1AC
Plan
The United States should legalize nearly all marihuana in the United States.
Cartels Adv: 1AC
Drug violence is causing massive instability in Mexico
Carlos Rodriguez 11-9 Opinion editor at The Brownsville Herald “Don’t fail” Posted on Nov 9, 2014
http://www.brownsvilleherald.com/opinion/editorials/article_67ab01ec-695a-11e4-a9d7-13a648a3f589.html
if Mexico can’t find some way to control the scourge of drugrelated crime and violence, it risks deteriorating into a failed state .¶ Based on recent events, that failure
might seem closer than ever .¶ People on both sides of the border are still demanding answers after the
mid-October kidnapping and murder of a young Progreso woman, her brothers and boyfriend in the town of Control,
Tamaulipas, between Matamoros and Reynosa.¶ Witness say the siblings, who had gone to Mexico to visit their father, were
kidnapped by members of a special police force created by Matamoros Mayor Leticia Salazar.¶ That crime came on the
heels of a similar action in which 43 students at a teaching college in Iguala, in Guerrero state, were
rounded up shortly after a some city buses were commandeered during a student protest. Apparently, they were
kidnapped by local police and military personnel.¶ Searches for the students, who are presumed dead, have been futile.
Observers in recent years have warned that
Searchers found a mass grave, but the bodies aren’t the students’. ¶ Iguala’s former mayor and his wife, who had gone into hiding
shortly after the students’ sequester, have been arrested in connection to the disappearance. ¶ This is the kind of stuff
we’ve heard mostly in despotic African dictatorships. To hear it could be happening right across
the Rio Grande, in a country that has all the natural resources to be a global economic power, is
both alarming and disappointing.¶ Granted, cartels often scare witnesses , and the news media , into
silence. So the fact that so many people are saying they saw the recent massacres, and point the finger at police units, is
suspect. However, the fact that such accusations are widely believed, and believable, speaks volumes
about the administration of President Enrique Peña Nieto, who was elected largely on a promise to put an end to the violence that
has virtually destroyed the country.¶ Peña Nieto now has to endure widespread heckling and shouts of “Assassin!” at his public
appearances. Unless things change, the president, who’s barely completing the first trimester of his term, could be in for a long four
crime under control is crucial for Mexico’s future, as it surely would increase
foreign investment and improve the economy, which would give the country’s workers options
that are better than becoming mules for the cartels.
years.¶ Bringing
Federal legalization of marijuana is a game-changer for stopping violence in
Mexico—takes a huge chunk out of cartel profits and frees up police resources
Hesson 14 -- immigration editor, covers immigration and drug policy from Washington D.C.
[Ted, "Will Mexican Cartels Survive Marijuana Legalization?" Fusion, fusion.net/justice/story/mexican-cartels-survive-marijuanalegalization-450519, accessed 6-2-14]
1. Mexico is the top marijuana exporter to the U.S. A 2008 study by the RAND Corporation estimated that Mexican
marijuana accounted for somewhere between 40 and 67 percent of the drug in the U.S. The cartel grip on the U.S. market may not
last for long. Pot can now be grown for recreational use in Colorado and Washington, and for medical use in 20 states. For the first
time, American consumers can choose a legal product over the black market counterpart. Beau Kilmer, the co-director of
the RAND Drug Policy Research Center, says that a few states legalizing marijuana won’t eliminate
the flow of the drug from down south, but a change in policy from the federal government would
be a game changer. “Our research also suggests that legalizing commercial marijuana production at the
national level could drive out most of the marijuana imported from Mexico,” he wrote in a 2013 op-ed. 2.
Marijuana makes up more than $1 billion of cartel income Pot isn’t the main source of income for cartels. They
make most of their cash from drugs like cocaine and heroin. But marijuana accounts for 15 to 26 percent of the
cartel haul, according to RAND’s 2008 data. That translates to an estimated $1.1 billion to $2 billion of
gross income. The drop in sales certainly wouldn’t end the existence of drug traffickers — they bring in an estimated $6 billion
to $8 billion annually — but losing a fifth of one’s income would hurt any business. On top of that, Kilmer
says that marijuana likely makes up a higher percentage of the cartel take today than it did back in
2008. So taking away pot would sting even more . 3. Authorities could focus on other drugs
Marijuana made up 94 percent of the drugs seized by Border Patrol in the 2012 fiscal year, judging by
weight. If pot becomes legal in the U.S. and cartels are pushed out of the market, that would allow
law-enforcement agencies to dedicate more resources to combat the trafficking of drugs like
heroin and cocaine.
Most comprehensive studies prove violence will be significantly reduced in the
long-run, and short-term lashout will be limited
Beau Kilmer et al 10, Jonathan P. Caulkins, Brittany M. Bond, Peter H. Reuter (Kilmer--Codirector, RAND Drug Policy
Research Center; Senior Policy Researcher, RAND; Professor, Pardee RAND Graduate School, Ph.D. in public policy, Harvard
University; M.P.P., University of California, Berkeley; B.A. in international relations, Michigan State University, Caulkins--Stever
Professor of Operations Research and Public Policy at Carnegie Mellon University, Bond--research economist in the Office of the
Chief Economist of the US Department of Commerce's Economics and Statistics Administration, Reuter--Professor in the School of
Public Policy and the Department of Criminology at the University of Maryland. “Reducing Drug Trafficking Revenues and Violence
in Mexico Would Legalizing Marijuana in California Help?” RAND occasional paper (peer reviewed),
http://www.rand.org/content/dam/rand/pubs/occasional_papers/2010/RAND_OP325.pdf
However, there
is at least one countervailing factor that might reduce violence in the short run. Given
that the signal of market decline will be strong and unambiguous, experienced participants might
accept the fact that their earnings and the market as a whole are in decline. This could lead to a
reduced effort on their part to fight for control of routes or officials, since those areas of control
are now less valuable. Of course, that does presume strategic thinking in a population that appears to have a propensity for
expressive and instrumental violence. The natural projection in the long run is more optimistic . Fewer young
males will enter the drug trade, and the incentives for violence will decline as the economic
returns to leader- ship of a DTO fall. 10 However, the long run is indeterminably measured: probably years, and
perhaps many years.
Alternative activities can’t make up for profits—post-prohibition effect on the
mafia proves
Robelo 13 -- Drug Policy Alliance research coordinator
[Daniel, "Demand Reduction or Redirection? Channeling Illicit Drug Demand towards a Regulated Supply to Diminish Violence in
Latin America," Oregon Law Review, 91 Or. L. Rev. 1227, 2013, l/n]
It is also impossible to foresee how regulation would affect levels of violence. Some analysts believe a short-term increase in
violence is possible (as competition over a smaller market could intensify), but that violence in the longer term will decline. n106
Some analysts point out that organized crime may further diversify into other activities, such as extortion and
kidnapping, though these have been shown to be considerably less profitable than drug trafficking.
As one scholar [*1249] notes, given the profitability of the drug trade, "it would take roughly 50,000 kidnappings to equal 10% of
cocaine revenues from the U.S. n107 While the American mafia certainly diversified into other criminal endeavors
after the Repeal of alcohol Prohibition, homicide rates nevertheless declined dramatically. n108
Combining marijuana regulation with medical regulatory models for heroin, cocaine and methamphetamine could strike a major blow
to the corrosive economic power of violent trafficking organizations, diminishing their ability to perpetrate murder, hire recruits,
purchase weapons, corrupt officials, operate with impunity, and terrorize societies. Moreover, these approaches promise concrete
results - potentially significant reductions in DTO revenues - unlike all other strategies that Mexico or the United States have tried to
date. n109 Criminal organizations would still rely on other activities for their income, but they would
be left weaker and less of a threat to security. Furthermore, the U nited S tates and Latin American governments
would save resources currently wasted on prohibition enforcement and generate new revenues in
taxes - resources which could be applied more effectively towards confronting violence and other
crimes that directly threaten public safety. n110
Even modest losses means cartels can’t corrupt the police and judiciary
Usborne 14 [David, "How Central Is Marijuana In The Drug War? Ctd," The Dish, quoted by Andrew Sullivan, 1-11-14,
dish.andrewsullivan.com/2014/01/11/how-central-is-marijuana-in-the-drug-war-ctd/, accessed 6-9-14]
A 2012 research paper by the Mexican Competitiveness Institute in Mexico called ‘If Our Neighbours Legalise’, said that the
legalisation of marijuana in Colorado, Washington and California would depress cartel profits by as much as 30 per cent. A 2010
Rand Corp study of what would happen if just California legalised suggests a more modest fall-out. Using consumption in the US as
the most useful measure, its authors posit that marijuana accounts for perhaps 25 per cent of the cartels’
revenues. The cartels would survive losing that, but still. “ That’s enough to hurt , enough to cause massive
unemployment in the illicit drugs sector,” says [fellow at the Mexico Institute at the Wilson Center
David] Shirk. Less money for cartels means weaker cartels and less capacity to corrupt the judiciary
and the police in Mexico with crumpled bills in brown envelopes. Crimes like extortion and kidnappings are
also more easily tackled.
Plan creates a reverse gateway effect that reduces demand for harder drugs
Herrington, 12 Luke, Editor-At-Large for E-IR and Assistant Reviews Editor for Special Operations Journal.
He is a graduate
student in the Department of Political Science at the University of Kansas where he previously earned an MA in Global and
International Studies, “Marijuana Legalization: Panacea in the War on Drugs or Stoners Blowing Smoke?,” http://www.eir.info/2012/08/24/marijuana-lagalization-panacea-in-the-war-on-drugs-or-stoners-blowing-smoke/, Vitz
Legalization Will Hurt the Cartels A chorus of Latin American leaders think legalization will undermine the cartels, and they advocate
it as a new strategy in the war on drugs. In March, Otto Perez Molina, the president of Guatemala, announced his interest in
legalizing drugs in an effort to fight the cartels, including the Zetas, who were allegedly behind a May 2011 attack that left 27
dismembered workers on a farm in northern Guatemala. Molina, however, is not the only leader to suggest that drug legalization
could help stem the rising tide of drug-related violence in Latin America. In fact, former Mexican President Vicente Fox also supports
the legalization of marijuana, [7] as do César Gaviria, Ernesto Zedillo, Fernando Henrique Cardoso, and Ricardo Lagos, former
presidents of Colombia, Mexico, Brazil, and Chile respectively. [8] The government of Uruguay is also agitating for legalization.
marijuana legalization and regulation may be used to help fight cocaine
use and abuse . The government also says it would sell the drug directly, tracking buyers in the process
There, officials announced that
and limiting the black market’s ability to usurp this new supply. [9] Grillo agrees. He suggests that mass-burnings of marijuana in
Mexico, for instance, a hallmark in source control, do more to illustrate exactly how hulking the narco-economic edifice of the cartel’s
drug industry really is, than it does to elucidate how Mexico constantly hammers their organizations. It also demonstrates that U.S.
demand for product will continue to encourage the flow of marijuana and, by extension, other drugs over the border. Citing a
narrowly defeated attempt by California voters to legalize marijuana, and petitioners in Colorado promoting a referendum to do the
same, Grillo highlights the fact that campaigns for legalization view the Mexican Drug War “as a reason to change U.S. drug laws.”
Moreover, these campaigners argue that “American ganja smokers are giving billions of dollars to psychotic Mexican drug cartels,
[…] and legalization is the only way to stop the war.” [10] Grillo concedes that the cartels have morphed into diversified, 21st century
firms with entrenched profit sources well beyond the scope of the marijuana industry. Nevertheless, he concludes, legalization as a
strategy in the war on drugs could still do more in the effort to undermine cartel profits than the U.S. Drug Enforcement Agency
(DEA) and the Mexican army ever have. Legalization “might not kill the Mexican cartels,” he says, however it certainly could inflict a
deep wound upon their organizations. Armstrong accuses the U.S. of failure in its war on drugs, and asserts that the violence in
Mexico is only one consequence. Despite the tightening of post-9/11 border regulations, tons of cocaine and marijuana continue to
pass into the U.S. and billions of dollars in illicit money and weapons are passing into Mexico. Traditional policies hardly curb this
two-way flow of illicit traffic, in essence, because secondary and tertiary criminal lieutenants are prepared to fill the void when their
leaders are arrested or killed. Indeed, General Charles H. Jacoby, Jr., the leader of U.S. Northern Command (NORTHCOM),
testified before the U.S. Senate, stating that the “decapitation strategy” may succeed in killing key drug figures, but “it ‘has not had
an appreciable effect’ in thwarting the drug trade.” [11] The Mexican government has even started rethinking its approach. Instead of
focusing on the interdiction of drugs bound for U.S. markets, Mexican authorities are starting to focus more on their citizens’ safety.
Obama Administration officials, for their part, have chastised Latin American leaders for debating the legalization strategy, whilst
also stressing the importance of shared responsibility to the Mexican government. In spite of this, the U.S. has done little on its end
to stem the actual demand for illicit drugs. Armstrong believes U.S. policymakers must launch a serious dialogue here [in America]
on legalizing, or at least decriminalizing, the drugs. It’s not a perfect solution, but it’s better than no solution at all. […] The United
States needs a strategy to win the war or to settle it. [12] Indeed, if shared responsibility means anything, it means that the U.S.
must do its part not to enable the continuation of the drug wars. That means that in addition to the possible legalization or
decriminalization of marijuana (and other drugs for that matter), the U.S. must slow the flood of weapons and cash, the cartels’
raison d’etre. [13] Most importantly, legalization could undermine Latin American cartels by removing from marijuana, the so-called
“gateway effect.” As has happened in other countries, such as Portugal, where decriminalization has been experimented with on a
large scale, isolating marijuana from the black market makes it more difficult for drug dealers to push
“ harder” narcotics on individuals using marijuana. More will be said on this subject below, but for now, suffice it
to say that this has the potential to undermine the cartels—perhaps the foundations of the black market itself—across the board,
from the ground up. [14]
They won’t compete in the legal market
Carpenter 11 – Ted Galen Carpenter, Senior Fellow at the Cato Institute, “Undermining Mexico’s Dangerous Drug Cartels”,
Cato Policy Analysis, 11-15, http://object.cato.org/sites/cato.org/files/pubs/pdf/PA688.pdf
Legalizing pot would strike a blow against Mexican traffickers. It
would be difficult for them to compete with American
producers in the American market, given the difference in transportation distances and other
factors . There would be little incentive for consumers to buy their product from unsavory
Mexican criminal syndicates when legitimate domestic firms could offer the drug at a competitive
price—and advertise how they are honest enterprises. Indeed, for many Americans, they could
just grow their own supply—a cost advantage that the cartels could not hope to match.
Triggers Hezbollah border-terrorism---causes US retaliation against Iran
Steven Metz 14, a defense analyst, "Strategic Horizons: All Options Bad If Mexico’s Drug Violence Expands to U.S.," 2-19-2014,
No Publication, http://www.worldpoliticsreview.com/articles/13576/strategic-horizons-all-options-bad-if-mexico-s-drug-violenceexpands-to-u-s, DOA: 8-16-2014, y2k
violence in Mexico has reached horrific levels, claiming the lives of 70,000 as criminal
organizations fight each other for control of the drug trade and wage war on the Mexican police,
military, government officials and anyone else unlucky enough to get caught in the crossfire. The chaos has spread southward, engulfing Guatemala,
Honduras and Belize. Americans must face the possibility that the conflict may also expand northward , with intergang warfare ,
assassinations of government officials and outright terrorism in the United States . If so, this will force
Americans to undertake a fundamental reassessment of the threat , possibly redefining it as a security
issue demanding the use of U.S. military power. One way that large-scale drug violence might move to the United States is if the cartels
Over the past few decades,
miscalculate and think they can intimidate the U.S. government or strike at American targets safely from a Mexican sanctuary. The most likely candidate would be the group
known as the Zetas. They were created when elite government anti-drug commandos switched sides in the drug war, first serving as mercenaries for the Gulf Cartel and then
becoming a powerful cartel in their own right. The Zetas used to recruit mostly ex-military and ex-law enforcement members in large part to maintain discipline and control. But
the pool of soldiers and policemen willing to join the narcotraffickers was inadequate to fuel the group’s ambition. Now the Zetas are tapping a very different, much larger, but
less disciplined pool of recruits in U.S. prisons and street gangs. This is an ominous turn of events. Since intimidation through extreme violence is a trademark of the Zetas, its
spread to the United States raises the possibility of large-scale violence on American soil. As George Grayson of the College of William and Mary put it, “The Zetas are
determined to gain the reputation of being the most sadistic, cruel and beastly organization that ever existed.” And without concern for extradition, which helped break the back
of the Colombian drug cartels, the Zetas show little fear of the United States government, already having ordered direct violence against American law enforcement. Like the
Zetas, most of the other Mexican cartels are expanding their operations inside the United States. Only a handful of U.S. states are free of them today. So far the cartels don’t
appear directly responsible for large numbers of killings in the United States, but as expansion and reliance on undisciplined recruits looking to make a name for themselves
through ferocity continue, the chances of miscalculation or violent freelancing by a cartel affiliate mount. This could potentially move beyond intergang warfare to the killing of
U.S. officials or outright terrorism like the car bombs that drug cartels used in Mexico and Colombia. In an assessment for the U.S. Army War College Strategic Studies Institute,
Mexico’s
violence could spread north is via the partnership between the narcotraffickers and ideologically
motivated terrorist groups. The Zetas already have a substantial connection to Hezbollah , based on
collaborative narcotrafficking and arms smuggling. Hezbollah has relied on terrorism since its founding and has few qualms
about conducting attacks far from its home turf in southern Lebanon. Since Hezbollah is a close ally or
proxy of Iran , it might some day attempt to strike the United States in retribution for American action
against Tehran. If so, it would likely attempt to exploit its connection with the Zetas, pulling the
narcotraffickers into a transnational proxy war . The foundation for this scenario is already in place: Security analysts like
Douglas Farah have warned of a “tier-one security threat for the United States” from an “ improbable alliance ” between
narcotraffickers and anti-American states like Iran and the “Bolivarian” regime in Venezuela. The longer this relationship
continues and the more it expands, the greater the chances of dangerous miscalculation . No matter how violence from the
Mexican cartels came to the United States, the key issue would be Washington’s response. If the Zetas, another Mexican cartel or someone acting in
their stead launched a campaign of assassinations or bombings in the United States or helped Hezbollah or some other
transnational terrorist organization with a mass casualty attack , and the Mexican government proved unwilling or unable to respond in a way that
Washington considered adequate, the United States would have to consider military action . While the United States has deep cultural and
Robert Bunker and John Sullivan considered narcotrafficker car bombs inside the United States to be unlikely but not impossible. A second way that
economic ties to Mexico and works closely with Mexican law enforcement on the narcotrafficking problem, the security relationship between the two has always been difficult—
understandably so given the long history of U.S. military intervention in Mexico. Mexico would be unlikely to allow the U.S. military or other government agencies free rein to
strike at narcotrafficking cartels in its territory, even if those organizations were tied to assassinations, bombings or terrorism in the United States. But
any U.S.
president would face immense political pressure to strike at America’s enemies if the Mexican government
Failing to act firmly and decisively would weaken the president and encourage
the Mexican cartels to believe that they could attack U.S. targets with impunity . After all, the primary
lesson from Sept. 11 was that playing only defense and allowing groups that attack the United States undisturbed foreign sanctuary
does not work. But using the U.S. military against the cartels on Mexican soil could weaken the Mexican government or even cause its collapse, end further security
could not or would not do so itself.
cooperation between Mexico and the United States and damage one of the most important and intimate bilateral economic relationships in the world. Quite simply, every
available strategic option would be disastrous.
US retaliation causes extinction
Avery 13 An Attack On Iran Could Escalate Into Global Nuclear War, John Scales Avery, B.Sc. in theoretical physics from MIT
and an M.Sc. from the University of Chicago, studied theoretical chemistry at the University of London, and was awarded a Ph.D.
now Lektor Emeritus, Associate Professor, at the Department of Chemistry, University of Copenhagen, 06 November, 2013,
http://www.countercurrents.org/avery061113.htm
Despite the willingness of Iran's new President, Hassan Rouhani to make all reasonable concessions to US demands, Israeli pressure groups in Washington continue to
an attack might escalate into a global nuclear war , with catastrophic
consequences. As we approach the 100th anniversary World War I, we should remember that this colossal disaster escalated uncontrollably from what was
intended to be a minor conflict. There is a danger that an attack o-n Iran would escalate into a large-scale war in
demand an attack on Iran. But such
the Middle East , entirely destabilizing a region that is already deep in problems. The unstable
government of Pakistan might be overthrown, and the revolutionary Pakistani government might enter the war on the side of Iran, thus
introducing nuclear weapons into the conflict. Russia and China , firm allies of Iran, might also be
drawn into a general war in the Middle East. Since much of the world's oil comes from the region, such a war would certainly cause the price
of oil to reach unheard-of heights, with catastrophic effects on the global economy. In the dangerous situation that could potentially result
from an attack on Iran, there is a risk that nuclear weapons would be used, either intentionally , or
by accident or miscalculation . Recent research has shown that besides making large areas of the
world uninhabitable through long-lasting radioactive contamination, a nuclear war would damage global
agriculture to such a extent that a global famine of previously unknown proportions would result.
Thus, nuclear war is the ultimate ecological catastrophe . It could destroy human civilization and
much of the biosphere . To risk such a war would be an unforgivable offense against the lives and future of all the peoples of the world, US citizens included.
