_freeman/detail/how-to-endmexicos-deadly-drug-war
Predictably, critics of marijuana legalization claim that such a strategy would do little to undermine drug traffickers’ profit
margins because cartels would simply supplement their revenues by selling greater quantities of other illicit
drugs. Although this scenario sounds plausible in theory, it appears to be far less likely in practice .¶ As noted,
Mexican drug lords derive an estimated 60 to 70 percent of their illicit income from pot sales. (By comparison,
only about 28 percent of their profits are derived from the distribution of cocaine, and less than 1 percent comes from
trafficking methamphetamine.) It is unrealistic to think that cartels could feasibly replace this void by stepping up their sales of
cocaine, methamphetamine or heroin—all of which remain far less popular among U.S. drug consumers
anyway. Just how much less? U.S. Department of Health and Human Services survey data show that roughly two million
Americans use cocaine, compared to 15 million for pot. Fewer than 600,000 use methamphetamine, and
fewer than 155,000 use heroin. In short, this is hardly the sort of demand that would keep Mexico’s drug
barons in the lucrative lifestyle to which they’ve become accustomed.
CP
Congress Key
Doesn’t solve without Congress
Graham Boyd, et al 14, Director, ACLU Drug Policy Litigation Project, with Sarah Trumble, and
Lanae Erickson Hatalsky, “Marijuana Legalization: Does Congress Need to Act?,” SOCIAL POLICY |
JUNE 2014, http://content.thirdway.org/publications/830/Third_Way_Report__Marijuana_Legalization-_Does_Congress_Need_to_Act.pdf
Additionally, reinforcing and arguably expanding upon the Memorandum, federal officials have issued guidance that
takes an important step toward allowing financial institutions to provide some services to licensed
marijuana businesses.22 ¶ The issue first arose when Deputy Attorney General Cole testified before the ¶ Senate Judiciary
Committee and faced questions about the potential dangers ¶ of forcing marijuana businesses to operate as cash-only enterprises. As
several ¶ Senators pointed out, federal rules currently prevent marijuana businesses from holding bank
accounts, forcing them to keep large amounts of cash on hand, and thereby creating a high risk of robbery
and violence. Cole declared that he ¶ would take responsibility for clearing away obstacles to marijuana businesses ¶ having
access to financial services.23 The Second Cole Memorandum and the ¶ engagement in the banking issue suggest a
shift in federal policy towards a more ¶ nuanced and pragmatic policy stance on state-regulated marijuana. But
without Congressional action , it is merely a band-aid solution, since it could be changed at a moment’s
notice and gives no guarantee of protection against prosecution, still explicitly stating that banks and marijuana
businesses would be contravening federal law even by following the guidance.
Uncertainty DA
Can’t solve uncertainty
Erwin Chemerinsky 14, Dean and Distinguished Professor of Law at Cal-Irvine, Jolene Forman,
ACLU Criminal Justice and Drug Policy Fellow, Allen Hopper, ACLU Criminal Justice and Drug Policy
Director and Sam Kamin, University of Denver Sturm College of Law Professor, "Cooperative Federalism
and Marijuana Regulation", SSRN
Revocable waivers could be a good first step toward permitting states to experiment with novel approaches to
legalizing and regulating marijuana. Marijuana policy expert Mark Kleiman has proposed a revocable waiver approach under
which an administrative agency could grant state-level waivers of the CSA marijuana provisions based on specified criteria. 149 In effect, the
revocable waiver would provide a more reliable “non-enforcement” of federal law guarantee that the Cole Memo
II implies. But as long as the federal government is merely agreeing not to enforce federal law in opt out
states , so long, in other words, as that conduct is illegal but not prosecuted , most if not all of the ancillary
problems flowing from the continued illegality under federal law are likely to remain .
Future Admin/States Say No
Several states say no
Dylan Scott 13, Could Gay Marriage, Guns and Marijuana Lead to a Fragmented United States of
America?, http://www.governing.com/topics/politics/gov-fragmented-united-states-of-america.html
A third case: Voters in Colorado and Washington state chose to fully legalize marijuana in last November’s election.
On the same day, voters in Arkansas handily defeated a proposal to allow the drug even for medicinal
purposes. The use of marijuana remains illegal under federal law; the Obama administration hasn’t taken a position on last fall’s actions but has
made it clear that federal regulations will not be enforced. ¶ This is more than just party polarization. It is part of a tectonic
shift away from federal authority and toward power in the states . While the divided Congresses that have followed the 2010
Tea Party insurgency have been among the least productive in U.S. history, rife with partisan bickering and a chronic inability to compromise, robust
action is common at the state level. Connecticut’s quick and seamless movement from tragedy to statute is one of countless examples. In turn,
ideologues and interest groups increasingly view states as the most promising venues for policymaking.
Why waste your time in Washington -- where you might pass a watered-down, largely impotent bill if you’re lucky -- when you can head to Austin or
Sacramento and advance your agenda intact and with relative ease?¶ And while states pass legislation with an almost industrial efficiency, America,
as is often noted these days, is
becoming a more and more splintered nation. Red states are redder ; blue states are
bluer.¶ Take a look at a U.S. map colored by state party control. In the upper right-hand corner down to the Mid-Atlantic, it’s all blue. In the
South and across the Great Plains, you see a blanket of red. That crimson sea begins to break at the Rocky Mountains until you
reach a stretch of blue along the West Coast. In a way, we are returning to our roots as a loose confederation of culturally and
geographically distinct governments.¶ States led by Democrats are moving toward broader Medicaid coverage, stricter gun
laws and a liberalized drug policy. They’ve legalized gay marriage, abolished the death penalty and extended new rights to undocumented
immigrants. Republican strongholds are working quickly to remove government from the business sphere -reducing taxes, pushing anti-union right-to-work laws and rebelling against the Affordable Care Act (ACA). They’re also pressing forward
on some of their most valued social issues, promoting pro-life abortion policies and protecting the rights of gun owners.
PDCP
Perm do the CP: CP is a method of US legalization
Mark Kleiman 14, Professor of Public Policy at the UCLA Luskin School of Public Affairs and editor of
the Journal of Drug Policy Analysis, March/April/May 2014, “How Not to Make a Hash Out of Cannabis
Legalization,” The Washington Monthly,
http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/magazine/march_april_may_2014/features/how_not_to_make_a
_hash_out_of049291.php?page=all
How could the federal government get the states to structure their pot markets in ways like these? By
giving a new twist to a tried-and-true tool that the Obama administration has wielded particularly effectively: the
policy waiver. The federal government would recognize the legal status of cannabis under a state system—
making the activities permitted under that system actually legal , not merely tolerated, under federal law—
only if the state system contained adequate controls to protect public health and safety, as determined by the attorney general and the secretary of the
department of health and human services. That would change the politics of legalization at the state level, with legalization advocates and the cannabis
industry supporting tight controls in order to get, and keep, the all-important waiver. Then we would see the laboratories of democracy doing some
serious experimentation.