Global Prohibition: 1AC
Federal Legalization sends a global signal in favor of ending drug prohibition—
causes a shift in other countries towards harm reduction strategies
Joshua D. Wild, “The Uncomfortable Truth about the United States’ Role in the Failure of the Global War on Drugs and How It is
Going to Fix It,” SUFFOLK TRANSNATIONAL LAW REVIEW v. 36, Summer 2013, p. 437-446
The War on Drugs' demise started when the bellicose analogy was created. n77 The correct classification of the global drug
problem was and still is as a set of interlinked health and social challenges to be managed, not a war
to be won. n78 The U.S. has worked strenuously for the past fifty years to ensure that all countries
adopt its rigid, prohibitionist approach to drug policy, essentially repressing the potential for
alternative policy development and experimentation. n79 This was an expensive mistake that the U.S.
unfortunately cannot take back. n80 The current emergence from the economic recession of 2008-2009 has set the stage for a
generational, political and cultural shift, placing the U.S. in a unique moment in its history; the necessary sociopolitical context to
revoke its prohibitionist ideals and replace them with more modern policies grounded in health, science and humanity. n81 The
U.S. can remedy its mistake by using its considerable diplomatic influence and international
presence to foster reform in other countries. n82 One way to do this is by capitalizing [*438] on this unique moment
in its existence and experimenting with models of legal regulation, specifically with marijuana because nearly half
of U.S. citizens favor legalization of it. n83 This will help redeem our image internationally and help repair
foreign relations because the monumental scope of the international marijuana market is largely created by the exorbitant
U.S. demand for the drug which partially stems from the illegality of the market. n84 B. Step 1: Recognize the Ineffectiveness of The
Global War on Drugs and Consider Alternatives An objective way to gauge the effectiveness of a drug policy is to examine how the
policy manages the most toxic drugs and the problems associated with them. n85 With that in mind, at the global level,
having one in five intravenous drug users have HIV and one in every two users having Hepatitis C
is clearly an epidemic and not the result of effective drug control policies. n86 The threat of arrest and
punishment as a deterrent from people using drugs is sound in theory, but in practice this hypothesis is tenuous. n87 Countries
that have enacted harsh, punitive laws have higher levels of drug use and related problems than
countries with more tolerant approaches. n88 Additionally, the countries that have experimented with
forms of legal regulation outside of punitive approaches have not seen rises in drug use and
dependence [*439] rates. n89 Therefore, one sensible first step in placing this issue back into a manageable position is for
national governments to encourage other governments to experiment with models of legal regulation of
drugs which fit their context. n90 This will in turn, undermine the criminal market, enhance national security, and allow other
countries to learn from their application. n91 1. Easier to Say Than Do - A Suggestion for Overcoming Difficulties Associated With
Legal Regulation For this movement to be successful and effectively manage the epidemic at hand there must be a broad
consensus around the world that the current drug control policies are morally harmful. n92 This consensus however is precluded by
the stigma and fear associated with more toxic drugs such as heroin. n93 This note does not propose that heroin and other toxic
drugs should be legalized but instead suggests that society and drug policies tend to consolidate and classify all illicit drugs as
equally dangerous. n94 This in turn restrains any progressive debate about experimenting with the regulation of different drugs
under different standards. n95 [*440] Regardless of these false dichotomies, which often restrain progressive debate, it is difficult
not to give credence to the idea of marijuana being socially acceptable when it has been by far the most widely produced and
consumed illicit drug. n96 There is between 125 and 203 million users worldwide and no indication of that number declining. n97
With this many users, it is reasonable to conclude that if the international community could reach a consensus about the moral
noxiousness of any drug control policy, the repression of marijuana would likely be it. n98 Marijuana, arguably socially
acceptable, represents a simple mechanism to enter into the experimentation process with the
legal regulation of drugs. n99 Without advocating for the UN to adopt new commissions or encouraging drastic moves such
as the decriminalization of all illicit substances, the global decriminalization of marijuana would be a relatively minor adjustment
compared to the monumental impact. n100 If national governments were to decriminalize marijuana, the scope of this movement
would essentially eradicate the public health problem of marijuana abuse and the associated criminality because of its illegal status.
n101 Public health problems can be remedied because it will afford governments the ability to regulate the market and control the
quality and price of the drug, essentially removing toxic impurities and setting a price that will diminish an illegal market. n102 This
will in turn diminish the criminal market [*441] by eradicating the need for users to commit crimes to procure marijuana and removing
the economic incentive for other countries to get involved in the drug's market. n103 Without arguing that this is the panacea for the
global war on drugs, proponents of legalization can aptly point to the archaic drug control policies in place and this macro approach
as an effective way to tackle the problem now. n104 C. Step 2: Real Reform - the U.S. Needs to Stand at the Forefront
of Drug Policy Reformation The U.S. wields considerable influence over the rest of the world, so it
is no surprise that its call for the development and maintenance of prohibitive, punitive drug
policies resulted in a majority of the international community following. n105 Conversely, if the U.S.
leads the call for the development and maintenance of more tolerant drug policies grounded in
health, humanity and science, a majority of the international community will also follow. n106 Cultural
shifts do not take place overnight, and the idea of complete U.S. drug policy reformation is too aggressive and stark in contrast to
succeed against modern bureaucracy and political alliances. n107 On the other hand, a more moderate, piecemeal approach could
effectively act as a catalyst for this transformation while simultaneously serving as a case study for opponents of legal regulation.
n108 [*442] If the U.S. is serious about addressing the ineffectiveness of the War on Drugs, then the
federal government must remove marijuana from its list of criminally banned substances. n109 The
tone of the Obama administration is a significant step in this direction. n110 President Obama has explicitly acknowledged the need
to treat drugs as more of a public health problem, as well as the validity of debate on alternatives, but he does not favor drug
legalization. n111 This progressive rhetoric is a significant step in the right direction, but until there is
some real reform confronting the issue, reducing punitive measures and supporting other countries to develop drug
policies that suit their context, there is still an abdication of policy responsibility. n112 1. Starting Small - Potential
Positive Effects of Regulation and Taxation of Marijuana in the U.S. If marijuana was legal in the U.S., it would function similarly to
the market of legal substances such as liquor, coffee and tobacco. n113 Individual and corporate participants in the market would
pay taxes, increasing revenues and saving the government from the exorbitant cost of trying to enforce prohibition laws. n114
Consumers' human rights would be promoted through self-determination, autonomy and access to more accurate information about
the product they are consuming. n115 Additionally, case studies and research suggest that the decriminalization or legalization
[*443] of marijuana reduces the drugs' consumption and does not necessarily result in a more favorable attitude towards it. n116
The legal regulation of marijuana would relieve the current displaced burden the drug places on law enforcement, domestically and
internationally. n117 In the U.S., law enforcement could refocus their efforts away from reducing the marijuana market per se and
instead towards reducing harm to individuals, communities and national security. n118 Abroad, U.S. international
relations would improve because of the reduced levels of corruption and violence at home and
afar. n119 The precarious position repressive policies place on foreign governments when they have to destroy
the livelihoods of agricultural workers would be reduced. n120 Additionally, legalization and regulation
would provide assistance to governments in regaining some degree of control over the regions
dominated by drug dealers and terrorist groups because those groups would lose a major source
of funding for their organizations. n121 2. Health Concerns? - Marijuana in Comparison to Other Similar Legal
Substances The federal government, acknowledging the risks inherent in alcohol and tobacco, argues that adding a third substance
to that mix cannot be beneficial. n122 Adding anything to a class of [*444] dangerous substances is likely never going to be
beneficial; however marijuana would be incorrectly classified if it was equated with those two substances. n123 Marijuana is far less
toxic and addictive than alcohol and tobacco. n124 Long term use of marijuana is far less damaging than long term alcohol or
tobacco use. n125 Alcohol use contributes to aggressive and reckless behavior, acts of violence and serious injuries while
marijuana actually reduces likelihood of aggressive behavior or violence during intoxication and is seldom associated with
emergency room visits. n126 As with most things in life, there can be no guarantee that the legalization or decriminalization of
marijuana would lead the U.S. to a better socio-economical position in the future. n127 Two things however, are certain: that the
legalization of marijuana in the U.S. would dramatically reduce most of the costs associated with the current drug policies,
domestically and internationally, and [*445] if the U.S. is serious about its objective of considering the costs
of drug control measures, then it is vital and rational for the legalization option is considered . n128
D. Why the Time is Ripe for U.S. Drug Policy Reformation The political atmosphere at the end of
World War I and II was leverage for the U.S., emerging as the dominant political, economic and military
power. n129 This leverage allowed it to shape a prohibitive drug control regime that until now has
remained in perpetuity. n130 Today, we stand in a unique moment inside of U.S. history. n131 The
generational, political and cultural shifts that accompanied the U.S. emergence from the "Great
Recession" resulted in a sociopolitical climate that may be what is necessary for real reform. n132
Politically, marijuana has become a hot issue; economically, the marijuana industry is bolstering a faltering economy and socially,
marijuana is poised to transform the way we live and view medicine. n133 The public disdain for the widespread problems
prohibition caused in the early 20th century resulted in the end of alcohol prohibition during the Great Depression. n134 If history
does actually repeat itself than the Great recession may have been much more telling than expected. n135 V. Conclusion The U.S.
and its prohibitionist ideals exacerbated the failure of both the international and its own domestic drug policies. n136 As a result,
the U.S. should accept accountability for its mistakes by reforming its drug policies in a way that
will help [*446] place the global drug market back into a manageable position . n137 Marijuana is an
actionable, evidence based mechanism for constructive legal and policy reform that through a domino effect
can transform the global drug prohibition regime . n138 The generational, political and cultural shifts that
accompanied the U.S. emergence from the "Great Recession" have resulted in a sociopolitical climate ready for real reform. n139
The U.S. will capitalize on this unique moment by removing marijuana from the list of federally banned substances,
setting the stage for future international and domestic drug policies that are actually effective. n140
China needs to shift to a harm reduction model to avoid economic and social
instability—acting now is key
Verity Robins, “China’s Flawed Drugs Policy,” Foreign Policy Centre, 6—22—11, http://fpc.org.uk/articles/514, accessed 12-2014.
China has woken up to its drug problem, but it is failing woefully in trying to tackle it. Nestled between two major heroin-producing
regions, the Golden Triangle (Burma, Thailand, Laos, Vietnam) and the Golden Crescent (Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iran), China has
long been a transit path for drugs headed toward the rest of the world. Along an ever-expanding network of routes that lead to
China's international seaports, domestic heroin use is soaring. No longer just a transit country, it now has a sizable user population
of its own. The
rise in domestic heroin addiction has had disastrous social consequences, with an
increase in Chinese drug cultivation and organised criminal activity, as well as a rise in intravenous
drug use and a spiralling HIV/AIDS epidemic. China's role as a drugs conduit has increased considerably over the
past two decades. Throughout the 20th century, opium and later heroin, from the Golden Triangle, was smuggled to Thailand's
seaports and then on to satiate drug markets throughout the world. More effective law enforcement and a stricter drug policy in
Thailand in the late 1980s and early 90s reduced the state as an effective trafficking route. Concurrently, Burmese drug lord Khun
Sa, the prime heroin producer and distributer along the Thai-Burmese border, surrendered to the Burmese authorities. With the
collapse of Khun Sa's army, Burma's foremost heroin trafficking route into Thailand was disrupted. Consequently, China's role as a
narcotics conduit became even more crucial. Well over half the heroin produced in the Golden Triangle now travels through China,
wending its way through southern provinces Yunnan, Guangxi and Guangdong towards Hong Kong. This shift in regional drug trade
routes coincided with rapid economic development in China's southwest. More robust roads allow for faster and easier
transportation of illicit drugs, while an increased fiscal and technological ability to refine heroin locally has driven down its market
value and increased local consumption. By 1989, the HIV virus was detected amongst injecting drug users in China's most southwesterly province Yunnan. Needle sharing drove the epidemic, and HIV/AIDS rapidly spread to drug users in neighbouring
provinces and along trafficking routes. At the turn of the century, HIV infections had been reported in all 31 provinces, autonomous
regions and municipalities, with drug users accounting for 60-70 per cent of reported cases. While the Chinese government was
slow to engage substantively with a generalised AIDS epidemic in the country, a new administration taking office in 2003 under
President Hu Jintao accelerated the commitment to and implementation of evidence-based HIV policies. Having woken up to the
seriousness of its HIV/AIDS epidemic, the Chinese government sought increasingly progressive means to combat the crisis, calling
on a range of outside actors to implement new and innovative pilot projects. During the 2000s, the government seemingly revoked
its zero-tolerance attitude towards drug users, introducing needle exchange programmes and controlled methadone maintenance
treatments in the most affected areas. While the Chinese government continues to take a pragmatic
approach to its HIV/AIDS crisis, the good work of these projects is offset by the 2008 Narcotics Law
that vastly emphasises law enforcement over medical treatment in the government's response to drug use.
This law calls for the rehabilitation of illicit drug users and for their treatment as patients rather than as criminals, yet the law also
allows for the incarceration - without trial or judicial oversight – of individuals suspected by police of drug use for up to six years in
drug detention centres. To allow for this, the 2008 Narcotics Law considerably enhances police power to randomly search people for
possession of drugs, and to subject them to urine tests for drug use without reasonable suspicion of crime. The law also
empowers the police, rather than medical professionals, to make judgements on the nature of the suspected users' addiction,
and to subsequently assign alleged drug users to detention centres. According to Human Rights Watch, whilst in
detention centres suspected drug users receive no medical care, no support for quitting drugs, and no skills training for re-entering
society upon release. In the name of treatment, suspected drug users are confined under "horrific conditions, subject to cruel,
inhuman and degrading treatment, and forced to engage in unpaid labour". Not only is this law ineffective in tackling
China's growing drug problem and rehabilitating its users, but incarceration of suspected addicts
in detention centres represents a serious breach of the basic human rights guaranteed by both China's
domestic and international legal commitments. Furthermore, the law is a counter productive policy for combating
HIV/AIDS in China. The threat of forcible detention only discourages users from seeking
professional help to tackle their addictions, and from utilising needle exchange programmes for fear of incarceration. The
result is to encourage "underground" illicit drug use that leads to needle sharing and hence the
spread of HIV/AIDS. Effective tackling of illicit drug use requires developing voluntary, outpatient
treatment based upon effective, proven approaches to drug addiction. Specific reform of the law should reverse the
expanded police powers to detain suspected users without trial, and implement specific procedural mechanisms to protect the
health and human rights of drug users in a standardised and appropriate way. The Chinese government has sought to work with
outside actors in combating its HIV/AIDS epidemic, particularly in its most affected province Yunnan. The UK Department for
International Development (DfID) has been engaged in HIV/AIDS prevention throughout southwest China since the launch of the
China-UK HIV/AIDS Prevention and Care Programme in 2001. DfID's Multilateral Aid Review, published in March this year, cut all
future development aid to China. The discontinuation of DfID projects in southwest China will weaken efforts to prevent HIV/AIDS
and rehabilitate drug users in the region. It also lessens pressure on China to combat these issues in a reasonable and felicitous
way. The international donor community present in China must implement policies that reflect
realities on the ground by ensuring that the health care and treatment of drug users is at the core
of their HIV/AIDS policies. They should also use their position of influence to nudge Beijing to
rectify the flaws in the 2008 Narcotics Law with its negative implications for the human rights of suspected drug users, and
for combating the spread of HIV/AIDS. If the country's skyrocketing number of i ntra v enous drug users
and the resultant HIV/AIDS epidemic are left to fester , it could result in severe health
consequences, economic loss and social devastation . China still has time to act, but it should do
so now before it is too late.
AIDs spread causes extinction
Chaturaka Rodrigo, University Medical Unity, National Hospital of Sri Lanka and Senaka Rajapakse, Department of Clinical
Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, University of Colombo, “Current Status of HIV/AIDS in South Asia,’ JOURNAL OF GLOBAL
INFECTIOUS DISEASES, v. 1 n. 2, July-December 2009, pp. 93-101.
Infection with human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) and subsequent development of acquired immunodeficiency syndrome
(AIDS) poses a significant challenge to modern medicine and humanity. According to the United Nations joint
program on HIV/AIDS (UNAIDS), currently there are 33.2 million adults and children living with HIV/AIDS. The highest number of
Asia remains a potential breeding ground for an
epidemic. Given the massive population density, an epidemic in India and China will have a huge impact on
the global economy and human survival similar to that of sub-Saharan Africa.[2] It is estimated that in 2007 there
patients is reported from sub-Saharan Africa.[1] Outside Africa,
were 4.9 million people with HIV/AIDS in Asia, with 440,000 new infections.[2] Although heterosexual intercourse is considered the
main risk behavior for spread of HIV in Africa, in Asia it is intravenous drug use (IVDU).[3] However, in South Asia, transmission via
sexual contact is predominant.[4] All countries in the South Asian region are still considered to have a low prevalence of HIV, though
numbers are increasing in Pakistan and Nepal.[5] There are many risk factors in the region favoring an
epidemic of HIV, such as illiteracy, poor economic status, poor sanitary and health facilities,
social taboos on discussion of sex and malnutrition. The high prevalence of tuberculosis in the region will play a
significant role in reducing life expectancy should HIV/AIDS rates rise.[6]
Instability causes diversionary wars in the South China Sea
Cole 14
Taipei-based journalist and contributor to The Diplomat who focuses on military issues in Northeast Asia and in the
Taiwan Strait. He previously served as an intelligence officer at the Canadian Security Intelligence Service, Where Would Beijing
Use External Distractions?, J Michael, http://thediplomat.com/2014/07/where-would-beijing-use-external-distractions/
Throughout history, embattled governments have often resorted to external distractions to tap
into a restive population’s nationalist sentiment and thereby release, or redirect, pressures that otherwise could
have been turned against those in power. Authoritarian regimes in particular, which deny their citizens the right to
punish the authorities through retributive democracy — that is, elections — have used this device to ensure their
survival during periods of domestic upheaval or financial crisis. Would the Chinese Communist Party (CCP), whose legitimacy is so
contingent on social stability and economic growth, go down the same path if it felt that its hold on power were threatened by domestic instability? Building on the premise that
the many contradictions that are inherent to the extraordinarily complex Chinese experiment, and rampant corruption that undermines stability, will eventually catch up with the
CCP, we can legitimately ask how, and where, Beijing could manufacture external crises with opponents against whom nationalist fervor, a major characteristic of contemporary
China, can be channeled. In past decades, the CCP has on several occasions tapped into public outrage to distract a disgruntled population, often by encouraging (and when
necessary containing) protests against external opponents, namely Japan and the United States. While serving as a convenient outlet, domestic protests, even when they
turned violent (e.g., attacks on Japanese manufacturers), were about as far as the CCP would allow. This self-imposed restraint, which was prevalent during the 1980s, 1990s
and 2000s, was a function both of China’s focus on building its economy (contingent on stable relations with its neighbors) and perceived military weakness. Since then, China
has established itself as the world’s second-largest economy and now deploys, thanks to more than a decade of double-digit defense budget growth, a first-rate modern military.
Those impressive achievements have, however, fueled Chinese
nationalism, which has increasingly approached
the dangerous zone of hubris . For many, China is now a rightful regional hegemon demanding respect, which if denied
can — and should — be met with threats, if not the application of force. While it might be tempting to attribute China’s recent
assertiveness in the South and East China Seas to the emergence of Xi Jinping, Xi alone cannot make all the decisions; nationalism
is a component that cannot be dissociated from this new phase in Chinese expressions of its power. As then-Chinese foreign
minister Yang Jiechi is said to have told his counterparts at a tense regional forum in Hanoi in 2010, “There is one basic difference
among us. China is a big state and you are smaller countries.” This newfound assertiveness within its backyard
thus makes it more feasible that, in times of serious trouble at home, the Chinese leadership
could seek to deflect potentially destabilizing anger by exploiting some external distraction .
Doing so is always a calculated risk, and sometimes the gambit fails, as Slobodan Milosevic learned the hard way when he tapped
into the furies of nationalism to appease mounting public discontent with his bungled economic policies. For an external distraction
to achieve its objective (that is, taking attention away from domestic issues by redirecting anger at an outside actor), it must not
result in failure or military defeat. In other words, except for the most extreme circumstances, such as the imminent collapse of a
regime, the decision to externalize a domestic crisis is a rational one: adventurism must be certain to achieve success, which in turn
will translate into political gains for the embattled regime. Risk-taking is therefore proportional to the seriousness of the destabilizing
forces within. Rule No. 1 for External Distractions:
The greater the domestic instability, the more risks a regime
will be willing to take , given that the scope and, above all, the symbolism of the victory in an external scenario must also be
greater. With this in mind, we can then ask which external distraction scenarios would Beijing be the most likely to turn to should
domestic disturbances compel it to do so. That is not to say that anything like this will happen anytime soon. It is nevertheless not
unreasonable to imagine such a possibility. The intensifying crackdown on critics of the CCP, the detention of lawyers, journalists
and activists, unrest in Xinjiang, random acts of terrorism, accrued censorship — all point to growing instability. What follows is a
very succinct (and by no means exhaustive) list of disputes, in descending order of likelihood, which Beijing could use for external
distraction. 1. South China Sea The
S outh C hina S ea, an area where China is embroiled in several
territorial disputes with smaller claimants, is ripe for exploitation as an external distraction .
Nationalist sentiment, along with the sense that the entire body of water is part of China’s
indivisible territory and therefore a “ core interest ,” are sufficient enough to foster a will to fight
should some “incident,” timed to counter unrest back home, force China to react. Barring a U.S. intervention,
which for the time being seems unlikely, the People’s Liberation Army (PLA) has both the numerical and qualitative advantage
against any would be opponent or combination thereof. The Philippines and Vietnam, two countries which have skirmished with
China in recent years, are the likeliest candidates for external distractions, as the costs of a brief conflict would be low and the
likelihood of military success fairly high. For a quick popularity boost and low-risk distraction, these opponents would best serve
Beijing’s interests.
That goes nuclear
Goldstein 13
(Avery Goldstein, Professor of Global Politics and International Relations, Director of the Center for the Study of
Contemporary China, University of Pennsylvania, “China’s Real and Present Danger”, Foreign Affairs, Sep/Oct 2013,
http://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/139651/avery-goldstein/chinas-real-and-present-danger) gender edited
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 United 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 miscalculation , there is no guarantee that brinkmanship [brinkspersonship] 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.¶ 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.
Legalization of marijuana in Morocco is key to stability—they model US policy
Roslington and Pack 13 (James, PhD candidate in North African history at the University of Cambridge, and Jason, 11-413, "Morocco's Growing Cannabis Debate" Foreign Policy)
mideastafrica.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2013/11/04/morocco_s_growing_cannabis_debate
Cognizant of developments in the U nited S tates in Colorado and Washington state, Moroccan social media
has been abuzz this summer with a seemingly unlikely possibility: the legalization of cannabis. Activists and
politicians in Morocco are close to firming up a date later this month for the parliament to host a
seminar on the economic implications of legalization. The powerful Party of Authenticity and Modernity will chair
the daylong seminar. This has led some commentators to speculate that the move may even have the
blessing of the monarchy. Morocco regularly vies with Afghanistan for the title of the world's
biggest producer of cannabis -- its output was recently estimated at nearly 40,000 tons annually -- yet open debate on the
role of the plant in the country's economy remains infrequent. In recent years, despite improvements in
production, both small farmers and big producers have seen their cannabis -related income plummet.
Political moves to legalize cannabis are a recognition that Morocco's drug policy has failed. For
decades, farmers in the Rif region in the north have been tacitly allowed to cultivate the herb as an escape from dire poverty. At the
same time, occasional crackdowns and arbitrary detentions of growers ensured that the central state kept a firm grip on the region.
This policy worked well for decades but is now beginning to unravel as profits fall and unrest rises. During the late 1960s, technical
advances meant that farmers could transform the raw product into resin (aka "hash") for export to the European market. When
inexpensive Moroccan hash began to flow northwards in ever increasing quantities, European counter-cultural movements
differentiated themselves from American pot-smoking hippies by mixing hash with tobacco and rolling it into joints. The new
European hash culture spread rapidly due to its bare bones simplicity -- fancy implements like pipes and bongs were not needed. In
the 1980s, the Moroccan cannabis business boomed as big producers and middlemen made fortunes, pouring their profits into
luxury villas and ostentatious displays of wealth. By the 1990s, northern Morocco had become the hash capital of the world. But the
As part of the international war on drugs, Morocco came under pressure to
crack down on cannabis cultivation. European Union coastguards stepped up their patrols looking for drug shipments
good times couldn't last.
from North Africa. There were even claims that Moroccan drug-money was financing terrorism, especially in response to the Madrid
bombings in 2003. Once stemming the Moroccan drug trade could be rhetorically situated as part of President George W. Bush's
the pressure on Morocco to eradicate the cannabis fields in the north became
unbearable. Yet more crucial than geopolitics or government crackdowns, the all-important European market had begun to
Global War on Terror,
change. Evolving tastes played a part: in a world of designer drugs and legal highs, hash became increasingly uncool and prosaic.
As cheap hash lost its cachet, sophisticated consumers switched to high-priced designer strains of pot. Rather than smelling like tar
and looking like packaged mud, they had pleasing aromas, pretty buds, and catchy names like "purple haze." Even more important
than all these changes in consumer taste profiles, European drug gangs have cut net costs to consumers by growing their own
weed in large-scale farms. For example, it is now estimated that 80 percent of cannabis consumed in the Britain is homegrown. The
decreased European demand for imported cannabis has meant trouble for farmers in Morocco. The risks
and rewards of the trade were always unfairly split, with small farmers more exposed to fluctuations in price and police repression
than wealthy middlemen. Complaints about the lack of state investment and systemic police corruption, combined with the
zeitgeist of the "Arab Spring," led to large-scale protests in Morocco during 2011 and 2012. Although the outbursts
have subsided, simmering discontent still mingles with sporadic local protests -- currently focused on the small town of Targuist in
Falling yields and the government's unpopular eradication program formed a
backdrop to the unrest as the protests spread to the heartland of cannabis country in Ketama in
January. The Moroccan government has recognized that whack-a-mole policing, by itself, can no
longer deal with popular discontent. As part of the Moroccan strategy to insulate itself from the unrest plaguing its
the central Rif.
neighbors, the state appears to have switched tack -- now preferring to employ carrots as well as sticks to tighten its political grip
over the restive north. To buttress these efforts, the supreme political authority in Morocco is clearly exploring the possibility of
legislation to legalize cannabis. Legalization would boost tax revenue and prop up the economy of the region .
As early as May 2009, Fouad Ali el Himma, one of the king's closest confidants, called for a national debate on cannabis and an end
to arbitrary detention of its growers. Potentially influenced by trends in places like California, Himma argued that cannabis should be
These ideas are now gaining
momentum with expressions of interest from virtually all the major Moroccan political parties . Even the Islamist
rebranded as a traditional Moroccan herbal palliative rather than an illegal drug.
Party of Justice and Development has cautiously welcomed the draft proposals -- presumably because the party is mindful that it
now occupies a minority presence in the cabinet and could benefit from going with the flow.
Instability in Morocco causes phosphorus shortages which threaten global food
production
Sydney Morning Herald 11 (Quoting Stuart White and Dana Cordell, professors from the Institute for Sustainable
Futures, 2-2-11, "Unstable Middle East threatens phosphate" Sydney Morning Herald) news.smh.com.au/breaking-newsbusiness/unstable-middle-east-threatens-phosphate-20110202-1ad7m.html
Instability in the Middle East and North Africa could disrupt supplies of phosphate rock and threaten
global food security, say two Australian academics. Phosphorus is an important component of
fertiliser. A high proportion of phosphate rock reserves are in the Middle East and Africa. Professor Stuart White and Dr
Dana Cordell from the Institute for Sustainable Futures at the University of Technology, Sydney, are among researchers
investigating a possible peak in phosphate rock production before the end of the century. Advertisement Speaking in the United
States at the Sustainable Phosphorus Summit at Arizona State University, they said regional instability was an extra
component in the potential gap between supply and demand in global phosphorus resources.
" Morocco alone controls the vast majority of the world's remaining high-quality phosphate rock,"
Prof White said in a statement. " Even a temporary disruption to the supply of phosphate on the
world market can have serious ramifications for nations' food security. Prof White said that even
before the peak in phosphorus production, there is a prospect of significant rises in prices and a consequent
impact upon farmers and global crop yields.
Food scarcity causes wars that go nuclear
Future Directions International (FDI), Australian research institute, “International Conflict Triggers and Potential Conflict Points
Resulting from Food and Water Insecurity,” WORKSHOP REPORT, Global Food and Water Crisis Research Programme, 5—25—
12, p. 8-9.
There is a growing appreciation that the conflicts in the next century
will most likely be fought over a lack of
resources. Yet, in a sense, this is not new. Researchers point to the French and Russian revolutions as
conflicts induced by a lack of food. More recently, Germany’s World War Two efforts are said to have been
inspired, at least in part, by its perceived need to gain access to more food. Yet the general sense among those that
attended FDI’s recent workshops, was that the scale of the problem in the future could be significantly greater as
a result of population pressures, changing weather, urbanisation, migration, loss of arable land and other farm inputs, and increased
affluence in the developing world. In his book, Small Farmers Secure Food, Lindsay Falvey, a participant in FDI’s March 2012
workshop on the issue of food and conflict, clearly expresses the problem and why countries across the 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.” As another workshop participant put it, people do not go to war to kill; they go to
war over resources, either to protect or to gain the resources for themselves. Another observed that hunger results in passivity not
conflict. Conflict is over resources, not because people are going hungry. A study by the [IPRI] International Peace Research
indicates that where food security is an issue, it is more likely to result in some form of conflict.
Darfur, Rwanda, Eritrea and the Balkans experienced such wars. Governments, especially in developed
countries, are increasingly aware of this phenomenon. The UK Ministry of Defence, the CIA, the [CSIS] US Center for
Strategic and International Studies and the Oslo Peace Research Institute [OPRI], all identify famine as a potential
trigger for conflicts and possibly even nuclear war.
Institute
CRE: 1AC
Commercial real estate values are struggling to recover in large parts of the
country—borrowers are coming up short
Mulholland 11-25-14 (Sarah, reporter, "Refinancing Boom Exposing Risks in U.S. Property Bonds" Bloomberg)
www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-11-25/refinancing-boom-exposing-risks-in-u-s-property-bonds.html
Investors may be over-estimating the recovery, said Morgan Stanley’s Hill. Even as prices for top-tier real estate in
prime locations surge to new records, values for many buildings in smaller cities and towns are
languishing . “The assumption that property values are now above their 2007 peak is not
necessarily a fair assumption,” he said. “This begs the question: Are expectations too high now?” While debt backed by
good properties in large cities shouldn’t be difficult to refinance, borrowers in large swaths of the country where
values have been largely flat will come up short , R3’s Potter said. “ Somebody will have to take the
pain ,” he said. “Something’s got to give.”
These underwater commercial mortgages from the height of the real estate
bubble are a ticking time bomb that threatens to crash the banking sector
Kaufman 11 (Ted, US senator from Delaware, 2-4-11, "COMMERCIAL REAL ESTATE'S IMPACT ON BANK STABILITY"
Congressional Oversight Panel_ www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CHRG-112shrg65083/html/CHRG-112shrg65083.htm
Our hearing this morning will explore one of those threats in detail: the troubled market for commercial real estate loans.
Commercial mortgages are exactly what they sound like, the loans taken out by developers to buy, build,
and maintain commercial properties. Almost everyone who lives in an apartment, works in an office building, or shops
in a mall has spent time in a building that owes its existence to a commercial mortgage. Most commercial mortgages
have terms of 3 to 10 years, but the monthly payments are too low and--to fully repay the loan in
that period. At the end of the term, the entire remaining balance comes due, and the borrower must take
out a new loan to finance its continued ownership of that property. Put another way, a commercial borrower must reapply for credit
every few years. In today's market, where banks remain hesitant to lend and the values of commercial
properties have fallen by a third , many borrowers will be turned down. The loans at greatest risk
are those made at the peak of the real estate bubble, obviously; loans that will come due for refinancing in 2011,
2012, and 2013, and beyond. In essence, the term of a commercial loan creates a lag between the moment
the market collapses and the moment that the economic impact is felt. The fuse has been lit, but
no one knows how much damage will occur when it finally burns down. The Congress Oversight Panel
has been closely monitoring the commercial real estate market since its first hearing on the subject, in May have 2009. The panel
issued a comprehensive report in February 2010. Even after almost 2 years, the panel remains deeply concerned. In fact, just last
month, the missed payment rate for commercial mortgage-backed securities reached an all time high of over 9.3 percent. The
commercial real estate market encompasses $3.4 trillion in debt. If borrowers default in large
numbers, commercial properties could face a wave of foreclosures . Customers, businesses, and renters in
those properties could face uncertainty, and even eviction. Small banks, in particular, could face insolvency , as nearly
1,300 banks nationwide are considered by regulators to have concentrations in commercial real estate. Concerns about commercial
real estate also illuminate a broader theme of our oversight work, that even in a crisis, while authorities must deal
with the short-term dangers, they must also be vigilant to the longer-term threats. If a small bank
survived the financial crisis, thanks to the TARP, but collapses next year, due to commercial real estate
losses, then TARP support will have served only to postpone the inevitable. Further, more than 500 small
banks continue to hold TARP money. And the greater the degree of these banks' exposure to commercial real estate, the lower is
the likelihood that taxpayers recover all of our money.
They’re beginning to drag on bank coffers now
Heschmeyer 9-3-14 (Mark, "CRE Lending by Banks Surpasses Pre-Recession Levels" CoStar)
www.costar.com/News/Article/CRE-Lending-by-Banks-Surpasses-Pre-Recession-Levels/163695
loans
from those heady days of 2007 are still acting as a drag on bank coffers , though much less of one. The total
volume of CRE loans made by banks as of June 30 is now 2% higher than it was going into the
U.S. bank lending on commercial real estate has now rebounded to levels not seen since before the Great Recession, but
summer of 2007. Total CRE loans on the books of the nation’s 6,680 FDIC-insured banks stands at $1.63 trillion vs $1.60
trillion as of March 31, 2007, according to the latest FDIC numbers released last week. Those numbers also continue to
show the damage done by the two-year long real estate-fueled recession and the five years of
climbing back. There are 1,982 fewer insured bank and savings institutions today than there were
then, and the ones remaining are saddled with 528% more foreclosed properties on their books than
reported in March 2007. Total ‘other real estate owned’ (i.e. foreclosed upon) properties on bank books stands at a hefty $14.16
billion today vs just $2.26 billion seven years ago. Residential construction and development properties make up more than half of
the foreclosed inventory. In fact, construction and development lending is still the one segment of banks' CRE lending that has not
recovered from the recession. The total amount of such loans is down 62% than it was in March 2007: $223 billion today vs. $582
billion then.
Plan gives a huge boost to commercial real estate values—federal action is key
Garcia 14 (Nelson, entrepreneur specializing in commercial real estate, 7-2-14, "The Other “Green” Real Estate Legalization of
Marijuana and its Impact on Commercial Real Estate" The Realnovator) therealnovator.com/green-real-estate/
American’s today feel differently about pot than they did twenty, ten, even one year ago. Startup Business Failure Rate By Industry
Source: 1991, 2010, 2013, 2014 In two U.S. states — Washington and Colorado — marijuana is now legal for
recreational use, driving the debate about how it should best be regulated, consumed and taxed as it gains acceptance across
the U.S. and in other countries. These states’ decisions are also contrary to federal statues , hence marijuana
still being illegal in the Fed’s eyes. U.S. policy is also finally acknowledging that hemp, a cannabis plant related to marijuana but
lacking the THC chemical that makes marijuana users high, can help restore our agricultural economy. Industrial hemp is harvested
in other countries for its versatile use in food products, textiles and building and construction materials. It also takes half the water
that wheat does, and provides four times the income. A provision in the 2014 farm bill signed by President Obama on Feb. 7 allowed
for the establishment of pilot growing programs. This generational shift, which is also driving acceptance of other trends like samesex marriage, is causing a domino effect and forcing legislative change faster than had previously been imagined.
mj_legalization_map So what does it have to do with real estate? marijuana_blog_icon_small First, it’s big
business. The cannabis industry could generate about $20 billion a year, or more, if it was legal
nationally, according to Jeffrey Miron, an economics professor at Harvard University. Many believe that
the most promising and overlooked opportunities will be in ancillary businesses, commercial real
estate being one . “Most of the guys digging the gold ore in the gold rush didn’t make much
money but the vendors selling picks and shovels made a killing.” So before one gets to enjoy the
devil’s lettuce, it needs to be cultivated and grown (generally indoors for reasons of quality and state laws),
packaged, distributed and sold. This requires land and warehouse space (cultivation & production
facilities), retail space to sell it (dispensaries) and office space to manage it (corporate offices, testing labs, etc.).
Grow facilities range anywhere from a couple of thousand square feet, up to 50,000 square feet.
Retail dispensaries typically lease between 1,000 and 3,000 square feet (think size of today’s e-cig stores).
Then you also have the benefit of “marijuana tourism” driving significant hotel demand to these firstto-legalize cities. Coinciding with the legalization of recreational marijuana, Denver hotel occupancies and average daily room rates
have climbed to all-time peaks. Growth rates experienced are comparable to what metros see when they host the Super Bowl or the
Republican or Democratic national conventions. Evidently the most irregular jump in demand is coming from states with the strictest
drug laws in the country. So you have an entirely new demand driver being created for various types of
properties in places where legalization of marijuana occurs. High Times in Coloradodispensary_line Colorado in
particular has been a great test bed for legalization of marijuana and a preview of what’s in store for
the rest of the country when inevitable country-wide legalization occurs. In Denver for example, the theme
seems to be “you can’t grow the stuff fast enough”. The legalization of marijuana has created a
boom, so much so that some recreational stores have been forced to curtail sales because strong
demand from customers has outpaced supply. Marijuana for recreational use also appears to be a
net positive for real estate, not only for industrial space but for retail and office space as well
according to Todd Davis, with Cassidy Turley’s San Diego office. In fact, there’s actually a shortage of warehouses
in Denver’s industrial real estate market. Denver’s industrial vacancy rate of 3.1 percent is
abnormally low — the lowest in decades, according to brokerage firm Colliers International. Commercial real estate tracker
Xceligent Inc. estimates that marijuana cultivation and manufacturing facilities in the city occupy about 4.5 million square feet — the
equivalent of 78 football fields. Where’s the financing?pot_bank Capital in the industry often comes in the form of cash. A marijuanarelated tenant’s credit is sometimes a duffel bag full of $100 bills. Marijuana’s illegal status under federal law
means banks cannot take deposits, nor lend money to marijuana-related businesses as most are
regulated by federal laws and can face harsh penalty and even loss of charter. Insurance companies and
institutional investors remain wary of participating, while there are cases of CMBS loans secured by retail containing marijuana-
related tenants. Some banks such as Wells Fargo have forced landlords to drop marijuana-related tenants in order to keep a loan,
while others have even begun moving immediately to eviction or simply calling the note. In step the opportunistic lenders. Private
equity backed lenders, like Montegra Capital Resources, have heeded the call and begun offering short-term, high interest rate
loans to properties occupied by marijuana-related tenants. These loans are bridges to the hopeful event that federal regulators
come around and allow the industry to access banking services like any other business. Earlier this year the Feds gave guidance for
banks on how to deal with marijuana focused businesses, though operators continue to have a difficult time opening bank accounts
and establishing lines of credit. Industry experts claim that the only real solution is an act of Congress, which isn’t likely in the near
future. “Put simply: Banks need the permanence of law versus changeable guidance,” said Colorado Bankers Association president
and CEO Don Childears. Until then, there’s a major opportunity for bold entrepreneurs and institutions that are willing to provide
Still, not many
landlords are cool with the reefer Since federal law makes it impossible to obtain financing,
many cannabis operations can’t afford to purchase land outright and are either forced into risky
and unattractive leases , or face tying up capital in real estate and having working capital
shortages that can inhibit their ability to capitalize on the industry’s rapid growth rates. As a
landlord, even if I was the biggest advocate for the legalization of marijuana, I’d still have a
business to run and would have to acknowledge certain potential issues if considering a
marijuana-related business as a tenant. These include anything from being at risk of federal
forfeiture , concerns of impact to other tenants and putting me in violation of requirements under
deposit and loan agreements, or losing my credit facility with the bank. Landlords who are
taking on these types of tenants are the minority and will continue to be until Uncle Sam makes
them all comfortable at the federal level. Those that are accepting the risk are reaping the rewards, but also taking
financing to this industry so long as they do their homework and are comfortable with the risks involved.
proper precaution such as inserting special provisions in lease agreements like 30-day lease termination notices and stringent
operational and signage restrictions.
Higher commercial real estate prices are key to increase bank lending
Olszewski 12 (Krzysztof, Economic Institute, National Bank of Poland, Warsaw, 12, "National Bank of Poland Working Paper"
No. 132) file:///C:/Users/Miranda/Downloads/SSRN-id2190851.pdf
2.2 Linkage between banks and the commercial real estate sector Commercial property is financed to a large extent by banks.
According to Davis and Zhu (2011, p. 2) banks "lend for the purchase of land for development and existing buildings; they finance
construction projects; they lend to non-banks and financial companies that may finance real state; and they lend to non-financial
firms based on real estate collateral". This means that the willingness and ability of banks to lend significantly affects commercial
real estate investment and transactions. At the same time, the property cycle has an impact on the performance
of banks. Davis and Zhu (2009) found empirical evidence that when commercial real estate prices
decline, non-performing loans increase, which negatively affects the balance sheet of banks and
decreases their capital base. Thus, when commercial property prices decline, banks will lend less.
This in turn will affect the overall economic activity negatively , and consequently demand for commercial
property and their price will deteriorate further. Davis and Zhu (2011) investigated the relationship between bank lending and
commercial real estate prices. Their model states that macroeconomic shocks like GDP growth or interest rate changes affect
property prices and bank lending. It indicates that credit supply has a positive effect on property prices in the short run, but will
decrease them in the long run. GDP growth and falling interest rates should increase property prices. Further on, the
theoretical model implies that property prices increase bank lending . Their empirical analysis,
which covers 17 developed countries in the period 1970-2003, supports the implications of the
theoretical model. However, as concerns the magnitude of the impact, property prices seem to affect bank
lending much stronger than bank lending affects property prices. Further on, Davis and Zhu (2011) find that around 47% of price
variation is autonomous, while only 33% of credit is autonomous. The authors point out that the dynamics vary significantly among
countries and different phases of the cycle. They stress the fact that bank managers and regulators need to understand the property
cycle and detect its deviation from macroeconomic fundamentals. Davis and Zhu (2011) also 12 point out that sound credit
assessment, diversification across projects and adequate capital reserves are a necessary but not a sufficient condition to mitigate
the shock, which a downturn in the property market can generate. They also conclude that
commercial property , which is
used as collateral, can lead to credit expansion if its price grows . In turn, the credit expansion can make the prices
grow further. In order to prevent boom-bust cycles and deterioration of bank performance, banks have to be strict with their loan
management. In any case, a prudent loan management has to base on reliable valuation of property, but the valuation process can
be biased and lead to misleading results.
Small businesses are facing a credit crunch—increased bank lending is
necessary to reverse this trend
Mitchell 14 (Stacy, advocates for indpendent business, 4-16-14, "Backgrounder: The Small Business Credit Crunch"
Independent We Stand) www.independentwestand.org/backgrounder-small-business-credit-crunch/
A significant share of locally owned businesses are struggling to secure the financing they need
to grow. Our 2014 Independent Business Survey found that 42 percent of local businesses that
needed a loan in the previous two years had been unable to obtain one. Another survey by the
National Small Business Association likewise found that 43 percent of small businesses who had
sought a loan in the preceding four years were unsuccessful. Among those who did obtain
financing, the survey found, “twenty-nine percent report having their loans or lines of credit
reduced in the last four years and nearly one in 10 had their loan or line of credit called in early by
the bank.” Other research shows that the businesses having the most difficult time financing their growth are those owned by
women and minorities, startups, and very small businesses (under 20 employees). One consequence of this credit shortage is that
many small businesses are not adequately capitalized and thus are more vulnerable to failing.
Moreover, a growing number of small businesses are relying on high-cost alternatives to conventional bank loans, including credit
cards, to finance their growth. In 1993, only 16 percent of business owners reported relying on credit cards for financing in a federal
survey. By 2008, that figure had jumped to 44 percent. The difficulty small businesses are having in obtaining
financing is a major concern for the economy. Historically, about two-thirds of net new job
creation has come from small business growth. Studies show locally owned businesses
contribute significantly to the economic well-being and social capital of communities. Yet, the number
of new start-up businesses has fallen by one-fifth over the last 30 years (adjusted for population change), as has the overall number
and market share of small local firms. Inadequate access to loans and financing is one of the factors driving this trend. Sources of
Small Business Financing Unlike large corporations, which have access to the equity and bond markets for financing,
small businesses depend primarily on credit. About three-quarters of small business credit comes
from traditional financial institutions (banks and credit unions). The rest comes primarily from finance
companies and vendors. At the beginning of 2014, banks and credit unions had about $630 billion in small business loans —
commonly defined as business loans under $1 million — on their books, according to FDIC. “Micro” business loans — those under
$100,000 — account for a little less than one-quarter of this, or about $150 billion. (One caveat about this data: Because of the way
the FDIC publishes its data, this figure includes not only installment loans, but credit provided through small business credit cards.)
Banks provide the lion’s share of small business credit, about 93 percent. But there is significant variation
in small business lending based on bank size. Small and mid-sized banks hold only 21 percent of bank assets, but account for 54
percent of all the credit provided to small businesses. As bank size increases, their support of small businesses declines, with the
biggest banks devoting very little of their assets to small business loans. The top 4 banks (Bank of America, Wells, Citi, and Chase)
control 43 percent of all banking assets, but provide only 16 percent of small business loans. (See this graph.)
Small businesses are key to economic growth—access to credit is key
Mills and McCarthy 14 (Karen Senior Fellow at Harvard Business School and at the Mossavar‐Rahmani Center for
Business and Government at the Harvard Kennedy School focusing on U.S. competitiveness, entrepreneurship and innovation, and
Brayden, Research Associate at Harvard Business School in 2014. He was formerly a senior policy advisor at the White House
National Economic Council and the U.S. Small Business Administration, 7-22-14, "The State of Small Business Lending: Credit
Access during the Recovery and How Technology May Change the Game" Harvard Business School)
www.hbs.edu/faculty/Publication%20Files/15-004_09b1bf8b-eb2a-4e63-9c4e-0374f770856f.pdf
Small businesses are core to America’s economic competitiveness . Not only do they employ half
of the nation’s private sector workforce – about 120 million people – but since 1995 they have created
approximately two‐thirds of the net new jobs in our country . Yet in recent years, small
businesses have been slow to recover from a recession and credit crisis that hit them especially
hard . This lag has prompted the question, “Is there a credit gap in small business lending?” This paper compiles
and analyzes the current state of access to bank capital for small business from the best available sources. We explore both the
cyclical impact of the recession on small business and access to credit, and several structural issues in that impede the full recovery
of bank credit markets for smaller loans. One answer may be the emerging, dynamic market of online lenders that are using
technology to disrupt the small business lending market. Though small relative to the traditional bank market, these new competitors
are providing fast turnaround and online accessibility for customers, and are often using data to create more accurate credit scoring
algorithms. Their presence raises many new questions including, who should regulate these new markets? And what will
established players do? Finally, if these innovators are the answer to filling the small business credit gap particularly in underserved
markets, how do we ensure this does not become the next subprime market?
Small businesses are critical to job
creation in the U.S. economy. Small businesses create two out of every three net new jobs. Small firms employ half of
the private sector workforce, and since 1995 small businesses have created about two out of every three net new jobs—65 percent
of total net job creation. Most small businesses are Main Street businesses or sole proprietorships. Of America’s 28.7 million small
businesses, half of all small firms are home‐ based, and 23 million are sole proprietorships. The remaining 5.7 million small firms
have employees, and can be divided up into Main Street mom and pop businesses, small‐ and medium‐sized suppliers to larger
corporations, and high‐growth startups. Small businesses were hit harder than larger businesses during the
2008 financial crisis, and have been slower to recover from a recession of unusual depth and
duration. Small firms were hit harder than large firms during the crisis, with the smallest firms hit hardest. Between 2007 and
2012, the small business share of total net job losses was about 60 percent. From the employment peak before the recession until
the last low point in March 2009, jobs at small firms fell about 11 percent. By contrast, payrolls at larger businesses shrank by about
7 percent. This disparity was even more significant among the smallest of small businesses. Jobs declined 14.1 percent in
establishments with fewer than 50 employees, compared with 9.5 percent in businesses with 50 to 500 employees, while overall
employment decreased 8.4 percent. Financial crises tend to hit small firms harder than large firms. As the
academic literature underscores, small firms are always hit harder during financial crises because they are
more dependent on bank capital to fund their growth. Credit markets act as a “ financial
accelerator ” for small firms, such that they feel the credit market swings up and down more
acutely . Small businesses are back to creating two out of every three net new jobs in the U.S., but
there remains a significant jobs gap. Small businesses have created jobs in every quarter since 2010, and are back to
creating two out of every three net new jobs. But, as Brookings data reveals, we are still well below the job creation
levels that we need to see to fill the “jobs gap” left in the wake the recession. Bank credit,
particularly through term loans, is one of the primary sources of external financing for small
businesses—especially Main Street firms—and is key to helping small firms maintain cash flow, hire new
employees, purchase new inventory or equipment, and grow their business. Bank loans have
historically been critical for small businesses. Unlike large firms, small businesses lack access to
public institutional debt and equity capital markets and the vicissitudes of small business profits
makes retained earnings a necessarily less stable source of capital. About 48 percent of business owners
report a major bank as their primary financing relationship, with another 34 percent noting that a regional or community bank is their
main financing partner for capital.
US growth is key to reverse stagnation
Caploe ‘9 (David Caploe is CEO of the Singapore-incorporated American Centre for Applied Liberal Arts and Humanities in
Asia., “Focus still on America to lead global recovery”, April 7, The Strait Times, lexis)
IN THE aftermath of the G-20 summit, most observers seem to have missed perhaps the most crucial statement of the entire event,
made by United States President Barack Obama at his pre-conference meeting with British Prime Minister Gordon Brown: 'The
world has become accustomed to the US being a voracious consumer market, the engine that drives a lot of economic growth
worldwide,' he said. 'If there is going to be renewed growth, it just can't be the US as the engine.' While superficially sensible, this
view is deeply problematic. To begin with, it ignores the fact that the
global economy has in fact been 'Americacentred' for more than 60 years . Countries - China, Japan, Canada, Brazil, Korea, Mexico and so on - either sell to the
US or they sell to countries that sell to the US. This system has generally been advantageous for all concerned. America gained
certain historically unprecedented benefits, but the system also enabled participating countries - first in Western Europe and Japan,
and later, many in the Third World - to achieve undreamt-of prosperity. At the same time, this deep inter-connection between the
US and the rest of the world also explains how the collapse of a relatively small sector of the US economy - 'subprime' housing, logarithmically exponentialised by Wall Street's ingenious chicanery - has cascaded into the worst
global economic crisis
since the Great Depression. To put it simply, Mr Obama doesn't seem to understand that there
is no other engine for the world economy - and hasn't been for the last six decades. If the US does not drive
global economic growth, growth is not going to happen. Thus, US policies to deal with the current crisis
are critical not just domestically, but also to the entire world. Consequently, it is a matter of global concern that the
Obama administration seems to be following Japan's 'model' from the 1990s: allowing major banks to avoid declaring massive
losses openly and transparently, and so perpetuating 'zombie' banks - technically alive but in reality dead. As analysts like Nobel
laureates Joseph Stiglitz and Paul Krugman have pointed out, the administration's unwillingness to confront US banks is the main
reason why they are continuing their increasingly inexplicable credit freeze, thus ravaging the American and global economies.
Economic stagnation causes global WMD conflict
Hutchinson 14 (Martin, Business and Economics Editor at United Press International, MBA from Harvard Business School,
former international merchant banker, 1-3-14, “The chilling echoes of 1914, a century on” Wall Street Journal)
http://online.wsj.com/articles/william-galston-secular-stagnation-may-be-for-real-1409095263,
The years before 1914 saw the formation of trade blocs separated by high tariff barriers. Back then,
the world was dominated by several roughly equivalent powers, albeit with different strengths and weaknesses. Today, the world is
similarly multi-polar. The United States is in a position of clear leadership, but China is coming up fast. Europe is weaker than it was,
but is still a force to be reckoned with. Japan, Russia, Brazil, India are also too powerful to ignore. A hundred years ago, big
international infrastructure projects such as the Berlin-Baghdad Railway, and before it the Suez Canal, were built to protect favored
trading. Today’s equivalent may be the bilateral mining partnerships forged between, for instance, China and mineral-rich African
protectionism could be become
entrenched if prolonged economic stagnation leads countries to pursue their own narrow
interests. Germany, Austria, Russia and France lost between 20 and 35 percent of national output between 1913 and 1918,
states. Today, the World Trade Organization offers some defence against tariffs. But
according to Angus Maddison’s data used in Stephen Broadberry’s “The Economics of World War One: A Comparative Analysis”.
British GDP declined in 1914 and 1915, but grew 15 percent over the four years, as did the U.S. economy. The 37 million military
and civilian casualties may tell a more accurate story but if history were to repeat itself, the global conflict could
be both more universal and more destructive. Nuclear weapons proliferate. Warped diplomatic
anger could lead to the deployment of chemical and biological devices. Electromagnetic pulses
could wipe out our fragile electronic networks. Like the assassination of Archduke Ferdinand that sparked World
War One, the catalyst for cataclysm might be something quite surprising. A global run on bank and other investment assets or an
outbreak of hyperinflation, maybe? These threats get more serious the more policymakers pump up equity, bond, property and
banking bubbles. If global wealth evaporates, or is proven to be an illusion, today’s largely cordial global
entente could be smashed with precipitous speed.
Studies prove war happens
Royal 10 (Jedediah Royal, Director of Cooperative Threat Reduction at the U.S. Department of Defense, 2010, Economic
Integration, Economic Signaling and the Problem of Economic Crises,? in Economics of War and Peace: Economic, Legal and
Political Perspectives, ed. Goldsmith and Brauer, p. 213-215)
Less intuitive is how periods of economic decline may increase the likelihood of external conflict. Political science literature has
contributed a moderate degree of attention to the impact of economic decline and the security and defence behaviour of
interdependent states. Research in this vein has been considered at systemic, dyadic and national levels. Several notable
contributions follow. First, on the systemic level, Pollins (2008) advances Modelski and Thompson's (1996) work on leadership cycle
theory, finding that rhythms in the global economy are associated with the rise and fall of a pre-eminent power and
bloody transition from one pre-eminent leader to the next. As such, exogenous shocks such as economic
crises could usher in a redistribution of relative power (see also Gilpin, 1981) that leads to uncertainty about power
balances, increasing the risk of misc alculation (Fearon, 1995). Alternatively, even a relatively certain redistribution of
power could lead to a permissive environment for conflict as a rising power may seek to challenge a
declining power (Werner, 1999). Separately, Pollins (1996) also shows that global economic cycles combined with parallel
the often
leadership cycles impact the likelihood of conflict among major, medium and small powers, although he suggests that the causes
and connections between global economic conditions and security conditions remain unknown. Second, on a dyadic level,
Copeland's (1996, 2000) theory of trade expectations suggests that 'future expectation of trade' is a significant variable in
understanding economic conditions and security behaviour of states. He argues that interdependent states are likely to
gain pacific benefits from trade so long as they have an optimistic view of future trade relations. However, if
the expectations of future trade decline, particularly for difficult to replace items such as energy resources, the likelihood for
conflict increases , as states will be inclined to use force to gain access to those resources. Crises could potentially be the
trigger for decreased trade expectations either on its own or because it triggers protectionist moves by interdependent states.4
Third, others have considered the link between economic decline and external armed conflict at a national level. Blomberg and Hess
(2002) find a strong correlation between internal conflict and external conflict, particularly during periods of economic downturn.
They write, The linkages between internal and external conflict and prosperity are strong and mutually reinforcing. Economic
conflict tends to spawn internal conflict, which in turn returns the favour. Moreover, the presence of a
recession tends to amplify the extent to which international and external conflicts self-reinforce each other. (Blomberg & Hess, 2002,
p. 89) Economic decline has also been linked with an increase in the likelihood of terrorism (Blomberg, Hess, & Weerapana, 2004),
which has the capacity to spill across borders and lead to external tensions. Furthermore, crises generally reduce the popularity of a
sitting government. 'Diversionary theory' suggests that, when facing unpopularity arising from economic decline, sitting
governments have increased incentives to fabricate external military conflicts to create a 'rally around the flag'
effect. Wang (1996), DeRouen (1995), and Blomberg, Hess, and Thacker (2006) find supporting evidence showing that economic
decline and use of force are at least indirectly correlated. Gelpi (1997), Miller (1999), and Kisangani and Pickering (2009) suggest
that the tendency towards diversionary tactics are greater for democratic states than autocratic states, due to the fact that
democratic leaders are generally more susceptible to being removed from office due to lack of domestic support. DeRouen (2000)
has provided evidence showing that periods of weak economic performance in the U nited States, and thus weak
Presidential popularity, are
statistically linked to an increase in the use of force. In summary, recent economic
scholarship positively correlates economic integration with an increase in the frequency of economic crises, whereas political
science scholarship links economic decline with external conflict at systemic, dyadic and national levels.5 This implied connection
between integration, crises and armed conflict has not featured prominently in the economic-security debate and deserves more
attention. This observation is not contradictory to other perspectives that link economic interdependence with a decrease in the
likelihood of external conflict, such as those mentioned in the first paragraph of this chapter. Those studies tend to focus on dyadic
interdependence instead of global interdependence and do not specifically consider the occurrence of and conditions created by
economic crises. As such, the view presented here should be considered ancillary to those views.
Drezner is wrong -- compared the post-2007 years with the squo---doesn’t
assume new wave of decline which would be far worse---brink is unique because
domestic and international unrest are converging for the first time in 300 years--means empirics don’t apply
Martin Armstrong 14, the former chairman of Princeton Economics International Ltd, Cited by Greg Hunter, “Violent War
Cycles-Global Economic Decline-Martin Armstrong,” 9-14-14, http://usawatchdog.com/violent-war-cycles-global-economic-declinemartin-armstrong-4/, DOA:11-11-14, y2k
two big violent cycles are happening for the first time in 300 years.
Domestic and international unrest is consuming the world . Armstrong contends, “Both of these cycles are
converging at the same time, and this hasn’t happened since the 1700’s. That was the American Revolution, the French
Revolution and etcetera. That was the revolution against monarchies, so to speak. This is not just Ukraine, Russia and the U.S. You
have the Middle East going crazy. Gaza is starting up again with Israel. You go over to Asia and you have civil unrest in Thailand, and the
overwhelming part of the population in China wants to go to war with Japan as payback.” Why all the violence around the world?
Armstrong contends, “When everyone is fat and happy, nobody cares. Everybody lives together peacefully.
When you turn the economy down , that’s when people start getting mad . They lost something, and they want to
blame somebody else for whatever injury they suffered. We look at the entire world . . . what you are looking at on a global scale is the emerging markets:
Global economic expert Martin Armstrong says
China, Russia, South America, Brazil, South East Asia, their stock markets peaked in 2007. They have been in a declining economic trend . . . so you have the economic
pressure building. This is what’s going on in Russia as well. We are making a serious mistake by thinking that Russia can’t fight. My sources say that they anticipated the
We are going into a period of
economic decline, and whenever that happens, government needs an external enemy .” So, when markets crashed in 2007, what
sanctions on Putin would make the oligarchs turn against him and force him to back out. That’s not going to happen.
did Congress do? They did investigations and went after Wall Street. They never admit it has anything to do with them. . . . If Putin were to back off, they would eat him for
lunch. He would be overthrown within Russia.” On the subject of new sanctions from the U.S. and EU, Armstrong says, “Europe is already in an economic decline, and it is a
very, very serious one. Even the IMF has come out and said there are major problems with deflation, which is what you get from a Great Depression, and that is really what the
EU is going through. I don’t see any hope of the EU bottoming out before 2020. It’s going to get worse.” So, is this going to lead to war between NATO and Russia? Armstrong
says, “That seems to be what’s happening.” On the Middle East, Armstrong charges, “The United States has made a complete mess of the Middle East. The real truth behind
the Benghazi affair, that ambassador that was killed . . . he was effectively an arms dealer. They were providing all the arms in Libya to overthrow Gadhafi. When that was done,
those same arms were sent to this group called ISIS who was against Syria. You have to realize that Saudi Arabia was really the one behind the funding of all of this. Why?
They wanted a pipeline through Syria. The problem now is that everyone was trying to fund somebody else to do their dirty work, and now you have an Islamic State that is
rising and it is taking territory from both sides.” On the direction of the price of gold, Armstrong predicts, “I personally think you are going to see gold emerge as a currency of the
underground economy. It’s not a hedge against inflation, and we have done every study imaginable. So, why are countries like China buying all this gold? Armstrong says,
“People are buying gold, not because they think it will be going up, but simply as a hedge against government.” On the recent strength of the U.S. dollar, Armstrong says, “The
central banks only have the dollar, that’s it. It is the reserve currency. We had a former Obama economist who just came out a few days ago and said the risk to the United
States is a strong dollar, and we should give up the reserve currency position. Why? Because they realize there is no other choice. What are you going to do, put your
retirement money in rubles? How about Yuan? There is no place you can go. It’s only dollars.” So, is the dollar is not going to fall out of bed anytime soon? Armstrong says, “Not
yet. You have to take the dollar up, and that will bring gold down short term. Also, as war begins to happen, you have to realize that capital flees from wherever conflict is. The
more conflict you have in the Middle East and Europe, the more money is going to come this way (to the U.S.)” In closing, Armstrong gave an ominous prediction and said,
“
The next decline
we will see
is going to be far worse than the last one . Each one is building in intensity.”
2AC
Multi-Plank CP: 2AC – 1:30
U.N. says no to the amendment
Rolles 9 senior policy analyst for the Transform Drug Policy Foundation (Stephen, “After the War on
Drugs: Blueprint for Regulation,”
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=3&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0CDAQFj
AC&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.tdpf.org.uk%2Fsites%2Fdefault%2Ffiles%2FBlueprint.pdf&ei=xMcRVMEg
ia_IBL3xgtgE&usg=AFQjCNEzapo6rmX2drItTNAlEF6SqJcDiw&sig2=vhMVPBlGoaWEJ9GB2HYbHg)
Article 3 of the Single Convention allows for the WHO or any Party state to initiate the
modification process that would reschedule a specified drug or delete it from the conventions at
any time. For cannabis and coca an amendment to the Single Convention would also be required as
cultivation and production of the plants is specifically prohibited , separately from the scheduling
infrastructure-thus drastically limiting the reform possibilities theoretically available for other scheduled drugs. The
nature of the Convention provisions renders this somewhat academic , as individual states have the
power within the system to easily block change . The WHO, whilst key to any modification process because of its
advisory role, can only make non-binding recommendations-the power to implement changes remains with the 53
member Commission on Narcotic Drugs that operates within and determines policy for the
UNODC. Within the CND there exists a curious alliance of states (including Sweden, Japan, many exSoviet States, most Arab nations and the USA) that are staunchly opposed to any revisions that
would move the treaty away from its punitive tenets. For these countries the conventions are based on the rigid
and absolute position that all (illegal) drug use is morally unacceptable-to the extent that the conventions have assumed a status
more akin to religious documents." In effect, unlike the statement in the 1997 UN world drugs report (above), for these
countries the conventions are, to all intents and purposes, indeed written in stone.
The torture plank links hardcore to politics
Watts 14 (Akira, staff writer, 8-5-14, "My Head Exploded When Obama Sanctimoniously Said, "We Tortured Some Folks"" Truth
Out) truth-out.org/buzzflash/commentary/obama-sancitmoniously-said-we-tortured-some-folks/18800-obama-sancitmoniously-saidwe-tortured-some-folks
And then this: "And it's important for us not to feel too sanctimonious about the tough job that those folks had. And a lot of those
folks were working hard under enormous pressure and were real patriots." This is the point where my exploded head bursts into
flames of rage. Let me get this straight. We tortured. A line was crossed. But we shouldn't be all sanctimonious because the
people that did it were patriots and under a lot of pressure. Really? OK. I get that, given that the droolers in Congress would
pushing for prosecutions would be a
tricky political sell. Understood. And I'm sure that Obama would rather not blow his political capital on the
fight that would ensue, since I just know he's saving all that capital up for something super special that will totally knock our
probably object to Obama declaring Ronald Reagan our national saint, even
socks off. But, after taking prosecutions or any other meaningful response off the table, was there really any need to make excuses
for the people who carried out torture? Or, by extension, for those higher up who ordered and justified it?
That solves—only the permutation maintains sufficient leverage to get
conservative nations on board
David R. Bewley-Taylor 12, Professor of International Relations and Public Policy at Swansea University Wales, and
founding Director of the Global Drug Policy Observatory, March 2012, “Towards revision of the UN drug control conventions: The
logic and dilemmas of Like-Minded Groups,” http://www.tni.org/files/download/dlr19.pdf
However, in another scenario, an effective and strategically shrewd development of a cannabis regulation
group, might generate enough support for, or critically limit resistance towards, treaty
amendment. This would be more likely if the LMG contained a credible mix of nations, including
one or more ‘critical states’, which could withstand or pacify opposition from other sections of the
international community. In terms of process, it is worth pointing out that although strengthening the
prohibitive credentials of the regime, the 1972 Protocol Amending the Single Convention is the
final product of numerous amendment proposals from the US with support from other states including the
UK.43 In this respect, the use of denunciation may also be appropriate, but here as a trigger for
treaty revision. By merely making moves to leave the confines of the regime, an LMG might be able
to generate a critical mass sufficient to compel states favouring the status quo to engage with the
process. Moreover, prohibition-oriented states , as well as those parts of the UN apparatus resistant
to change, might be more open to treaty modification or amendment if it was felt that such a
concession would prevent the collapse of the control system . By Lawrence Helfer’s analysis ‘withdrawing from
an agreement (or threatening to withdraw) can give a denouncing state additional voice…by
increasing its leverage to reshape the treaty…’ (Emphasis added).44
“Resolved” doesn’t lock the aff into “certainty”
Merriam Webster ‘9 (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/resolved)
# Main Entry: 1re·solve # Pronunciation: \ri-ˈzälv, -ˈzȯlv also -ˈzäv or -ˈzȯv\ # Function: verb # Inflected Form(s): resolved;
re·solv·ing 1 : to become separated into component parts; also : to become reduced by dissolving or analysis 2 : to form a
resolution : determine 3 : consult, deliberate
Neither does “should”
Encarta World English Dictionary 2005
(http://encarta.msn.com/encnet/features/dictionary/DictionaryResults.aspx?refid=1861735294)
used to express the conditionality of an occurrence and suggest it
is not a given, or to indicate the consequence of something that might happen ( used in conditional
expressing conditions or consequences:
clauses )
And resolved doesn’t mean immediate
Online Plain Text English Dictionary
‘9 (http://www.onelook.com/?other=web1913&w=Resolve)
Resolve: “To form a purpose; to make a decision; especially, to determine after reflection; as, to resolve on a better
course of life.”
The counterplan causes huge delays—UN Bureaucracy
Ottawa 7 “Time to get on with the job” Ottawa Citizen- Most popular groundbreaking news for Canada, July 16, 2007 Monday,
lexis
The secretary general of the U nited N ations meets tomorrow with the president of the U nited
S tates to discuss some of the most urgent problems facing humanity. It has been six months since Mr. Ban took office.
He seems to enjoy his reputation as a cautious bureaucrat. He took his time filling key positions, and most of his statements
have been uncontroversial. His name shows up in the third paragraphs of news stories, rather than in the headlines. The UN,
though, has not receded from the world stage during Mr. Ban's first months. The newly reconstituted Human Rights Council took its
first faltering steps and met with deserved criticism for failing to speak out about blatant abuses. UN agencies have steered the
debate on drugs in Afghanistan and climate change. There are more UN peacekeeping personnel in the field than ever. On Darfur -an immediate threat to security and development that the UN could help solve -- Mr. Ban's quiet diplomacy has been
overshadowed by U.S. President George W. Bush's much stronger leadership. At one point, Mr. Ban
suggested he needed more time; time is a luxury the displaced and dying do not have. The issue of
UN reform was close to Kofi Annan's heart and seems equally dear to his successor. It's been slow going on that front, too,
although it's
not Mr. Ban's fault that getting any change through the U nited N ations system is like
walking through molasses.
Conditionality’s a voter
Causes 2AC time and strat skew
Causes argument irresponsibility
1 conditional solves
States CP: 2AC
Can’t solve the aff:
A. Cartels—federal action is key to create a legal market that drives them out
Charles "Cully" Stimson Manager, National Security Law Program and Senior Legal Fellow, Heritage Foundation, July 19,
2012 “Why We Shouldn't Legalize Marijuana” http://www.heritage.org/research/commentary/2012/07/why-we-shouldnt-legalizemarijuana ac 6-18
But think of the benefits to society, pot proponents then argue. Legalizing marijuana would slash drug-related crime, they assert. Yet
if and when states legalize marijuana, local demand will increase. Meanwhile, some reputable growers,
manufacturers, and retailers will refuse to produce or distribute the drug because of standing
federal laws and the tort liability that attend to such a dangerous product. The vacuum will be
filled by illegal drug cartels and a black or gray market.
Federal legalization is key—maintaining prohibition undermines investor
confidence and creates operational barriers
Mitchell 12 (Dan, 11-19-12, "What would a legal American marijuana industry look like?" Fortune)
fortune.com/2012/11/19/what-would-a-legal-american-marijuana-industry-look-like/
there won’t be a
real “marijuana industry” until federal laws are repealed. If that happens, everything will change.
FORTUNE — Last week, Jerry Brown, the governor of California who leads the world’s eighth-largest economy,
issued his strongest plea yet for the federal government to back off enforcing federal marijuana
laws in his state. President Obama and the Justice Department, he said, must “recognize the sovereignty of the states” and
Colorado and Washington have legalized marijuana in their states. Other states will likely follow suit. But
stop trying to “nullify a reasonable state regulation.” He sounded almost like a Southern libertarian as he invoked “states’ rights.”
Brown’s statement came in the wake of the passage of ballot measures in two states, Washington and Colorado, to legalize
marijuana. In California voters came very close in 2010 to doing the same, and such a measure seems likely to pass next time out.
Other states are sure to follow as well. But that doesn’t mean that a real marijuana industry will
grow out of the country’s changing sentiments toward pot — with large-scale distribution,
marketing, and retail sales — any time soon. For that to happen, the federal government would
have to do a lot more than merely back off and recognize “state’s rights.” It would have to repeal
the federal laws banning the possession, use, and distribution of marijuana. And that might take a long
while yet, given that the politics in, for example, Georgia, are a lot different from the politics in Washington, Colorado, and California
(even Oregon isn’t quite there yet — its ballot measure failed on Election Day). There needs to be a national consensus, and the
nation isn’t there yet. And
until full federal repeal of prohibition, a multitude of insurmountable barriers
will remain in place. The chief one is simple economics: the industry simply can’t scale to a
degree that would attract investors (who would be scared of investing anyway). One of the many
reasons that pot costs so much — about $300 an ounce on average — is that growers must keep their operations
relatively small and, usually, hidden. Forget for the moment the direct impact that pot’s illegality
(meaning, risk) has on prices: the costs of production alone are enormous just because
economies of scale aren’t achievable. Even if the state police are no longer coming after growers,
the feds might be. MORE: Big beer dresses up in craft brewers’ clothing Then there is the problem that medicalmarijuana businesses already face in states where they are allowed: vendors of all kinds of
necessary services can’t or don’t want to deal with them. Banks won’t lend them money. Insurers
won’t insure them. Many landlords won’t rent to them. Credit-card companies won’t process their
payments. If your customers can’t sign for something with dignity, and you can’t obtain health
insurance for your employees, it’s unlikely that your business will ever scale.
No federal follow on
Bartlett 14 (Bruce, American historian whose area of expertise is supply-side economics. He served as a domestic policy
adviser to Ronald Reagan and as a Treasury official under George H. W. Bush, 1-3-14, "Why Legalizing Marijuana Is a Smart Fiscal
Move" The Fiscal Times) www.thefiscaltimes.com/Columns/2014/01/03/Why-Legalizing-Marijuana-Smart-Fiscal-Move
On January 1, sales and use of recreational marijuana became legal in the state of Colorado. Washington State and the nation of Uruguay will follow later this year. Other states such as Oregon and California
have ballot initiatives scheduled that may legalize marijuana there as well. It is a virtual certainty that if these initial experiments work out, as was previously the case with casino gambling, it will spread rapidly to
other states. Several factors appear to be at work in the drive to legalize recreational marijuana. First is the abject failure of the war on marijuana, which, surprisingly, began right at the moment when prohibition of
alcohol was ending. Polls are unanimous in showing rising support for marijuana legalization, especially among younger Americans. Opponents are gradually dying off, literally, according to an April 2013 Pew
poll. In October, Gallup found that support among all Americans for legalization exceeded maintenance of the status quo for the first time since it began asking the question in 1969. Americans' Views on
Legalizing Marijuana Importantly, support for marijuana legalization is not driven mainly by those who use it now or would like to; that is, it’s not just an issue of self-interest. Rather, it is because non-users no
longer see marijuana as a gateway drug that automatically leads to the use of more serious drugs, according to a December Associated Press/Gfk poll. In fact, a rising percentage of people believe that
legalization of marijuana will actually curb the use of harder drugs--17 percent now from 10 percent in 2010. Perhaps the dominant factor driving marijuana legalization is the desperate search for new revenue by
cash-strapped state governments. The opportunity to tax marijuana is potentially a significant source of new revenue, as well as a way of cutting spending on prisons and law enforcement. The California
Secretary of State’s office, for example, estimates savings in the hundreds of millions of dollars from both factors. The following summary is from a proposed state ballot initiative in California (No. 1617). Summary
of estimate by Legislative Analyst and Director of Finance of fiscal impact on state and local government: Reduced costs in the low hundreds of millions of dollars annually to state and local governments related to
enforcing certain marijuana-related offenses, handling the related criminal cases in the court system, and incarcerating and supervising certain marijuana offenders. Potential net additional tax revenues in the low
hundreds of millions of dollars annually related to the production and sale of marijuana, a portion of which is required to be spent on education, health care, public safety, drug abuse education and treatment, and
the regulation of commercial marijuana activities. Interestingly, anti-tax crusader Grover Norquist has given his blessing to taxes on marijuana, since it is an extension of existing taxes on cigarettes and liquor
applied to a comparable commodity, rather than a new tax per se. The potential revenue obviously depends a lot on details that are presently unknown—the ultimate price of legal marijuana, which could be
substantially lower than the present price in illegal markets; the tax rate; the elasticity of demand for marijuana; and the extent to which states and the federal government permit a legal marijuana market to
function without crippling regulation. A 2010 Rand Corporation report found that many financial estimates of marijuana legalization are simply unknowable since existing research is limited by the availability of
data for a market that has long been illegal. A new Rand report on marijuana use in the state of Washington now estimates that usage may be 2 to 3 times greater than previously estimated. It is not surprising
that revenue considerations should be critical in the marijuana legalization movement. That was previously the reason why cigarettes were not banned until the 1920s despite a strong nationwide movement to do
so. In the wake of Prohibition, governments simply needed cigarette tax revenue too badly. And when Prohibition ended, the need for new revenue after the Great Depression decimated government budgets was
a driving force. Indeed, according to author Daniel Okrent, expectations of the revenue from taxing legal liquor were so great in 1932 that some people thought it might permit the repeal of income taxes. It’s worth
remembering that in 1900, taxes on alcohol and cigarettes constituted half of all federal revenues. Indeed, the only reason Prohibition was possible in the first place was that the income tax established in 1913,
which was greatly expanded by World War I, would replace the revenue lost from the liquor tax after Prohibition. The principal opponents of marijuana legalization are industries that presently benefit from it being
illegal. For example, it is reported that the beer industry invested heavily against a 2010 marijuana legalization initiative in California that ultimately failed. Other vested interests that currently benefit from the
outlawing of marijuana include police unions, the private prison industry, prison guard unions, and pharmaceutical companies fearing that low-cost legal marijuana might replace profitable high-cost prescription
drugs such as Vicodin. I don’t have the data to prove it, but I have long suspected that virtually every economist favors the legalization of marijuana and probably most hard drugs as well--regulated as has long
been the case with alcohol and, increasingly, tobacco. The famous economists Milton Friedman, Gary Becker and Robert Barro have written many columns advocating legalization, and I am not aware of a single
I am doubtful that the legalization of
marijuana or any other currently prohibited drug is likely at the federal level any time soon. There
is no movement in Congress to do so and politicians such as former New Mexico governor Gary Johnson and Baltimore mayor Kurt Schmoke who
economic analysis in opposition to legalization. I think most economists believe it’s just a repetition of the mistake of Prohibition.
supported the idea got nowhere. It will happen at the grass roots level in states that permit voters to propose initiatives and at the federal level only after we have enough years
of experience to have a good understanding of the consequences. It may take another 20 years, but eventually it will happen.
Add-On: Enviro 2AC
Illicit marijuana cultivation kills salmon
Bland 14 (Alastair, reporter, 1-13-14, "California's Pot Farms Could Leave Salmon Runs Truly Smoked" National Public Radio)
www.npr.org/blogs/thesalt/2014/01/08/260788863/californias-pot-farms-could-leave-salmon-runs-truly-smoked
For many users and advocates of marijuana, the boom in the West Coast growing industry may be all good and groovy. But in
California, critics say the recent explosion of the marijuana industry along the state's North Coast — a
region called the "emerald triangle" — could
put a permanent buzz kill on struggling salmon populations.
The problem? According to critics, marijuana plantations guzzle enormous amounts of water while also
spilling pesticides, fertilizers and stream-clogging sediments into waterways, including the Eel
and the Klamath rivers, that have historically produced large numbers of Chinook salmon and related species. "The whole
North Coast is being affected by these pot growers," says Dave Bitts, a Humboldt County commercial fisherman and the president
of the Pacific Coast Federation of Fishermen's Associations. "I have nothing against people growing dope," he says, "but if you do,
we want you to grow your crop in a way that doesn't screw up fish habitat.
There is no salmon-bearing watershed at
this point that we can afford to sacrifice." Growers of marijuana often withdraw water directly from small streams and
use up to 6 gallons per day per plant during the summer growing season, says Scott Bauer, a fisheries biologist with the California
Department of Fish and Wildlife. "When you have 20,000 or 30,000 plants in a watershed, that is a lot of water," Bauer says. But
marijuana growers are undeservedly taking the blame for a problem that is caused by all residents of the North Coast, argues Kristin
Nevedal, a founding chairperson with the Emerald Growers Association. "It's just so easy to point a finger at cannabis growers
because it's a federally prohibited substance," she tells The Salt. "The truth is, if you flush a toilet in the hills, you're a part of the
problem." According to Bauer, 24 tributaries of the Eel River — in which once-enormous spawning runs of Chinook salmon have
nearly vanished — went completely dry in the summer of 2013. Each, Bauer says, was being used to irrigate pot farms. As a result,
Bauer expects to see poor returns of Chinook and Coho salmon, as well as steelhead, in several years. While 2013 saw record-low
precipitation in California, drought, Bauer says, is only part of the problem, and he still blames marijuana farmers. Taking water from
a stream isn't necessarily illegal, though it does usually require applying with the state for permission. Many farmers go this route,
Bauer says. But of the estimated 4,000 pot growers in Humboldt County alone, "maybe a couple have applied for" water use
permits, Bauer says. Marijuana plantations along the North Coast are proliferating. Bauer, who has closely studied Google Earth
images of the area, estimates that acreage under pot cultivation doubled from 2009 to 2012. Stormer Feiler, a scientist with
California's North Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board, confirms the same: "It's like the gold rush," he says. California's
Chinook salmon fishery was canceled or shortened three years in a row beginning in 2008. This occurred following record-low
spawning returns in the Sacramento River, one of the largest salmon-producing watersheds on the West Coast. The crash was
blamed partly on agricultural overuse of the river's water. Since then, the Golden Gate Salmon Association, a group based in San
Francisco, has been advocating for more fish-friendly use of the river's water —especially limits on how much water can be pumped
into farmland. Now, marijuana farms have emerged as an issue of increasing concern, says the association's executive director,
John McManus. "It's not just the water they're taking out of the streams but the chemicals and nutrients they're putting into the
water," McManus says. Fertilizers that drain into rivers can cause floating carpets of algae to grow in the water. When these mats
begin to decay, the breakdown process steals oxygen from the water, suffocating fish. Bauer has discovered pools full of dead adult
Chinook salmon — fish full of eggs, he says, that had not yet spawned. As many as a half-million Chinook salmon once spawned in
the Eel River each year. By the 1950s, the fish were almost gone. Since then, the population has slightly rebounded, and
several thousand Chinook now return to the Eel annually. Scott Greacen, the executive director of
Friends of the Eel River, warns that, unless pot growers are more closely regulated , some of
California's North Coast salmon runs could be looking at extinction.
Salmon are a keystone species—preserving their habitat is key to avoid
ecosystem collapse
DOW 05 (Defenders of Wildlife, wildlife conservation organization, “Pacific Salmon“)
http://www.agriculturedefensecoalition.org/sites/default/files/pdfs/9F_2005_Pacific_Salmon_Decline_2005.pdf
salmon are keystone species , which means they are essential components of their
ecosystem. Their absence would result in devastating effects to other plants and wildlife species,
just as the removal of a keystone from a masonry arch results in its collapse. Therefore, the impacts of
Pacific
the current decline of salmon on the ecology of the Pacific Northwest are staggering. As fewer fish return each year to spawn, there
is less food for the animals that depend on them. More than 22 different animals feed on salmon throughout the fish's life
cycle. Such animals include grizzly bears, orcas and various insects. Salmon ensure the longterm health of ecosystems because when they die, after spawning in the headwaters of
watersheds, their decomposing bodies return precious nutrients to the environment. Without
salmon, fewer nutrients supplied to complex ecosystems such as the Snake River in Washington means
that the biodiversity of that region suffers.
Ecosystem collapse causes extinction—there’s an invisible threshold and it is
irreversible
Diner 94 (Major David N., Judge Advocate General's Corps – United States Army, “The Army and The Endangered Species Act:
Who's Endangering Whom?” Military Law Review, Winter, 143 Mil. L. Rev. 161, Lexis)
The prime reason is the world's survival. Like all animal life, humans live off of other species. At some
point, the number of species could decline to the point at which the ecosystem fails, and then
humans also would become extinct. No one knows how many [*171] species the world needs to
support human life, and to find out – by allowing certain species to become extinct -- would not be
sound policy. In addition to food, species offer many direct and indirect benefits to mankind . 68
2.Ecological Value. -- Ecological value is the value that species have in maintaining the environment. Pest, 69 erosion, and flood
control are prime benefits certain species provide to man. Plants and animals also provide additional ecological services-- pollution
control, 70 oxygen production, sewage treatment, and biodegradation. 71 3.Scientific and Utilitarian Value. -Scientific value is the use of species for research into the physical processes of the world. 72 Without plants and animals, a large
portion of basic scientific research would be impossible. Utilitarian value is the direct utility humans draw from plants and animals.
73 Only a fraction of the [*172] earth's species have been examined, and mankind may someday desperately need the species that
it is exterminating today. To accept that the snail darter, harelip sucker, or Dismal Swamp southeastern shrew 74 could save
mankind may be difficult for some. Many, if not most, species are useless to man in a direct utilitarian sense. Nonetheless, they may
be critical in an indirect role, because their extirpations could affect a directly useful species negatively. In a closely interconnected
ecosystem, the loss of a species affects other species dependent on it. 75 Moreover, as the number of species decline, the effect of
each new extinction on the remaining species increases dramatically. 76 4.Biological Diversity. -- The main premise of species
preservation is that diversity is better than simplicity. 77As the current mass extinction has progressed, the
world's biological diversity generally has decreased. This trend occurs within ecosystems by reducing the number of
species, and within species by reducing the number of individuals. Both trends carry serious future implications. 78 [*173]
Biologically diverse ecosystems are characterized by a large number of specialist species, filling narrow ecological niches. These
ecosystems inherently are more stable than less diverse systems. "The more complex the ecosystem, the more successfully it can
resist a stress. . . . [l]ike a net, in which each knot is connected to others by several strands, such a fabric can resist collapse better
than a simple, unbranched circle of threads -- which if cut anywhere breaks down as a whole." 79 By causing widespread
extinctions, humans have artificially simplified many ecosystems. As biologic simplicity
increases, so does the risk of ecosystem failure. The spreading Sahara Desert in Africa, and the dustbowl
conditions of the 1930s in the United States are relatively mild examples of what might be expected if this trend continues.
Theoretically, each new animal or plant extinction, with all its dimly perceived and intertwined affects,
could cause total ecosystem collapse and human extinction . Each new extinction increases the
risk of disaster. Like a mechanic removing, one by one, the rivets from an aircraft's wings, n80 mankind may be edging closer
to the abyss.
Add-On: LA Relations 2AC
Plan reinvigorates Latin American relations
Peter Hakim 14, President emeritus and Cameron Combs is program associate at the Inter-American Dialogue, “Why the U.S.
should legalize marijuana”, 1/26, http://www.miamiherald.com/2014/01/26/3891371/why-the-us-should-legalize-marijuana.html
Tiny Uruguay
made waves a month ago by becoming the first nation anywhere to fully legalize the sale
and use of recreational marijuana. Colorado and Washington, however, had already beaten them to the punch, and a handful of other states
are expected soon to follow suit.¶ In addition, 18 states and the District of Columbia permit marijuana for medical purposes. A proposal to legalize
the U nited S tates is without a national
policy toward marijuana . Although legally banned throughout the country by federal law,
cannabis use is, in practice, governed by an incoherent patchwork of state regulations , and further
muddled by staggering disparities in enforcement and punishment .¶ Legalizing cannabis , a step most
Americans now favor, is the only way out of this jumble , particularly after President Obama made clear that he would not enforce a
medical marijuana could appear on Florida’s ballot in November.¶ What this all means is that
federal ban on marijuana use in those states where it was now lawful. “We have other fish to fry,” he said. In another interview, he said marijuana is no
more harmful than alcohol.¶ Legalization
should also contribute to easier relations with Mexico and other
neighbors to the south on issues of public security.¶ To be sure, legal marijuana comes with costs and risks. The American
Medical Association considers cannabis a “ dangerous drug” while the American Psychiatric Association asserts that its use impedes neurological
development in adolescents and can cause the “onset of psychiatric disorders.”¶ Some studies suggest it interferes with learning and motivation. It
should be anticipated that legalization will lead to greater use, at all ages, as marijuana becomes more accessible and less expensive, and the cultural
and social stigmas surrounding its consumption literally go up in smoke. Abuse and addiction — including among juveniles — will rise as well.¶ But
keeping marijuana illegal also carries a high price tag. Particularly devastating are the human costs of
arresting and jailing thousands upon thousands of young Americans each year. Roughly one-third of all U.S.
citizens are arrested by age 23. Racial and ethnic minorities are most vulnerable . African-American marijuana users are over
three times more likely to be arrested and imprisoned than whites, even though the two groups consume the drug at virtually the same levels.¶ With
cannabis accounting for roughly half of total drug arrests, legalization would sharply reduce this
egregious disparity . It would also save money by reducing the U.S. prison population . A half a million
people were incarcerated for drug offenses in 2011, a ten-fold jump since 1980 — at an average annual cost per prisoner of more than $20,000 in a
minimum-security federal facility.¶ Cannabis
legalization would also help to lift an unneeded burden from U.S.
foreign policy in Latin America, where Washington’s drug war has long strained diplomatic
relations .¶ Most governments in the hemisphere have concluded that U.S. anti-drug policies are
just not working and, in many places, are actually contributing to mounting levels of crime, violence and
corruption. Colombia has been a notable exception. With U.S. support of nearly $10 billion, the country has become far more secure in the past
dozen years.¶ Yet Juan Manuel Santos, Colombia’s president and arguably Washington’s closest ally in the region, is now a leading advocate of
alternative drug strategies. In an exhaustive report last year, prompted by President Santos, the Organization of American States analyzed a range of
alternative policy approaches, including cannabis legalization.¶ Few Latin American countries are actively contemplating legalization a la uruguaya. But
many have stopped arrests for use and possession of marijuana, and virtually all are keeping a close watch on developments in Uruguay.
Nowhere is there much enthusiasm for cooperating with the U nited States in its continuing efforts to
eradicate drug crops and interrupt drug flows.¶ A decision by the U.S. government to legalize marijuana
would be a bold step toward breaking today’s bureaucratic and political inertia and opening the
way for a genuine hemisphere-wide search for alternative strategies .
Relations solve numerous existential threats
Shifter 12 Michael is the President of Inter-American Dialogue. “Remaking the Relationship: The United States and Latin
America,” April, IAD Policy Report, http://www.thedialogue.org/PublicationFiles/IAD2012PolicyReportFINAL.pdf
There are compelling reasons for the United States and Latin America to pursue more robust ties.
Every country in the Americas would benefit from strengthened and expanded economic relations, with
improved access to each other’s markets, investment capital, and energy resources. Even with its current
economic problems, the United States’ $16-trillion economy is a vital market and source of capital
(including remittances) and technology for Latin America, and it could contribute more to the
region’s economic performance. For its part, Latin America’s rising economies will inevitably become
more and more crucial to the United States’ economic future. The United States and many nations of Latin America and
the Caribbean would also gain a great deal by more cooperation on such global matters as climate change,
nuclear non-proliferation, and democracy and human rights. With a rapidly expanding US Hispanic population of more than 50 million, the cultural
and demographic integration of the United States and Latin America is proceeding at an accelerating pace, setting a firmer basis for hemispheric partnership Despite the
multiple opportunities and potential benefits,
relations between the United States and Latin America remain disappointing . If new
opportunities are not seized, relations will likely continue to drift apart . The longer the current
situation persists, the harder it will be to reverse course and rebuild vigorous cooperation .
Hemispheric affairs require urgent attention —both from the United States and from Latin America and the Caribbean.
Add-On: Cyber 2AC
Federal prohibition creates a shortage of cyber workers—causes attacks
Aliya Sternstein 14, Next Gov Senior Correspondent, FEDERAL CYBER HIRING COULD TAKE A HIT UNDER MARIJUANA
MANDATE, March 14, http://www.nextgov.com/cybersecurity/2014/03/federal-cyber-hiring-could-take-hit-under-marijuanamandate/80527/
The Obama administration’s policy to uphold a ban on federal employees smoking pot -- even where recreational
marijuana is now legal under state law -- could snuff out efforts to hire nonconventional but trusted hackers
to search for holes in government computer systems. Many of the best of these white hats known as “ethical
hackers ” tend to shy away from the establishment. "It is only recently that I started hearing that this state ban would be a challenge to hiring
ethical hackers," said Kathleen Smith, chief management officer at ClearedJobs.Net, an online forum for cleared security professionals that also hosts job fairs. "The
managers are having a difficult time with balancing between what an employee can do based on
state law -- and what they are banned from doing based on federal law , especially with regards to
cleared work and their security clearance ." A July 2013 blog post on state marijuana laws that appeared on ClearedJobs.Net was the second most
popular story on the site last year. It read: “Those of you with (or planning to obtain) security clearances who have an interest in adding marijuana use to your recreational
pastime may think, ‘Great! If I’m ever in Colorado or Washington State, I can smoke pot without any ramifications!’ Unfortunately, you are wrong!” Colorado on New Year's Day
became the first state to allow the use of marijuana for leisure, and Washington will follow this summer. The federal government effectively criminalized marijuana in 1937. Now
the feds say they will look the other way in states that legalize dope, unless they see drugged driving, distribution to minors or certain other infractions. Or, unless those rolling a
Marijuana is illegal under federal law and the rules prohibiting federal employees from
using it still apply, regardless of state laws ,” a Justice Department spokesperson told Nextgov's sister publication
Government Executive. Officials already had announced that federal employees are barred from inhaling while working in
Colorado or anywhere else where cannabis is legal. Undergraduate code crackers – in high
demand nationwide -- are seeing that some freedoms granted to their neighbors will not apply to them if they join
public service. "When I'm talking to college kids, I tell people: 'You are going to have to think about how you are going to change your life to do this,'" Smith said. A
December 2013 letter to Obama administration officials from the information security trade group (ISC)2 said 61
percent of federal employees surveyed "believe that their agency has too few information security workers to
manage threats now , let alone in the future, yet information security positions are going unfilled ." Federal employers
joint work for them. “
might be able to entice nonconventional computer whizzes with stimulants instead of hallucinogens, Smith said. "What I found with people who like doing cleared work and
working for the government is they like to work on the really cool stuff," said Smith, whose clients include security cleared professionals in the federal government and private
sector. "The price to work on the really cool stuff might be: Some of the recreational drug use I can't do any longer."
Nuclear war
Robert Tilford 12, Graduate US Army Airborne School, Ft. Benning, Georgia, “Cyber attackers could shut down the electric grid
for the entire east coast” 2012, http://www.examiner.com/article/cyber-attackers-could-easily-shut-down-the-electric-grid-for-theentire-east-coa ***we don’t agree with the ableist language
a cyber attack that can take out a civilian power grid, for example could also cripple the
U.S. military .¶ The senator notes that is that the same power grids that supply cities and towns, stores and gas
stations, cell towers and heart monitors also power “ every military base in our country.”¶ “Although bases would be
prepared to weather a short power outage with backup diesel generators, within hours, not days, fuel supplies
would run out”, he said.¶ Which means military command and control centers could go dark .¶ Radar
systems that detect air threats to our country would shut Down completely.¶ “Communication between
commanders and their troops would also go silent. And many weapons systems would be left without
either fuel or electric power”, said Senator Grassley.¶ “So in a few short hours or days, the mightiest military
in the world would be left scrambling to maintain base functions”, he said.¶ We contacted the
Pentagon and officials confirmed the threat of a cyber attack is something very real .¶ Top national
security officials—including the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, the Director of the National Security Agency, the Secretary of Defense, and the
CIA Director— have said, “preventing a cyber attack and improving the nation’s electric grids is among the most urgent
priorities of our country” (source: Congressional Record).¶ So how serious is the Pentagon taking all this?¶ Enough to start, or end a war over it,
for sure.¶ A cyber attack today against the US could very well be seen as an “Act of War” and could be
met with a “full scale” US military response . ¶ That could include the use of “nuclear weapons”, if
To make matters worse
authorized by the President.
Treaties DA: 2AC [Michigan] – 1:40
Other US violations of I-law thump
Newman 12/3/14 (Alex, "UN Torture Committee Slams U.S. Police and Military." The New American. 12/3/14.
www.thenewamerican.com/usnews/constitution/item/19645-un-torture-committee-slams-u-s-police-and-military, TD)
After a spectacle featuring senior Obama administration officials prostrating themselves before the United Nations “Committee
Against Torture,” the controversial UN body released a scathing report last week accusing U.S.
authorities of widespread violations of what it calls “ international law.” Among other concerns, the global
panel cited everything from “police brutality” by state and local officials domestically to the
actions of the U.S. military and intelligence agencies abroad. Other criticism directed at the United
States focused on immigration policies, deportations , prison conditions, Guantanamo Bay, the
terror war , and more. In response to the UN committee’s findings, the panel called on federal officials to alter
U.S. laws to comply with its demands — including abolishing the death penalty, reforming deportation
procedures, and more. The report also called on the U.S. government to pass new federal laws defining torture in accordance with
the UN Convention. In the same section, it lashed out at the U.S. government’s “interpretation” of the global “torture” regime, saying
that “under international law, reservations that are contrary to the object and purpose of a treaty are impermissible.” In other words,
the dictator-dominated UN, rather than the U.S. Constitution, purports to be the arbiter of what is or is not “permissible.”
advertisement The UN bureaucrats on the committee — one comes from Morocco, another from Communist China, and one more
from Communist Nepal — also called on U.S. authorities to amend “laws and regulations” to be in compliance with the global
agreement. In addition, the UN committee said it “encourages” the U.S. government to ratify other global agreements purporting to
bind the American people and their elected officials to globalist demands rather than the U.S. Constitution. Finally, the document is
packed with calls for the federal government to go beyond its constitutional limitations in commandeering state and local
governments. All across the report, the UN also offered instructions to the Obama administration on everything from indefinite
detention without charges or trial to releasing information on post-9/11 atrocities allegedly perpetrated by various agencies within the
U.S. government. Among other demands, the UN experts called on the Obama administration to “cease the use of indefinite
detention without charge or trial” — something that constitutes a serious crime against the U.S. Constitution, regardless of what the
UN and its oftentimes brutal member governments claim regarding their planetary torture regime. Moreover, the White House
should release information on numerous instances of CIA “human rights violations, including torture, ill-treatment and enforced
disappearance of persons suspected of involvement in terrorism-related crimes.” In addition to the CIA, the U.S. military and its
policies — ranging from the treatment of detainees to its policy manuals — came under severe criticism in the document. Of course,
virtually all of the UN’s complaints should be considered moot, because the U.S. Constitution, which established the federal
government in the first place and granted it a few limited powers, already prohibits such schemes. Separately, in an open letter to
Obama, a UN group of self-styled “human rights experts” with bombastic titles also called on the administration to release a U.S.
Senate report on CIA “interrogation” practices. “As a nation that has publicly affirmed its belief that respect for truth advances
respect for the rule of law, and as a nation that frequently calls for transparency and accountability in other countries, the United
States must rise to meet the standards it has set both for itself and for others,” the UN “experts” declared. According to the UN
“human-rights” operatives, victims of torture and human-rights defenders around the world would be “emboldened” if the Obama
administration — widely described as the most secrecy-obsessed, least transparent in U.S. history — would support transparency.
“On the contrary, if you yield to the CIA's demands for continued secrecy on this issue, those resisting accountability will surely
misuse this decision to bolster their own agenda in their countries,” the open letter continued. As The New American has reported
on multiple occasions, in addition to the draconian secrecy, the Obama administration has also improperly worked to protect George
W. Bush administration officials from prosecution for the myriad alleged crimes they perpetrated under color of law. “The Committee
expresses concern over the ongoing failure to fully investigate allegations of torture and ill-treatment of suspects held in U.S.
custody abroad, evidenced by the limited number of criminal prosecutions and convictions,” the UN torture committee said in its
report about the United States, the first such “periodic review” since 2006. In light of the overseas torture (such as water
boarding) carried out by U.S. officials, the UN called for “prompt, impartial and effective investigations” to
“ensure that alleged perpetrators and accomplices are duly prosecuted, including persons in positions of command and those who
provided legal cover to torture.” If found guilty of the charges, the criminals in government should be punished with serious penalties
“commensurate with the grave nature of their acts,” the UN said. Victims of U.S. government torture should also be compensated
and rehabilitated, the panel said. On law enforcement, which is a power generally reserved for state and local government by the
U.S. Constitution, the UN also expressed a wide array of concerns. “The Committee is concerned about numerous
reports of police brutality and excessive use of force by law enforcement officials, in particular
against persons belonging to certain racial and ethnic groups, immigrants and LGBTI individuals,
racial profiling by police and immigration offices and growing militarization of policing activities,”
the report said, citing Chicago’s police department as particularly alarming.
Treaty breaches are compartmentalized
Brewster 9—Rachel, Assistant Professor of Law, Harvard Law School, “Unpacking the State’s Reputation,” Harvard
International Law Journal, 50(2): http://dash.harvard.edu/bitstream/handle/1/3353696/unpackingstatesrep.pdf?...
The second question addresses the informational content of specific violations of international
law for predicting future violations. Say that the U.S. administration violates an arms control
agreement. The reputational costs to the United States will depend on the inferences the international
audience draws from that violation about whether the United States will comply with other international obligations.
This turns out to be difficult to predict. For one thing, the arms control violation may not provide very
much information about how the United States will behave with respect to international
obligations in other areas, such as human rights, trade, or environment, where the domestic
political considerations may be very different. It may not even provide much information about
future compliance with other arms control agreements, because, again, the domestic political
considerations in a future period may be different . Much depends on how the state s reputation is
bundled, both topically and temporally . For another, legal compliance with an agreement may not be
particularly predictive of how cooperative the state will be in future interactions. States can be
poor treaty partners while maintaining strict legal compliance with an agreement by attaching
reservations or withdrawing from their commitments, as the U nited S tates did with the Anti-Ballistic
Missile Treaty (“ABM Treaty”). Other variables, such as the alignment of interests in domestic or
international politics, are likely to be better predictors. For instance, the likelihood that the U nited
S tates will comply with future arms control agreements depends far more on the strategic situation of
the moment (for example, the present threat from international terrorist groups) than whether it complied with the
ABM Treaty in very different political contexts in the past (for example, during the Cold War). Recognizing
that reputational costs are limited to the political conditions of the time , governments are
probably not overly concerned about the reputational costs of discrete violations of international
rules . For better or worse, bad actions that are not predictive of future behavior, because the regime
has changed or because the strategic situation is different, do not lead to reputational costs.
Regionalism coming now and solves their impacts best
*Regionalism coming now – best model, no big war – locally activates the neg warrants for cooperation solving their impacts best
Krishnan Srinivasan, "International Conflict and Cooperation in the 21st Century," THE
ROUND TABLE v. 98 n. 400, 2--09, pp. 37-47.
The new world order of the first half of the present century will be one of peaceful mutual
accommodation between the big powers located in the East and West, North and South. The
priority for these powers will be for economic progress and regional order , with defence expenditure being used to build technological
capacity for deterrence against the other big powers and as an enabler for their self-appointed but globally recognized role as regional enforcers.
In this neo-Hobbesian world system, the lesser
states will come to their own bilateral arrangements with
the local regional hegemon upon whom they will be dependent not only for their security
but for economic, technical and trading facilitation. Some of these lesser entities will enjoy economic prosperity,
depending on their ability to maintain internal cohesion, to turn globalization to their advantage, and to control the socio-economic consequences
of climate change, but they
will not be able to mount a challenge to the hierarchical nature of
international society. They will have far greater recourse to the United Nations than the major powers, who will prefer to apply
unilateral methods with the connivance and consent of their peers. The debate between Westphalian national sovereignty and the right to
intervene to breach the sovereignty of other states on the grounds of preventing threats to international peace and security will not be resolved.
Political and economic inequality between nations will be drawn in ever sharper focus. Regional
institutions will be
dominated by the local big power. Reform of the United Nations will be incomplete and unappealing to the vast majority of
member states. The world’s hegemonic powers will lose faith in the Security Council as an effective mechanism to deliberate issues of peace and
security.
World bodies will be used for discussion of global issues such as the environment
and climate change, pandemic disease, energy and food supplies, and development, but
resulting action will primarily devolve on the big powers in the affected regions . This will
particularly be the case in the realm of peace and security in which only the regional hegemon will have the means, the
will and the obligation, for the sake of its own status and security, to ensure resolution or
retribution as each case may demand. Even in a globalized world, regional and local
action will be the prime necessity and such action will be left to the power best equipped to
understand the particular circumstances, select the appropriate remedy and execute the
action required to administer it. Conflict will be contained and localized . There will be no
menace of war on a world-wide scale and little fear of international terrorism. Private-enterprise terrorist actions will
continue to manifest political, social and economic frustrations, but they will be parochial, ineffective and not state-sponsored. There will be far
less invocation of human rights in international politics, since these will be identified with a western agenda and western civilization: there will be
an equal recognition of community rights and societal values associated with Eastern and other traditions. Chinese artists, Indian entrepreneurs,
Russian actors, Iranian chefs, South African song-writers and Brazilian designers will be household names; models on the fashion cat-walk and
sporting teams from all major countries will be distinctly multi-racial, reflecting the immigration to, but also the purchasing power of, the new
major powers. National populations will show evidence of mixed race more than ever before in history.
Climate change will be
an acknowledged global challenge and all countries, led by the regional hegemons , will
undertake binding restraints on carbon emissions. The world will become acutely conscious of the essentiality of
access to fresh water. The pace of technological innovation will accelerate at dizzying speed, further accentuating inequalities. There will
be very rapid steps taken to develop alternative sources of energy in the face of dwindling and costly oil
supplies. Western industrialized nations, to remain competitive, will vacate vast areas of traditional manufacturing in favour of new technologies
and green engineering. The world will be a safer and stable place until one of the hegemons eventually develops an obvious ascendancy first
regionally, then continentally and finally globally over all the others.
Failure of U.S.-led order preserves the trend toward regionalism –America
inevitably gets soft-balanced within a hollow global framework
Michael J. Mazarr, Professor, National Security Strategy, U.S. National War College, "The
Risks of Ignoring Strategic Insolvency," WASHINGTON QUARTERLY v. 35 n. 4, Fall 2012,
p. 14-15.
Diplomacy increasingly fails . A parallel risk has to do with the ebbing force of U.S.
diplomacy and influence. International power is grounded in legitimacy , and in many ways it is
precisely the legitimacy of the leading power’s global posture that is under assault as its
posture comes into question. Historically, rising challengers gradually stop respecting the
hegemon’s right to lead, and they begin to make choices on behalf of the international
community , in part due to strategies consciously designed to frustrate the leading power’s
designs . Germany, under Bismarck and after, is one example: It aspired to unification and to its ‘‘rightful place’’ as a leading European
power as its power and influence accumulated, its willingness to accept the inherent legitimacy of the existing order as defined by other states,
and the validity and force of their security paradigms, declined proportionately. At nearly all points in this trajectory, German leaders did not seek
to depose the international system, but to crowd into its leadership ranks, to mute the voices of others relative to its own influence, and to modify
rather than abolish rules.¶ We
begin to see this pattern today with regard to many emerging powers,
but especially of course, China ’s posture toward the United States.31 As was predicted and expected in the
post-Cold War context of growing regional power centers, the legitimacy of a system dominated by the United
States is coming under increasing challenge. More states (and, increasingly, non-state actors) want to
share in setting rules and norms and dictating outcomes.¶ The obvious and inevitable result
has been to reduce the effectiveness of U.S. diplomacy. While measuring the relative success of a major power’s
diplomacy over time is a chancy business (and while Washington continues to have success on many fronts), the current trajectory
is producing a global system much less subject to the power of U.S. diplomacy and other
forms of influence. Harvard’s Stephen Walt catalogues the enormous strengths of the U.S. position during and after the Cold War, and
compares that to recent evidence of the emerging limits of U.S. power. Such evidence includes Turkey’s unwillingness to support U.S.
deployments in Iraq, the failure to impose U.S. will or order in Iraq or Afghanistan, failures of nonproliferation in North Korea and Iran, the Arab
Spring’s challenges to long-standing U.S. client rulers, and more.32 As emerging
powers become more focused on
their own interests and goals, their domestic dynamics will become ever more selfdirected and less subject to manipulation from Washington, a trend evident in a number of major recent
elections.¶ Washington will still enjoy substantial influence, and many states will welcome (openly
or grudgingly) a U.S. leadership role. But without revising the U.S. posture, the gap between U.S. ambitions
and capabilities will only grow. Continually trying to do too much will create more risk of
demands unmet, requests unfulfilled, and a growing sense of the absurdity of the U.S.
posture . Such a course risks crisis and conflict . Similarly, doubt in the threats and promises underpinning an
unviable U.S. security posture risks conflict: U.S. officials will press into situations assuming that their diplomacy will be
capable of achieving certain outcomes and will make demands and lay out ultimatums on that basis only to find that their influence
cannot achieve the desired goals, and they must escalate to harsher measures. The alternative is
to shift to a lesser role with more limited ambitions and more sustainable legitimacy.
International law does not respond to rising pluralism – no shared interest or
enforcement, misuse of consent
Acharya 13 – Associate Professor of Law, Gonzaga University School of Law (Upendra D.,
May, “GLOBALIZATION, DEREGULATION, POWER, AND AGENCY: GLOBALIZATION
AND HEGEMONY SHIFT: ARE STATES MERELY AGENTS OF CORPORATE
CAPITALISM?” 36 B.C. Int'l & Comp. L. Rev. 937, Lexis)
I. PROCESS OF HEGEMONY: INTERNATIONAL LAW, POWER, AND DETERRITORIALIZATION ¶ ¶ Discussions of
hegemonic international law posit that international law is relatively weak , that it is
nothing more than epiphenomenal, [*940] merely a production of normative standards
that mirror the interests of powerful states. n14 The hegemonic international law theory also posits that hegemons
(powerful nations among the many sovereign states) define the course of states' behavior by creating and influencing international law to give
effect to the hegemons' interests and condone actions that support those interests. n15 This Part critically observes hegemons' techniques and
methods of consolidating power, n16 leading to the next Part's discussion addressing an emerging corporate-centric hegemonic international law,
a new form of international law contrasted to Vagts's state-centric hegemonic international law. n17¶ ¶ Because
international law
is based on the mutual consent of sovereign states, each participating state must have
common values and interests for international law to be effective. n18 Political, cultural,
religious, [*941] and economic traditions were naturally varied among states before the
implementation of international law. n19 Because of this variation, the powerful Western states superimposed self-styled
Western values such as democracy, a definitive structure of rule of law, industrial development, perception of peace, and eventually capitalism on
In
reality, however, formal consent to these values allows (in the creation of international law)
the hegemon to disrupt existing value structures--an inherently destabilizing action --and
take advantage of the less-powerful states' resources. n22 This process of obtaining consent is so sophisticated
less-influential or less-powerful states. n20 Western hegemons present these values as though they are prerequisites for stability. n21
that it frequently requires engaging lawyers and legal scholars to guide less-powerful states. n23 These scholars typically represent Western
education and ideologies within the scope of the broader interests of hegemons, imposing Western legal traditions on non-Western states. n24¶ ¶
Despite maintaining consent to superimposed Western norms, international law lacks a
formal enforcement and compliance authority. n25 Nevertheless, fragmented informal or non-legal authority has been
institutionalized through means controlled by hegemons that can make others comply with the norms. n26 In this scattered and
pseudo-legal compliance mechanism , hegemons may comply with international law when
faced with worldwide pressure and opposition from competing [*942] hegemons. n27 For nonhegemons, a hint of pressure, economic or otherwise, is sometimes sufficient to force compliance with the regime. n28 ¶ ¶ According to Antonio
Gramsci:¶ ¶ [H]egemony presupposes that account be taken of the interests and the tendencies of the groups over which hegemony is to be
exercised, and that a certain compromise equilibrium should be formed--in other words, that the leading group [hegemons] should make
sacrifices of an economic-corporate kind. But . . . such sacrifices and such a compromise cannot touch the essential . . . [they] must necessarily be
based on the decisive function exercised by the leading group in the decisive nucleus of economic activity. n29¶ ¶ ¶ ¶ B.S. Chimni also noted the
current influence of what he terms the "transnational capitalist class," that produces a culture in which "the third world counterparts essentially act
International law, in its
creation and application, has been a victim of the hegemonic power consolidation process.
as 'transmission belts and filtering devices for the imposition of the transnational agenda.'" n30¶ ¶ [*943]
n31 Rather than recognizing and respecting the common goals and values of a pluralistic
world , international law deems hegemons' values those of "true" civilization, held in
esteem and aspired to by all others at the expense of unique and insightful non-Western
thought. n32 Now in the era of globalization, evolving hegemonic international law theory warrants questioning whether states are really the
hegemons in today's world. In order to address this question, it is important to analyze the processes of hegemony in the development of
international law and to identify when the course of the hegemonic process departed from state-centric to corporate-centric hegemony.
Prefer our vision of IR – self-interest is the controlling motive, even within
internationalist frameworks
Eric A. Posner 9, Kirkland and Ellis Professor of Law at the University of Chicago Law
School. The Perils of Global Legalism, 34-6
34 ¶ Most global legalists acknowledge that international law is created and enforced by states. They believe that states are willing to expand
international law along legalistic lines because states’ long-term interests lie in solving global collective
action problems. In the absence of a world govern- ment or other forms of integration, international law seems like the only way for states to solve these problems. The great
difficulty for the global legalist is explaining why, if states create and maintain international law, they
will also not break it when they prefer to free ride. In the absence of an enforcement
mechanism, what ensures that states that create law and legal institutions that are
supposed to solve global collective action prob- lems will not ignore them? ¶ For the rational choice theorist, the
answer is plain: states cannot solve global collective action problems by creating institutions that themselves depend on global collective action. This is not to say that international law is not possible at all. Certainly, states can
But if states (or the individuals who
cannot create a global government or q uasi-g overnment institutions, then it seems unlikely that they can
solve, in spontaneous fashion, the types of problems that, at the national level, require the action of
governments. ¶ Global legalists are not enthusiasts for rational choice theory and have ¶ 35¶ grappled with this problem in other ways.8 I will criticize their attempts in chapter 3. Here I want to focus on one
approach, which is to insist that just as individuals can be loyal to government, so too can individuals (and
their governments) be loyal to international law and be willing to defer to its requirements even when self-i nterest does not strictly demand that they do so.
International law has force because (or to the extent that) it is legitimate.9 ¶ What makes governance or law legitimate?
This is a complicated ques- tion best left to philosophers, but a simple and adequate point for present purposes is that no system of law will be perceived as
cooperate by threatening to retaliate against cheaters, and where international problems are matters of coordination rather than confl ict, international law can go far, indeed.7
control states)
legitimate unless those governed by that law believe that the law does good — serves their
interests or respects and enforces their values. Perhaps more is required than this — such as political participation, for example — but we can treat the fi rst condition as necessary if not suffi cient. If
individuals believe that a system of law does not advance their interests and respect their values, that instead it
advances the interests of others or is dysfunctional and helps no one at all, they will not
believe that the law is legitimate and will not voluntarily submit to its authority . ¶ Unfortunately,
international law does not satisfy this condition, mainly because of its institutional weaknesses;
but of course, its institutional weaknesses stem from the state system — states are not
willing to tolerate powerful international agencies. In classic international law, states enjoy
sovereign equality, which means that international law cannot be created unless all agree, and that international law binds all states equally. What this means is that if nearly everyone in the world agrees
that some global legal instrument would be benefi cial (a climate treaty, the UN charter), it can be blocked by a tiny country like Iceland (population 300,000) or a dictatorship like North Korea. What is the attraction of a system that
puts a tiny country like Iceland on equal footing with China? When then at- torney general Robert Jackson tried to justify American aid for Britain at the onset of World War II on the grounds that the Nazi Germany was the aggressor,
international lawyers complained that the United States could not claim neutrality while providing aid to a belligerent — there was no such thing as an aggressor in international law.10 Nazi Germany had not agreed to such a rule of
international law; therefore, such a rule could not exist. Only through the destruction of Nazi Germany could international law be changed; East and West Germany could reenter international so-¶ 36¶ ciety only on other people’s
Because no world government can
compel states to comply with inter- national law, states will comply with international law
terms. How could such a system be perceived to be legitimate? ¶ There is, of course, a reason why international law works in this fash- ion.
only when doing so is in their interest. In this way, international law always depends on state consent. So international law must take states as they are, which means that
little states, big states, good states, and bad states, all exist on a plane of equality. ¶
Iran Politics: 2AC
Veto won’t hold – well over 67 votes
Gray 1-10-15 (Rosie, “Senate Reaches Veto-Proof Majority On Iran Sanctions,” http://www.buzzfeed.com/rosiegray/senatereaches-veto-proof-majority-on-iran-sanctions#.viBVlb5N7)
WASHINGTON — Support
for the Iran sanctions bill in the Senate has reached a veto-proof majority ,
according to a Senate aide close to the process. “Based on the current counts that I’ve seen, it’s well
above 67 ,” the aide said. CNN’s Jim Sciutto reported on Twitter that the number of yes votes on the KirkMenendez sanctions bill had reached 77. The number is not exactly 77, the aide told BuzzFeed, but is above the
two-thirds majority required to override a presidential veto. The aide declined to provide the specific whip count
or to say which senators have joined on.
TPA thumps
Needham and Lillis 1-22-15 (Vicki and Mike, staff writer, "Trade war erupts between Obama, Dems" The Hill)
thehill.com/policy/finance/230358-fast-track-splits-dem-lawmakers
A trade war is erupting between Democrats and the Obama administration over efforts to pass “fasttrack” legislation that would smooth the way for two major trade deals. Dozens of House Democrats are
expressing deep reservations about the White House’s trade agenda, putting themselves on a
collision course with President Obama over concerns that the deals will benefit big business at the expense of U.S.
workers. The president used Tuesday’s State of the Union address to lobby Congress to give him expanded trade powers that
would allow an up-or-down vote on any deal that reaches Capitol Hill, while giving the U.S. more power to steer the global agenda.
But while Democrats say they backed most of the president’s vision on other issues, some called his trade policies “dangerous.”
Reps. Rosa DeLauro (Conn.) and Louise Slaughter (N.Y.) have been two of the loudest voices in
the Democratic chorus against trade promotion authority (TPA) and say they are optimistic they
can block the trade agenda.
Keystone and Wall Street Reform thumps
Bolton 1-21-15 (Alexander, staff writer, "Dems’ top goal in 2015: Unity" The Hill) thehill.com/homenews/senate/230135-demstop-goal-in-2015-unity
An early test of unity will come during the Senate debate on legislation authorizing the Keystone XL oil
pipeline. Ten Democratic senators voted to advance the bill earlier this month after Obama
threatened to veto it. Well aware that the legislation will pass with bipartisan support, Democratic leaders are focused on
unifying the caucus on amendments that can be used as political ammo in the 2016 campaign. One measure would ban the export
of oil that flows through the transnational pipeline. Another would require constructing the project with American steel.
Republicans are also looking to pick off Democrats on proposals to overhaul the 2010 Wall Street
reform law. Some Democrats have already voted for two rollbacks of the law embedded in the year-end
omnibus appropriations bill and the Terrorism Risk Insurance Act (TRIA). “We’ve already made a couple changes to Dodd-Frank,
one in the ‘cromnibus’ and one in the TRIA bill,” Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) said Tuesday. He said reworking
ObamaCare and Dodd-Frank are two priorities for the new Senate Republican majority. “We’re looking for ways to revisit both of
those in ways that would make them substantially different,” he said.
Turn- Plan causes a GOP civil war
Wyler, 14 – Vice associate editor
[Grace, "Republicans Have Finally Turned Against the Drug War," Vice, 3-11-14, www.vice.com/read/cpac-republicans-finally-turnagainst-the-drug-war, accessed 1-4-15]
In short, this is a crowd that relishes a battle—especially a losing one. So it seemed natural to assume that this year’s CPAC
discussion on marijuana legalization would be a swan song to prohibition and the War on Drugs. Even the title of the panel—"Rocky
Mountain High: Does Legalized Pot Mean Society's Going Up In Smoke?"—suggested a room full of Willie Horton Republicans
grumbling about gateway drugs and the country’s moral decay. The panel started off predictably enough, pitting prohibitionist
panelist Christopher Beach, an executive producer for drug-czar-turned-talk-radio-host Bill Bennett, against Fox News commenter
Mary Katharine Ham. Beach spouted off the familiar arguments: that despite massive costs and overflowing prisons, the war on
drugs is actually working, that weed is bad for you, and that legalization could have dire unforeseen consequences for public health
and safety. But then a surprising thing happened: No one bought it. CPAC Republicans, it turns out, really like their weed—or at
least like the idea of legalizing it. One by one, the audience members turned against Beach, heckling his talking points and
bombarding him with anti-drug war stats. A College Republican in Rand Paul swag demanded that Beach account for DEA
surveillance. When Beach suggested that the government is responsible for public safety, the entire audience broke out in loud
jeers. Any prohibition Republicans in the room were likely shamed into silence when Howard Wooldridge, an ex-sheriff in a cowboy
hat and a homemade "COPS SAY LEGALIZE POT: ASK ME WHY" shirt, started yelling “Nanny State Liberal!” at Beach from the
back of the room. “The war on drugs is the most destructive, dysfunctional, and immoral policy since slavery and Jim Crow,” Howard
shouted at Beach. “How do you justify morally the deaths of dozens and dozens of kids every year selling marijuana at your altar of
prohibition?” While the forcefulness of their arguments was unexpected, it makes sense that CPAC’s Republicans would support
legalizing marijuana, given the party’s growing emphasis on limited government, federalism, and personal responsibility. The US
government has spent upwards of $1 trillion on the War on Drugs over the past four decades with negligible results, amounting to a
disastrous and racially charged boondoggle with enormous social costs. The potential unintended consequences of legalizing pot,
libertarian Republicans argue, are outweighed by the danger of Big Government overreach and of wasting millions of taxpayer
dollars on programs that don’t work. “I've witnessed the government’s effort at trying to save us from ourselves, and it's still as easy
for my 14-year-old to get drugs today as it was for me to get them 40 years ago,” said Ken Horst, a middle-aged Minnesota
Republican who was one of the loudest hecklers at the CPAC panel. “What have [they] done with all that time and effort and
money? We don't see any progress. It’s just another example of the government having 40 years to try to do something and prove it
to us, and they didn't do it.” “I don't see that the negatives are so great that if marijuana were legalized, society is going to go into the
toilet and the Russians are going to take over,” he added. Some Republican politicians have also started to soften their views,
breaking with the GOP’s usual hard-line stance on drug policy and criminal justice. In a CPAC panel Friday, Governor Rick Perry of
Texas followed up his recent support for decriminalizing marijuana with remarks on efforts to reform his state’s prison system.
Governor Chris Christie of New Jersey has also tried to make criminal justice a signature issue, using part of his inaugural address
this year to criticize the “failed war on drugs.” And Senator Rand Paul, who won this year’s CPAC straw poll, has said he thinks
marijuana laws should be left to state and local governments. The Republican shift on weed comes as more and more Americans
are starting to embrace the idea of legalization. Colorado and Washington residents can already get high whenever they want, and
Alaska and Oregon will vote on similar measures to legalize recreational use this year. Recent surveys show that about half of
Americans—including 58 percent in this January Gallup poll—now support legalization, up from about 30 percent in 2000. Those
numbers are even greater among young people: According to a new Pew Research Center study on millennials, 68 percent of
people ages 18 to 33 support legalizing weed, up from 34 percent just eight years ago.
The issue has all of the
makings of a culture-war blowout
, pitting old-guard conservatives against a new cadre of young,
more socially liberal conservatives. On one hand, the GOP is desperate to attract a younger crowd, a task the Pew report
suggests is becoming increasingly difficult, as younger voters are overwhelmingly in favor of same-sex marriage, tend to support
abortion rights, and think the government should provide more services. That leaves marijuana legalization as one of the few issues
where Republicans actually have a shot at appealing to voters under 30. On the other hand, the dwindling opposition to weed
remains concentrated among older Republicans, the party’s most reliable voter base.
Kills GOP agenda
Carlson, 14 -- Kitco News staff
[Debbie, "Watch Congressional 'Lame Duck' Session For Clues On Obama, GOP Relationship," Kitco News, 11-6-14,
www.kitco.com/news/2014-11-06/Watch-Congressional-Lame-Duck-Session-For-Clues-On-Obama-GOP-Relationship.html,
accessed 1-4-15]
Stoddard said she expects the new GOP leadership to try to push some “ambitious” legislation on energy, expanding trade and to
reduce regulations, policies they may be able to work with Obama on making into law. They’ll also likely try to “take an ax” to the
Affordable Care Act, also known as Obamacare, but any bills sent to Obama for repeal will likely be vetoed she said. Dee
Buchanan, principal, Ogilvy Government Relations, said he expects to see the House of Representatives and Senate pass a broad
framework on tax reform, but it “remains to be seen whether the president will be invested in a big way... (I’m) hopeful he will do so,
but I’m not optimistic.” Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-Ky), who is expected to become Senate leader, and Rep. John
Boehner (R-Ohio), House leader, will need to hold their factions together “and quash rebellions” to present a
united front to show they can govern, Stoddard said.
Turn- plan causes agenda crowd-out---delays sanctions long enough for
the deal to solve
Cassata 13- AP Staff Reporter
[Donna, “Health care dispute could delay Iran sanctions,” 11-15-13, http://www.morningjournal.com/general-news/20131115/healthcare-dispute-could-delay-iran-sanctions, DOA: 1-17-14]
A Senate delay over an unrelated health care issue could be the silver lining for President Barack Obama in his appeal to
Congress to hold off on a new round of Iran sanctions. Republican Sen. David Vitter of Louisiana wants a vote on his measure to
make lawmakers disclose which of their aides are enrolling in the president's new health care law as part of an ongoing effort to
discredit "Obamacare." He wants a vote as part of the pharmaceutical bill. That could delay Senate action next week on the annual
defense policy bill that is certain to attract an amendment to impose a new round of penalties on Iran. Obama has spoken to Senate
Majority Leader Harry Reid and other senators in a plea to hold off on sanctions. Earlier, Samantha Power, the U.S. ambassador to
the United Nations, said the administration needs more time — without new sanctions — to pursue a deal with Iran.
Winners win- key to momentum and public approval. XOs prove but a new win is
key to keep the momentum going- plan is his only chance
Parnes, 12-27 – The Hill senior White House correspondent
[Amie, "'Liberated' Obama builds momentum," The Hill, 12-27-14, thehill.com/homenews/administration/228017-liberated-obamabuilds-momentum, accessed 12-29-14]
President Obama is responding to a drubbing in the midterm elections with action. So far, it's paying off. Obama's poll numbers —
which had previously slid into the low 40’s — are up, and the president has enjoyed a streak of good headlines. Those factors,
coupled with a rising economy, are making the White House optimistic about his final two years in office. White House allies say the
president feels an increased sense of liberation with the elections over. They predict that he will continue to be proactive in the face
of the Republican Congress that will take power early next year. After a mostly lackluster 2014, Obama was able to score a series of
wins in the last six weeks by going on the offensive with a string of executive actions, a hitherto-secret plan to normalize relations
with Cuba and a satisfying compromise on the omnibus. “He doesn't feel constrained anymore,” said Steve Elmendorf, the
prominent Democratic lobbyist and veteran of Capitol Hill. “I think he felt constrained before the election, a little too constrained, to
protect vulnerable senators. Now he has a little more breathing room.” A former senior administration official said that a more
confident Obama has emerged since the midterm dustup: the one who hates to lose. While political pundits and others in the
Beltway have been portraying him as a lame duck, Obama has fought back against that notion, the official said. “The most
remarkable trait of Barack Obama is that he's always had a confidence about him regardless of political wins or what pundits are
saying,” the former official said. “Throughout his presidency, even in the lowest moments when everyone was piling on, he’s always
had this sense that ultimately he’s going to be vindicated and I think these events certainly helped.” Obama’s winning streak was
extended on Tuesday when new data from the Commerce Department showed that the economy grew at a 5 percent rate from July
to September, the fastest pace in 11 years. The news will surely add to Obama’s swagger on the economy. White House aide say
he’ll continue to tout the recovery – and remind people of just how dire the situation was when he first took office — as part of an
effort to define his legacy. But as the president continues to play in the "fourth quarter," as he put it at his year-end press
conference last week, even some of his most loyal allies are wondering how can he keep the momentum going. Political
observers caution that Obama will face significant roadblocks in the months ahead, especially now that all of Capitol Hill is
Republican-controlled territory “It will be much, much harder,” said Julian Zelizer, a professor of history and public affairs at
Princeton University.
Plan is popular with the public
Motel 14 (11-5-14 (Seth, "6 facts about marijuana" Pew Research Center) www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2014/11/05/6-factsabout-marijuana/
Attitudes about marijuana have undergone a rapid shift in public opinion, paralleled by few other
trends in the U.S. Our recent data, along with historical figures from Gallup and the General Social Survey, reveal how
views have shifted about the drug over time. Earlier this year, our survey found that many more Americans
now favor shifting the focus of the nation’s overall drug policy. Here are six key facts about public opinion and marijuana:
1Support for marijuana legalization is rapidly outpacing opposition . A slim majority (52%) of Americans say
the drug should be made legal, compared with 45% who want it to be illegal. Opinions have changed drastically since 1969, when
Gallup first asked the question and found that just 12% favored legalizing marijuana use. Much of the change in opinion has
occurred over the past few years — support rose 11 points between 2010 and 2013 (although it has remained unchanged in the
past year). Separately, 76% in our February survey said people convicted of minor possession should not serve time in jail.
Presidential popularity is key to the agenda- especially to keep dems in line
Friedman, 8 -- Stratfor chief intelligence officer
[George, "Obama: First Moves," Stratfor, 2008, www.stratfor.com/weekly/20081124_obama_first_moves?ip_auth_redirect=1,
accessed 11-16-10)
Presidents are not as powerful as they are often imagined to be. Apart from institutional constraints, presidents must constantly deal
with public opinion. Congress is watching the polls, as all of the representatives and a third of the senators will be running for reelection in two years. No matter how many Democrats are in Congress, their first loyalty is to their own careers, and collapsing
public opinion polls for a Democratic president can destroy them. Knowing this, they have a strong incentive to oppose an
unpopular president — even one from their own party — or they might be replaced with others who will oppose him. If Obama
wants to be powerful, he must keep Congress on his side, and that means he must keep his numbers up. He is undoubtedly
getting the honeymoon bounce now. He needs to hold that.
Disad starts at 50 percent—too many hurdles to a deal
Good 1-17-15 (Chris, “Everything You Need to Know About the Iran Nuclear Talks,”
http://abcnews.go.com/International/handicapping-iran-deal/story?id=28283871&singlePage=true, CMR)
“I've
always said that the chances that we can actually get a diplomatic deal are probably less than
50-50. Iran is a regime that, you know, is deeply suspicious of the West, deeply suspicious of us,” Obama
said. “We have huge differences with them on a whole range of issues .” Cameron, for his part,
acknowledged that he’s personally lobbied U.S. senators against passing new sanctions that could sink the talks, while Obama
promised a veto if Congress makes that move. With neither side commenting publicly on the substance of the
talks, many questions remain unanswered . Here are some critical things to keep in mind.
No arms race or war
Layne 9 – Int’l Affairs Prof, Texas A&M, Visiting Fellow in Foreign Policy Studies, Cato Institute (Christopher, America’s Middle
East grand strategy after Iraq, Review of International Studies 35, Cambridge Journals)
Of course, hard-line US neoconservatives reject this approach and argue that a nuclear-armed Iran would have three bad
consequences: there could be a nuclear arms race in the Middle East; Iran might supply nuclear weapons to terrorists; and Tehran
could use its nuclear weapons to blackmail other states in the region, or to engage in aggression. Each of these scenarios, however,
is improbable.24 A nuclear Iran will not touch off a proliferation snowball in the Middle East. Israel, of course, already is a
nuclear power. The other three states that might be tempted to go for a nuclear weapons capability are Egypt, Saudi Arabia,
and Turkey. However, each of these states would be under strong pressure not to do so, and Saudi Arabia
lacks the industrial and engineering capabilities to develop nuclear weapons indigenously. Notwithstanding the Bush
administration’s hyperbolic rhetoric, Iran is not going to give nuclear weapons to terrorists. This is not to deny
Tehran’s close links to groups like Hezbollah and Hamas. However, there are good reasons that states – even those that have ties
to terrorists – draw the line at giving them nuclear weapons (or other WMD): if the terrorists were to use these weapons against the
US or its allies, the weapons could be traced back to the donor state, which would be at risk of annihilation
by an American retaliatory strike.25 Iran’s leaders have too much at stake to run this risk. Even if one believes the
administration’s claims that rogue state leaders are indifferent to the fate of their populations, they do care very much about the
survival of their regimes, which means that they can be deterred. For the same reason, Iran’s possession of nuclear weapons will
not invest Tehran with options to attack, or intimidate its neighbours. Israel’s security with respect to Iran is guaranteed by its own
formidable nuclear deterrent capabilities. By the same token, just as it did in Europe during the Cold War, the US can extend its own
deterrence umbrella to protect its clients in the region – Saudi Arabia, the Gulf states, and Turkey. American security
guarantees not only will dissuade Iran from acting recklessly, but also restrain proliferation by negating the
incentives for states like Saudi Arabia and Turkey to acquire their own nuclear weapons. Given the overwhelming US advantage in
both nuclear and conventional military capabilities, Iran is not going to risk national suicide by challenging
America’s security commitments in the region. In short, while a nuclear-armed Iran hardly is desirable, neither is it ‘intolerable’,
because it could be contained and deterred successfully by the US.
1AR
Can’t solve naythign
Laundry list of barriers remain
Kamin 14 (Sam, Professor and Director, Constitutional Rights and Remedies Program, University of Denver, Sturm College of
Law; J.D., Ph.D., University of California, Berkeley, Fall 2014, "ESSAY & SPEECH: COOPERATIVE FEDERALISM AND STATE
MARIJUANA REGULATION" University of Colorado Law Review, 85 U. Colo. L. Rev. 1105, Lexis)
But the second Cole memo did not - and no similar memorandum could - remove the ancillary consequences of
marijuana remaining a Schedule I narcotic under the CSA. As marijuana-law reform moves from a focus on medical use to an
increasing emphasis on adult or recreational use, it confronts the consequences of marijuana's continuing federal
prohibition. This Part sets forth some of the principal problems caused by marijuana's continued prohibition before turning to a
1. Contracting Because marijuana remains illegal at
the federal level, much of the predictability that comes from enforceable contracts is unavailable
to marijuana practitioners. In 2012, for example, an Arizona state court refused to enforce a loan
agreement between two Arizona residents and a Colorado marijuana dispensary on the basis that
the contract was void as against public policy. n33 Although this ruling had the effect of [*1114] providing a windfall
to the illegally-operating dispensary, the court felt itself without recourse; so long as the trafficking of marijuana
remains illegal under federal law, contracts designed to facilitate that conduct remain void. This result
reminds us why the enforceability of contracts is important not just to the parties but to society
more generally. When those who have loaned $ 500,000 (the amount in issue in the Arizona case) to a cash
business find themselves without recourse to the courts, they might be tempted to engage in what
the law euphemistically refers to as "self-help." Everyone is better off when contracts are enforced by
courts rather than by individuals with an ax to grind. 2. Banking Marijuana businesses are also
currently denied one of the most basic of business needs : access to banking services. As has been
widely reported, n34 threats of money-laundering prosecution from the federal government n35 have
made banks gun-shy about lending to marijuana businesses. Currently, in Colorado, no bank will do business
solution in the next Part. A. Consequences for the Industry
with marijuana businesses. n36 There are many negative consequences of withholding banking services from marijuana
businesses. Principally, the lack of banking services keeps marijuana businesses operating in the
shadows of society. As cash businesses, they are targets for violent crime. Faced with this ever-present
threat, marijuana business operators are left with [*1115] a Hobson's choice: they can either remain cash businesses and accept the
risk and stigma that comes with that, or they can attempt to bank surreptitiously, through the use of their personal accounts or
holding companies designed to purge the taint of marijuana transactions. These latter options, of course, open practitioners to the
same threat of money-laundering charges that led to the unavailability of banking services in the first place. The governors of
Colorado and Washington appealed to the federal government for assistance with this problem, n37 and in February of 2014
the Department of Justice and the Department of Treasury's Financial Crimes Enforcement
Network released memos purporting to permit banks to do business with those in the marijuana
industry. n38 However, the banking memos, like the second Cole memo which preceded it, stopped short of
removing the specter of future enforcement actions. n39 One leading bank official was
immediately quoted as saying, " We're still not going to bank them ." n40 3. Legal Services The
legal minefield described in the previous Section calls out for experienced legal counsel to help marijuana
practitioners negotiate the complicated, ever-changing web of marijuana rules and regulations.
Marijuana's continuing illegality makes the provision of these legal services particularly fraught,
however. As long as marijuana remains a prohibited substance - and as long as the CSA continues
to criminalize those who aid and abet marijuana distribution or [*1116] join in a conspiracy to distribute it lawyers who assist their marijuana clients in setting up or running marijuana businesses
necessarily put themselves at risk. Although the second Cole memo declares that states
decriminalizing marijuana would generally be permitted to enforce marijuana laws themselves, the
specter of federal prosecution of marijuana lawyers for aiding and abetting the illegal conduct of their clients
continues to loom. Model Rule of Professional Conduct 1.2(d) n41 and its state analogs prohibit attorneys from knowingly
facilitating criminal conduct. A literal reading of that rule would preclude a lawyer from providing any assistance - e.g., drafting
contracts, negotiating leases - to clients whom the attorney knows are engaged in on-going violations of the CSA. In fact, there is a
split of authority among those states that have considered whether providing legal services to the marijuana industry violates a
lawyer's obligations under the rules of professional responsibility. n42 Colorado, having previously found such conduct to violate its
state ethics rules, n43 later amended those [*1117] rules to explicitly permit lawyers to serve marijuana industry clients. n44 As I
have argued elsewhere, I believe that other, countervailing policy considerations argue against such a literal reading of Rule 1.2(d)
and its state-law equivalents. n45 Because states that are legalizing marijuana - either for medical patients or for adult users - are
Without the
assistance of competent counsel, a state regulatory regime becomes a trap for the unwary.
Furthermore, denying competent legal counsel to those engaged in the marijuana industry can have
profound distributive effects. Powerful actors will be able either to secure legal assistance or to
proceed without it; those without the same means will necessarily be disadvantaged and subject
to considerable risk. Nonetheless, marijuana's continuing federal illegality means that attorneys may
be unwilling to serve those who are in critical need of legal services. B. Consequences for Marijuana Users
creating a complex regulatory apparatus, fairness requires the assistance of lawyers in navigating that system.
While negative externalities discussed above primarily affect marijuana practitioners, the consequences are no less profound for
those simply wishing to consume marijuana in compliance with their state's laws. These consequences are real and will persist so
long as marijuana remains prohibited by the CSA; promises from the federal government to let the states [*1118] take the lead in
marijuana enforcement simply do not undo the consequences of federal prohibition. 1. Employment Currently, one of the biggest
impediments to the legalization of marijuana in the states is the fact that those who test positive for marijuana can lose their
employment even if their conduct is entirely consistent with state law. In Colorado, both state n46 and federal courts n47 have held
that Colorado's "lawful off-duty conduct" statute does not govern the consumption of marijuana. Because the possession of
marijuana remains illegal under federal law, these courts have reasoned that consuming marijuana is not "lawful" conduct, even if it
does not violate state law. Furthermore, the Colorado courts have concluded that an individual fired for testing positive for marijuana
is ineligible for unemployment benefits under the same reasoning, even if that individual is a marijuana patient acting in compliance
with state law. n48 2. Probation/Parole Similarly, state courts have used marijuana's continuing illegality at the
federal level to deny otherwise qualified criminal defendants probation or parole. n49 Because it is
generally a standard condition of supervised release - either following a term of imprisonment or in lieu of one - that
the defendant agree to commit no new offenses during the period of [*1119] release, n50 courts have
held that a defendant's positive test for marijuana permits his re-arrest. Unless or until legislatures in
marijuana states make explicit provision for marijuana use consistent with state law, n51 the federal prohibition will
continue to cast a shadow over the availability of supervised release for those using marijuana
either medically or recreationally. 3. Public Services Generally A number of other public benefits,
from public housing to student loans to government employment , are conditioned on the
recipient's abstinence from illegal-drug use. For example, the federal program that helps fund local
public housing agencies (PHAs) forbids those agencies from admitting into public housing
facilities families that include members who use marijuana. n52 While PHAs have the discretion not
to evict residents who use medical marijuana, n53 that discretion does not extend to admitting
marijuana users into public housing even where their use is compliant with state law. A single
medical marijuana patient, in other words, can make an entire [*1120] family ineligible to receive public
housing, as long as marijuana remains illegal under federal law. 4. Conclusion This non-exhaustive list of
examples of consequences makes clear that the continued prohibition of marijuana at the federal level leads
to unsettled expectations, not just for those trying to make a living in the marijuana industry but
also for those who would take advantage of state laws permitting marijuana use. Deputy Attorney
General Cole stated that federal policy is to let states achieve federal goals through the taxing and regulation of marijuana rather
than state-level prohibition, but the criminality of marijuana at the federal level makes such experimentation
impossible in practice. The following Part proposes a cooperative federalism approach
to marijuana regulation. If states that wish to opt out of the CSA are permitted to do so, if that law
simply does not apply within those states, then they will truly be able to function as laboratories
of ideas with regard to marijuana regulation and taxation. III. A Solution: Making the Second Cole Memo Law The second Cole
essentially
memo is a cooperative step toward solving the apparent contradiction created when states legalize a drug that the federal
government continues to prohibit. This concluding Part sketches a solution that I hope to expand upon in a later article. n54 I
propose that Congress amend the CSA in a manner that allows states to opt out of its marijuana provisions. The federal government
has already set forth the criteria to be used in determining whether a state is regulating marijuana in a manner consistent with
federal priorities. Under this approach, Congress would authorize the Attorney General, or some other executive official, to certify
that a state is regulating marijuana in a manner consistent with federal priorities. n55 Upon certification, the state's regulations would
[*1121] become the sole regulations governing marijuana within that state. Those state provisions, rather than the CSA, would then
apply to the manufacture, distribution, and use of marijuana. n56 While this approach might closely resemble the
status quo in which states are allowed to experiment with marijuana legalization so long as they keep in mind and help achieve
federal goals, it has one crucial difference. Under the current approach, states are allowed to
experiment with marijuana law reform through an act of prosecutorial grace. Those using, selling,
or manufacturing marijuana under state law are not subject to criminal prosecution simply
because federal prosecutors have chosen not to prosecute them. This decision can be undone by
yet another memo . A newly elected president may chart a new policy course or may invoke the
wiggle-room written into the second Cole memo. Thus, those using or selling marijuana pursuant to state law could be
the problem with the status quo is that
marijuana possession, manufacture, and distribution remain illegal under the second Cole memo. Even if
the government keeps its promise not to intervene in states that have enacted robust marijuana regulations, the
continuance of federal marijuana prohibition has a profound effect in those states. Only by
making marijuana truly legal in those states, by allowing qualified states to opt out of the CSA,
can the [*1122] states truly be empowered to chart their own policy direction. Legal Topics: For related research and practice
arrested and prosecuted without any change in federal law. But more than that,
materials, see the following legal topics: Criminal Law & ProcedureCriminal OffensesControlled SubstancesPossessionSimple PossessionElementsEvidenceScientific EvidenceToxicologyTransportation
LawInterstate CommerceFederal Powers FOOTNOTES: n1. See generally Marc R. Poirier, "Whiffs of Federalism" in United States v. Windsor: Power, Localism and Kulturkampf, 85 Colo. L. Rev. 935 (2014). n2.
See generally Ming H. Chen, Immigration and Cooperative Federalism: Toward a Doctrinal Framework, 85 Colo. L. Rev. 1087 (2014). n3. The closest parallel is to America's brief experiment with alcohol
prohibition, but that analogy is inexact. Only if the states had actively opposed the Eighteenth Amendment, legalizing alcohol in the face of the federal prohibition, would the situation directly mirror the current state
of marijuana regulation. n4. I have written longer versions of this history elsewhere. See, e.g., Sam Kamin, Medical Marijuana in Colorado and the Future of Marijuana Regulation in the United States, 43
McGeorge L. Rev. 147 (2012); Sam Kamin & Eli Wald, Medical Marijuana Lawyers: Outlaws or Crusaders?, 91 Or. L. Rev. 869 (2013). n5. Marijuana Tax Act, Pub. L. No. 75-238, 50 Stat. 551 (1937). n6.
Comprehensive Drug Abuse Prevention and Control Act of 1970, Pub. L. No. 91-513, 84 Stat. 1236 (codified as amended at 21 U.S.C. §§801-889 (2006)). n7. See id. § 812(b). n8. See id. § 841 (setting forth
imprisonment of up to a life term for the cultivation of more than 1,000 marijuana plants). n9. Gonzales v. Raich, 545 U.S. 1, 6 (2005). n10. See, e.g., 153 Cong. Rec. H8484 (daily ed. July 25, 2007) (the HincheyRohrbacher Amendment) (stating that "none of the funds made available in this Act to the Department of Justice may be used ... to prevent such States from implementing their own State laws that authorize the
use, distribution, or cultivation of medical marijuana."). n11. See, e.g., Legal Issues, State Laws, Medical Marijuana, NORML, http://norml.org/legal/medical-marijuana-2 (last visited Apr. 17, 2014) (listing states).
n12. These provisions are often referred to as "recreational" or "adult use." I use these terms interchangeably throughout. n13. See Colo. Const. amend. 64; Washington Initiative 502, No. 63-502, Reg. Sess.
(Nov. 6, 2012). A similar proposal in Oregon was rejected. n14. See, e.g., Printz v. United States, 521 U.S. 898, 933 (1997) (holding that local law enforcement officials cannot be required to participate in a
federal regulatory regime); New York v. United States, 505 U.S. 144, 177 (1992) (holding that the federal government cannot "commandeer" state governments into the service of federal regulatory purposes by
requiring the states to legislate in a particular area). n15. The CSA also permits the seizure of all assets being used in the violation of the Act. See, e.g., 21 U.S.C. § 881 (a)(7) (stating that the following property is
subject to forfeiture: "All real property, including any right, title, and interest (including any leasehold interest) in the whole of any lot or tract of land and any appurtenances or improvements, which is used, or
intended to be used, in any manner or part, to commit, or to facilitate the commission of, a violation of this subchapter punishable by more than one year's imprisonment"). n16. The CSA expressly disclaims field
preemption - that is, Congress did not intend to occupy the field of marijuana regulation as it has other areas, such as patent law. By contrast, the CSA states that federal law preempts inconsistent state-court
enactments, but only to the extent that the two laws are so incompatible that compliance with both would be impossible. See 21 U.S.C. § 903 (2013) ("No provision of this subchapter shall be construed as
indicating an intent on the part of the Congress to occupy the field in which that provision operates, including criminal penalties, to the exclusion of any State law on the same subject matter which would otherwise
be within the authority of the State, unless there is a positive conflict between that provision of this subchapter and that State law so that the two cannot consistently stand together."). Elsewhere, I argue that
neither state decriminalization nor regulation runs afoul of the CSA. See, e.g., Erwin Chermerinsky et al., Cooperative Federalism and Marijuana Regulation, 62 UCLA L. Rev. (forthcoming 2015). n17. The
prosecution of significant traffickers of illegal drugs, including marijuana, and the disruption of illegal drug manufacturing and trafficking networks continues to be a core priority in the Department of Justice's efforts
against narcotics and dangerous drugs. The Department's investigative and prosecutorial resources should be directed towards these objectives. n18. As a general matter, pursuit of these priorities should not
focus federal resources in on individuals whose actions are in clear and unambiguous compliance with existing state laws providing for the medical use of marijuana. n19. Finally, nothing herein precludes
investigation or prosecution where there is a reasonable basis to believe that compliance with state law is being invoked as a pretext for the production or distribution of marijuana for purposes not authorized by
state law. Nor does this guidance preclude investigation or prosecution, even when there is clear and unambiguous compliance with existing state law, in particular circumstances where investigation or
prosecution otherwise serves important federal interests. n20. Sam Kamin, Marijuana at the Crossroads: Keynote Address, in 89 Denv. U. L. Rev. 977, 981 (2012) (charting the growth). n21. See, e.g., Matt Volz,
Montana's Medical Marijuana Industry Goes Down, Business Insider, May 12, 2013, http://www.businessinsider.com/montana-medical-marijuana-federal-crackdown-2013-5. n22. See, e.g., Normitsu Onishi, Cities
Balk as Federal Law on Marijuana Is Enforced, N.Y. Times, June 30, 2012, http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/01/us/ hundreds-of-california-medical-marijuana-shops-close.html?_r=0. n23. See, e.g., John Ingold,
Colorado Medical Pot Dispensaries to Get Letters from Feds Saying They're Too Close to Schools, Denver Post, Jan. 13, 2012, http://www.denverpost.com/ci_19733017. n24. Memorandum from James M. Cole,
Deputy Attorney General, Guidance Regarding the Ogden Memo in Jurisdictions Seeking to Authorize Marijuana for Medical Use, June 29, 2011, at 2, available at http://www.justice.gov/oip/docs/dag-guidance2011-for-medical-marijuana-use.pdf ("The Ogden Memorandum was never intended to shield such activities from federal enforcement action and prosecution, even where those activities purport to comply with
state law. Persons who are in the business of cultivating, selling or distributing marijuana, and those who knowingly facilitate such activities, are in violation of the Controlled Substances Act, regardless of state
law."). n25. See, e.g., John Hoeffel, Holder Vows Fight Over Prop. 19, L.A. Times, Oct. 16, 2010, http://articles.latimes.com/2010/oct/16/local/la-me-marijuana-holder-20101016. n26. I believe that President
Obama's presence on the ballot in 2012, but not in 2010, was a large factor in federal silence during the later election cycle. The President could not risk alienating young voters in 2012 by coming out against
marijuana legalization and was thus forced to remain silent as Washington, Oregon, and Colorado voted on legalization. n27. Arizona v. United States, 132 S. Ct. 2492, 2492 (2012). n28. See James M. Cole,
U.S. Dep't of Justice, Office of the Attorney Gen., Guidance Regarding Marijuana Enforcement, Aug. 29, 2013, available at http://www.justice.gov/iso/opa/resources/3052013829132756857467.pdf [hereinafter
Cole Memo II]. n29. Id. at 2. n30. Id. at 3. n31. See id. at 3 ("Previous guidance drew a distinction between the seriously ill and their caregivers, on the one hand, and large-scale, for-profit commercial enterprises,
on the other, and advised that the latter continued to be appropriate targets for federal enforcement and prosecution ... . As explained above, however, both the existence of a strong and effective state regulatory
system, and an operation's compliance with such a system, may allay the threat that an operation's size poses to federal enforcement interests. Accordingly, in exercising prosecutorial discretion, prosecutors
should not consider the size or commercial nature of a marijuana operation alone as a proxy for assessing whether marijuana trafficking implicates the Department's enforcement priorities listed above."). n32. The
recent federal-state crackdown on selected marijuana dispensaries and grow operations in Colorado is not evidence to the contrary. See Jeremy P. Meyer, et al., Fed Raids on Colorado Marijuana Businesses
Seek Ties to Colombian Drug Cartels, Denver Post, Nov. 22, 2013, http://www.denverpost.com/breakingnews/ci_24580571/fed-raids-colorado-marijuana-businesses-seek-ties-colombian. The federal government
has indicated that these raids were brought against those believed to be out of compliance with state law. See Ana Campoy & Andrew Grossman, Crime-Link Concerns Triggered Raids of Marijuana Businesses,
Wall St. J., Nov. 30, 2013, http://online.wsj.com.ezp2.lib.umn.edu/news/articles/SB10001424052702303332904579228200231126242/. n33. Hammer v. Today's Health Care II, CV2011-051350 (Apr. 17, 2012)
("The explicitly stated purpose of these loan agreements was to finance the sale and distribution of marijuana. This was in clear violation of the laws of the United States. As such, this contract is void and
unenforceable."). n34. See, e.g., Ashley Southall, Answers Sought for When Marijuana Laws Collide, N.Y. Times, Sept. 13, 2013, http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/11/us/answers-sought-for-when-marijuana-lawscollide.html. n35. See Memorandum from James M. Cole, U.S. Dep't of Justice, Off. of the Att'y Gen., Guidance Regarding the Ogden Memo in Jurisdictions Seeking to Authorize Marijuana for Medical Use 2
(June 29, 2011), available at http://www.justice.gov/oip/docs/dag-guidance-2011-for-medical-marijuana-use.pdf ("State laws or local ordinances are not a defense to civil or criminal enforcement of federal law with
respect to such conduct, including enforcement of the CSA. Those who engage in transactions involving the proceeds of such activity may also be in violation of federal money laundering statutes and other
federal financial laws."). n36. See, e.g., John Ingold, Last Bank Shuts Doors on Colorado Pot Dispensaries, Denver Post, Oct. 1, 2010, http://www.denverpost.com/ci_19016660. n37. Letter from John W.
Hickenlooper, Governor of Colo. & Jay Inslee, Governor of Wash., to Jacob Lew, Sec'y of the Treasury, et al. (Oct. 2, 2013), available at http://alturl.com/a6rmy. n38. See, e.g., Evan Perez, Banks Cleared to
Accept Marijuana Business, CNN (Feb. 17, 2014), http://www.cnn.com/2014/02/14/politics/u-s-marijuana-banks/index.html. n39. Id. ("The guidance falls short of the explicit legal authorization that banking industry
officials had pushed the government to provide."); David Migoya & Allison Sherry, Banks Given the Go-Ahead on Working with Marijuana Businesses, Denver Post, Feb. 17, 2014,
http://www.denverpost.com/business/ci_25143792/feds-give-historic-green-light-banks-working-marijuana ("Bankers were less-than-tepid while the marijuana industry reacted enthusiastically to the
announcement, acknowledging the allowance for critical business services, but reiterating how an act of Congress will settle the question."). n40. Id. n41. Model Rules of Prof'l Conduct R. 1.2(d) (2013) ("A lawyer
shall not counsel a client to engage, or assist a client, in conduct that the lawyer knows is criminal or fraudulent, but a lawyer may discuss the legal consequences of any proposed course of conduct with a client
and may counsel or assist a client to make a good faith effort to determine the validity, scope, meaning or application of the law."). n42. See Me. Prof'l Ethics Comm'n, Formal Op. 199 (2010), available at
http://www.maine.gov/tools/whatsnew/index.php?topic=mebar_overseers_ethics_opinions&id=110134&v=article ("Where the line is drawn between permitted and forbidden activities needs to be evaluated on a
case by case basis. Bar Counsel has asked for a general opinion regarding the kind of analysis which must be undertaken. We cannot determine which specific actions would run afoul of the ethical rules. We
can, however, state that participation in this endeavor by an attorney involves a significant degree of risk which needs to be carefully evaluated."); State Bar of Ariz., Formal Op. 11-01 (2011), available at
http://www.azbar.org/Ethics/EthicsOpinions/ViewEthicsOpinion?id=710 ("A lawyer may ethically counsel or assist a client in legal matters expressly permissible under the Arizona Medical Marijuana Act ("Act"),
despite the fact that such conduct potentially may violate applicable federal law. "); see also Colo. Ethics Comm., Formal Op. 125 (2013), available at http://www.cobar.org/tcl/tcl_articles.cfm?articleid=8370
("Colorado is one of a handful of states conducting an experiment in democracy: the gradual decriminalizing of marijuana. The Committee notes that, as a consequence of Colo. RPC 1.2(d) as written, Colorado
risks conducting this experiment either without the help of its lawyers or by putting its lawyers in jeopardy of violating its rules of professional conduct."). n43. State Bar of Colo., Formal Op. 125, The Extent to
Which Lawyers May Represent Clients Regarding Marijuana-Related Activities (adopted Oct. 21, 2013; Addendum dated Oct. 21, 2013), available at
http://www.cobar.org/repository/Ethics/FormalEthicsOpion/FormalEthicsOpinion_125_2013.pdf ("Unless and until there is a change in applicable federal law or in the Colorado Rules of Professional Conduct, a
lawyer cannot advise a client regarding the full panoply of conduct permitted by the marijuana amendments to the Colorado Constitution and implementing statutes and regulations. To the extent that advice were
to cross from advising or representing a client regarding the consequences of a client's past or contemplated conduct under federal and state law to counseling the client to engage, or assisting the client, in
conduct the lawyer knows is criminal under federal law, the lawyer would violate Rule 1.2(d)."). n44. See Colo. Rules of Prof'l Conduct, Rule 1.2, cmt. 14 ("A lawyer may counsel a client regarding the validity,
scope, and meaning of Colorado constitution article XVIll, secs. 14 & 16, and may assist a client in conduct that the lawyer reasonably believes is permitted by these constitutional provisions and the statutes,
regulations, orders, and other state or local provisions implementing them. ln these circumstances, the lawyer shall also advise the client regarding related federal law and policy."). n45. See Sam Kamin & Eli
Wald, Marijuana Lawyers: Outlaws or Crusaders?, 91 Or. L. Rev. 869, 917-18 (2013). n46. Coats v. Dish Network, L.L.C., 303 P.3d 147, 150-51 (Colo. App. 2013). n47. Curry v. MillerCoors, Inc., No. 12-cv02471-JLK, 2013 WL 449430712,6 (D. Colo. Aug. 21, 2013). n48. See Beinor v. Indus. Claims Appeal Office, 262 P.3d 970, 974-75 (Colo. App. 2011) ("We conclude that the medical use of marijuana by an
employee holding a registry card under amendment XVIII, section 14 is not pursuant to a prescription, and therefore does not constitute the use of "medically prescribed controlled substances' within the meaning
of section 8-73-108(5)(e)(IX.5). Accordingly, the presence of medical marijuana in an individual's system during working hours is a ground for a disqualification from unemployment benefits under that section.").
n49. See, e.g., People v. Watkins, 282 P.3d 500, 502-03 (Colo. App. 2012) (finding that a trial judge must make it a condition of probation that a probationer commit no new offenses and that, because the
possession and use of marijuana remain illegal at the federal level, such possession or use constitutes a new offense notwithstanding state law to the contrary). n50. See, e.g., Colo. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 18-1.3204(1) (West 2013) ("The court shall provide as [an] explicit condition[] of every sentence to probation that the defendant not commit another offense during the period for which the sentence remains subject to
revocation."). n51. See, e.g., Cal. Health & Safety Code § 11362.795(a) (West 2004) ("(1) Any criminal defendant who is eligible to use marijuana pursuant to section 11362.5 may request that the court confirm
that he or she is allowed to use medical marijuana while he or she is on probation or released on bail. (2) The court's decision and the reasons for the decision shall be stated on the record and an entry stating
those reasons shall be made in the minutes of the court. (3) During the period of probation or release on bail, if a physician recommends that the probationer or defendant use medical marijuana, the probationer
or defendant may request a modification of the conditions of probation or bail to authorize the use of medical marijuana. (4) The court's consideration of the modification request authorized by this subdivision shall
comply with the requirements of this section."). n52. See, e.g., Memorandum from Helen R. Kanovsky, Office of the Gen. Counsel, U.S. Dep't of Hous. & Urban Dev., to John Trasvina, Assistant Sec'y for Fair
Hous. & Equal Opportunity, U.S. Dep't of Hous. & Urban Dev., et al. (Jan. 20, 2011) ("PHAs and owners must deny admission to those applicant households with individuals who are, at the time of consideration
for admission, using medical marijuana.") (on file with author). n53. See id. ("While PHAs and owners may elect to terminate occupancy based on illegal drug use, they are not required to evict current tenants for
such use."). n54. See Kamin et al., supra note 16. n55. As will be more fully explained in the later article, the proposal that I suggest herein bears a close similarity to existing federal programs. For example, the
Clean Air Act calls on the states to submit to the federal government an air quality implementation plan. See 42 U.S.C. § 7410(a)(1) (2012). If the federal government does not receive or does not approve the plan
submitted by the state, it is authorized to implement its own plan. See id. § 7410(c)(1). Similarly, under the proposal I suggest, the Attorney General or her designee will have the authority to apply the CSA to a
state or accept a state plan for regulating marijuana. n56. In this way, our proposal looks similar to United States Congresswoman Diana DeGette's proposal. See H.R. 964, 113th Cong. (2013). The principal
difference is that Congresswoman DeGette's bill speaks only to preemption, not to the coverage of the CSA; it gives states the power to enact their own regulations, but it does not preclude the enforcement of
Kleiman has suggested a number of possible law reforms,
including changing federal policy to defer to state lawmaking. See, e.g., Mark A.R. Kleiman, Cooperative Enforcement
Agreements and Policy Waivers: New Options for Federal Accommodation to State-Level Cannabis Legalization, 6 J. Drug
federal law within marijuana legalization states. Similarly, Professor Mark
only one of Kleiman's many suggestions - the issuance of
waivers to states who meet set federal criteria - solves the problems identified above. Furthermore,
Pol'y Analysis 1 (2013). Our paper will argue that
Kleiman's concern about the establishment of criteria for the issuing of waivers is largely satisfied by the fact that the second Cole
memo has since established a valid set of such criteria.
Minimal solvency deficits are absolute
Kamin, 12 [Sam, Professor of Law and Director of the Constitutional Rights & Remedies Program, University of Denver Sturm
College of Law, , 89 Denv. U.L. Rev. 977, “MARIJUANA AT THE CROSSROADS”, p. lexis]
the biggest problem we have with the status quo is the Sword of Damocles hanging over the
industry : namely that the production and sale of marijuana remain a serious felony offense
under federal law. The volume of marijuana that is grown and sold in Colorado's larger dispensaries is the sort of drug manufacture and distribution that can earn
people something tantamount to a lifetime sentence under federal law. n24 And while it is unlikely that any marijuana dispensary owner
in compliance with state law is going to federal prison any time soon, the fact remains that medical
marijuana is an industry built entirely on conduct that the federal government continues to
prohibit. So on the one hand, things are perfectly sustainable. The industry is regulated, patients can get their medicines, the state gets its tax revenue and counties
But
that object strenuously to the presence of dispensaries can exclude them. Everything is ok except that every sale in every dispensary is a violation of federal law. For those of
you who remember the movie Pulp Fiction, it's as John Travolta said to Samuel L. Jackson when describing the hash bars in Amsterdam, "Well they're legal but they aren't 100
"Not 100 percent legal" is a particularly uncertain base on
which to found a multi-million dollar industry. And it is important to remember in this context that the
percent legal."
vanishingly small risk of being sent to a federal penitentiary is not the only-or even the principalinfluence that continuing federal prohibition has on the nascent marijuana industry. Given that every
marijuana transaction in this industry is a federal crime, it is often hard for those in the industry to convince banks to do
business with them. It is hard to get investors to put their money into a business that could be
seized at any moment by the federal government. It is hard to get a lease when your landlord can
evict you at any time because your business is one that violates federal law. It is hard to form any
contractual relationship when any contract involving the sale of marijuana is almost certainly void
because it constitutes a violation of federal law . n25 Thus, so much of predictability that we sought
to achieve through our regulatory regime is lost because of this strong disagreement between
state and federal policy at this point. Continued [*986] federal prohibition means that no state government
has the power to create legal certainty on its own. Furthermore, patients do not know where they stand either. We heard a
heartbreaking story at the conference from a member of the audience who said that she was trying to convince her mother to get a marijuana patient card to help her ease the
pain of a broken hip. She told us that her mother was in terrible pain but that she was more afraid of going to prison. And the panel, to a person, said please tell your
would-be patients
are chilled by the prospect of federal law enforcement-however
remote it may be. However, patients' concerns, like those of dispensary owners, are not limited to the fear of going to prison. Many are
concerned that they will lose their kids, or their public housing, or other government benefits if they test
positive for marijuana, or if they are found out as marijuana users. And this fear may be much more realistic. Many jobs do prohibit you
from taking a controlled substance, or from violating any state or federal law. The provision of public housing is often
grandmother that no U.S. Attorney in the country wants to put her in prison, and that is almost certainly right. What it highlights, however, is that
are aware of the conflict between state and federal law and
premised on an agreement not to use drugs, or not to have them on the premises. A patient shown to use marijuana or to have it in the home might be less likely to be awarded
custody in a divorce proceeding. So even patients who are not worried about going to prison have concerns that their other settled expectations will be lost if they use marijuana
those providing services to the industry, whether they're doctors, lawyers, bankers or landlords, do not
know where they stand either. For example, lawyers have a professional obligation not to knowingly encourage or knowingly assist in the commission of a
as medicine. Furthermore,
crime. n26 Obviously, this does not prohibit an attorney from informing her client about the interaction between state and federal law and the existence and substance of
Colorado's regulatory regime. Beyond that, though-when we move from informing to advising and assisting-what conduct is permitted and what is prohibited? Can an attorney
incorporate a business whose primary-or sole-business is criminal? Can she write an employment contract for an employee whose every act will be criminal? Can she help a
businessperson do the compliance work that will result in the issuance of a state license to sell marijuana? The current contradictory state of the law obviously makes these
incredibly difficult questions for a lawyer to answer. On the one hand, if Colorado has chosen to regulate and tax this industry, it seems obvious that those regulated by the state
government should be allowed to seek [*987] legal advice in complying with that regulation. On the other, if every sale by every dispensary is a federal crime, it seems hard to
argue that the attorney-by writing a lease, by doing compliance work, by incorporating a business-is not knowingly facilitating criminal conduct. What is more, there is the
possibility, however remote, of criminal prosecution for attorneys who have marijuana entrepreneurs as clients. A lawyer who intends to help and in fact does help her client
engage in criminal conduct can be charged as an accomplice in that conduct; n27 an attorney who joins an agreement to engage in criminal conduct can be charged with
conspiring to commit that conduct. n28 The specter of criminal prosecution is particularly disarming because, while attorneys are regulated at the state level, it is federal
prosecutors who could charge an attorney with conspiring with or aiding and abetting her dispensary owner clients. While it might be far-fetched to imagine the same state that
enacted medical marijuana provisions punishing attorneys for participating in that industry, it is less fantastical to imagine a federal prosecutor-who has sworn to uphold federal
laws including the CSA-going after not only a dispensary, but its bank, its landlord, and its attorney as well. So the fact that marijuana is legal but not 100 percent legal makes
everybody in the industry-patients, practitioners, lawyers, doctors, landlords-uncertain with regard to exactly where they stand.
nature breeds instability.
So if the status quo can't hold, where can we go from here?
Uncertainty by its very
La rels
LA Rels Low: FL
Rels low—venezuela sanctions overwhelmed cuba—sent mixed signals
By Alexander Main, The Hill Monday, Dec 29, 2014 “One step forward, one step back. US just can't get Latin America right.”
The Hill, http://axisoflogic.com/artman/publish/Article_68792.shtml
President Obama's decision to normalize relations with Cuba has grabbed headlines and drawn plaudits
from around the world. In a short but historic speech, Obama announced a breathtaking series of measures including the
reestablishing of full diplomatic relations with Cuba and the significant easing of restrictions on travel to the island nation. He also
made a plea to Congress to undo the 54-year-old embargo against Cuba.¶ But at the same time, Obama has
supported a significant hardening of policy toward one of Cuba's closest allies in the region. ¶
Venezuela has just joined Cuba as one of only two countries in the Western Hemisphere subject to
U.S. sanctions. Legislation mandating sanctions against Venezuelan officials was approved by voice vote in the Senate on
Dec. 8 and then sailed through the House on Dec. 10. On Dec. 18, just one day after his speech on a "new course" on Cuba,
Obama signed the sanctions bill into law. Cuban-American Sen. Bob Menendez (D-N.J.), who authored the legislation, called it "a
victory for the Venezuelan people."¶ The trouble is, the people of Venezuela don't seem to agree with Menendez. A survey carried
out by independent pollster Datanalisis showed that nearly three quarters of Venezuelans oppose U.S. sanctions. The Caracasbased human rights organization PROVEA — a frequent critic of Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro — also vigorously rejects
the measure. Other Latin American governments oppose the sanctions as well. At a May summit, South
America's heads of state strongly voiced their opposition to the Senate bill and its House
companion, authored by Florida Republican Rep. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen.¶ The stated purpose of the bill is "to
impose targeted sanctions on persons responsible for violations of human rights of antigovernment protesters" that took to the
streets between February and April of this year demanding Maduro's departure. The bill's promoters mention that over 40 people
died during the protests but don't acknowledge that a large number of these deaths included state security forces and progovernment activists and were caused by the protesters themselves. Moreover, as human rights organizations have noted,
Venezuelan authorities have carried out investigations of abuses and apprehended at least 17 security agents allegedly implicated
in violent acts against demonstrators.¶ Troubling reports of impunity still surround some of the killings and abuses perpetrated during
the protests. But does Venezuela's human rights situation really justify sanctions? If so, then why hasn't the U.S. government
sanctioned authorities in Colombia, where the army reportedly executed at least 5,763 innocent civilians between 2000 and 2010?
Why hasn't it sanctioned Honduras, where security forces regularly commit extrajudicial killings with impunity? Or what about
Mexico, where 43 students recently disappeared, most likely all killed, with the alleged complicity of both local and federal police?
Instead of penalizing the governments of these countries, the U.S. continues to send them hundreds of millions of dollars in security
assistance.¶ So where do the sanctions against Venezuela come from?¶ For years, a handful of members of Congress with ties
to far-right Cuban exile groups has
sought to harden U.S. policy toward Venezuela and other left-leaning
Latin American governments with close relations to the Cuban government. In 2007, Ros-Lehtinen and three other South
Florida representatives sent a letter to President George W. Bush, urging him to declare Venezuela's democratically elected
government a "dictatorship" and grant temporary political asylum to Venezuelans who had overstayed their U.S. visas. In 2008,
Rep. Connie Mack (R-Fla.), Ros-Lehtinen, Rep. Mario Díaz Balart (R-Fla.) and five other legislators sponsored a resolution calling
for Venezuela to join Cuba on the U.S. list of state sponsors of terrorism. ¶ Though these and other efforts didn't gain momentum, the
sanctions legislation, introduced in both houses in March, benefited from intense media coverage around the 2014 protests and an
unprecedented mobilization of opposition-aligned Venezuelans in the U.S. It passed the House in May but was held up in the
Senate until early December. The administration, meanwhile, announced that it opposed sanctions since, in the words of a U.S.
official, it "would reinforce the narrative of this being about the Venezuelan government standing up to the U.S." ¶ A group of
Democratic legislators applauded the administration's position, noting that "unilateral U.S. intervention and sanctions have caused
deep resentment throughout Latin America." This is perhaps especially true in Venezuela, where people still remember how the U.S.
government supported a short-lived military coup against late President Hugo Chávez back in 2002. ¶ Nevertheless, the
administration began carrying out minor, unofficial sanctions — first revoking visas of Venezuelan officials and then barring U.S.
exports of equipment with a "military end use" to Venezuela. Then, in late November, Antony Blinken, Obama's nominee for deputy
secretary of State, told Sens. Menendez and Marco Rubio (R-Fla.) that the administration was now fully supporting sanctions.¶ The
administration clearly dislikes President Maduro but is well aware that an aggressive unilateral measure like sanctions could
undermine the divided Venezuelan opposition and further isolate the U.S. regionally. So why is it now supportive of sanctions?¶
When Obama announced the dramatic shift in U.S. policy toward Cuba, he knew it would trigger
outrage in the ranks of Cuban-American members of Congress. Though some of these legislators have fringe
viewpoints on Latin America, they happen to have powerful committee positions and could make it even harder for the
administration to achieve anything in Congress. The preside
nt apparently felt he should throw them a bone to try to appease them; the bone was a promise to
back their Venezuela sanctions bill.¶ Such trade-offs may make sense from a Beltway perspective.
But allowing legislators stuck in a Cold War mentality to steer U.S. Venezuela policy is dangerous
and risks wrecking the good will that the administration's Cuba detente is generating throughout
the region . In the words of President Obama, it's time to fully "cut loose the [policy] shackles of the past." Not just with regard to
Cuba, but on policy toward Venezuela and other left-leaning Latin American governments as well.
LA relations and stabilty collapsing because of drug violence
By JOHN M. ACKERMAN January 06, 2015 Dr. John M. Ackerman is a professor at the Institute for Legal Research of the
National Autonomous University of Mexico (UNAM), Editor-in-Chief of The Mexican Law Review, and a columnist for La Jornada
newspaper and Proceso Magazine. “It's Time To Reset U.S.-Mexico Relations” Politico The current U.S. strategy has failed. Read
more: http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2015/01/us-mexico-relations-reset-113998.html#ixzz3Paz3j8mM
Mexico’s President Enrique Peña Nieto makes his first state visit to the White House this week. This
meeting offers a
golden opportunity to start cleaning up the blood which today stains US-Mexico relations. Since taking
office, President Barack Obama has treaded water in the bilateral relationship and become increasingly
implicated with terrible human rights violations in the process. It is time to end this vicious cycle and mark
out a new path for peace and prosperity in North America.
Ptx
Uniqueness
Iran U: Sanctions Now—1AR
Yes- veto – proof- majority – momentum is repulcians
PC can’t overwhelm – not enough push
Dems will cave on veto threat – support is swelling, 1 vote away
Rothman 1-21-15 (Noah, “Is the first big veto override fight coming over new sanctions on Iran?,”
http://hotair.com/archives/2015/01/21/is-the-first-big-veto-override-fight-coming-over-new-sanctions-on-iran/)
Menendez has joined with Sen. Mark Kirk (R-IL) and drafted bipartisan legislation that would impose
new sanctions on the Iranian regime if it violates the terms of a nuclear deal or abandons the negotiations process. If that bill
reaches Obama’s desk and he follows through with his veto threat, it sets the stage for a real fight with Congress that could
precipitate the first veto override of Obama’s presidency. According to The National Journal, the
possibility that Congressional Dem ocrat s might be forced to repudiate the president in that fashion is real
and growing by the day . Twelve Dem ocrat s in the Senate have in the past cosponsored legislation to
impose sanctions on Iran. If they all continue to call for the sanctions, it would put the Senate close to the twothirds majority necessary to override Obama’s veto; supporters would need just one more vote if all 54
Republicans support the bill. Obama has vetoed only two bills in six years, and neither was overridden. More vetoes are likely on tap
now that Republicans control both chambers of Congress—on issues ranging from the Keystone XL pipeline to Obama’s executive
actions on immigration—but no current issue other than Iran
seems as likely to attract the number of Dem ocrat s
necessary for an override. … Democrats aren’t yet willing to discuss bucking Obama in such a public fashion, according to
aides, but the possibility is certainly there. It’s difficult for any lawmaker to vote against a punishment for Iran, and those who
are frustrated with how the talks are going could egg everyone else on. Even stalwart Obama
allies like Sen. Tim Kaine (D-VA) are expressing serious doubts about the direction of Obama’s approach to foreign
affairs. It is unclear if Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s forthcoming address to a joint session of Congress is going to
make Democrats more comfortable with the idea of overriding a presidential veto. More likely, his speech will have the opposite
leading Democratic figures are transcending partisanship in order to oppose this
White House’s approach to nuclear negotiations with Iran. That could set the stage for a major
presidential embarrassment in the coming year.
effect. It seems, however, that
More ev –Override likely
Benace 1-23-15 (Nancy, “Obama's Veto Threats Point To Issues Roiling Washington,”
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/01/23/obama-veto-threats-_n_6531880.html, CMR)
Of all the legislation subject to an Obama veto threat, a bipartisan effort to impose new sanctions on
Iran to discourage its nuclear program may have the best chance of mustering the two-thirds vote needed to
override a presidential veto . A vote on that could come as early as next month.
Veto-proof majority inevitable
Fawn Johnson 1/20, correspondent for National Journal, covering domestic policy issues such as gun control, transportation,
and education, “Iran Bill Could Prompt Obama's First Veto Override”, 1/20/15, http://www.nationaljournal.com/white-house/iran-billcould-prompt-obama-s-first-veto-override-20150120
A potential showdown is looming between Senate Democrats and the White House over Iran, one that
could lead to the first successful veto override of President Obama's tenure. On one side are Hill Democrats who—
along with Republicans—want to weigh in on Iran's nuclear program. On the other is the White House, which has said that any
statement from Congress would jeopardize a long-term deal to dismantle the country's nuclear capabilities. Obama has vowed to
veto any legislation that imposes sanctions, urging Congress to "hold your fire" while talks continue. Twelve Democrats in the
Senate have in the past cosponsored legislation to impose sanctions on Iran. If they all continue to call for the sanctions,
it would put the Senate close to the two-thirds majority necessary to override Obama's veto; supporters would need just one more
vote if all 54 Republicans support the bill. Obama has vetoed only two bills in six years, and neither was overridden. More vetoes
are likely on tap now that Republicans control both chambers of Congress—on issues ranging from the Keystone XL pipeline to
Obama's executive actions on immigration—but no current issue other than Iran seems as likely to attract the
number of Democrats necessary for an override. Democrats who favor more sanctions on Iran say they need hard
details from the administration about the progress it has made in two years of talks. How many reactors are still functioning? How
much uranium do the Iranians have? "Are they allowing full access? Just someone give me an update. Help us make a decision on
the bill," said Democratic Sen. Joe Manchin of West Virginia, who has supported sanctions in the past but is undecided on how he
will vote when the Senate takes up a sanctions bill later this month. Democrats aren't yet willing to discuss bucking Obama in such
a public fashion, according to aides, but the possibility is certainly there. It's difficult for any lawmaker to vote against a
punishment for Iran, and those who are frustrated with how the talks are going could egg everyone else on.
Dem Unity Thumper: Trade 1AR
Trade is causing massive Democratic fractures now
Linda Feldmann, staff, “Obama Liberated?” CHRISTIAN SCIENCE MONITOR,
1—20—15, LN
Obama's mixed message to Democrats. For the most part, Obama will be all Democrat all the time Tuesday night. And in proposing
a restructuring of the tax code that goes after inherited wealth and raises the tax rate on capital gains for the wealthiest Americans,
he is taking a bow to the liberal Elizabeth Warren wing of the Democratic Party. But Obama's desire to conclude
international trade deals that Democrats oppose is a sore point within the party, and Obama will choose
his words carefully. "You don't poke a stick in your own party's eye on national TV," Mr. Galston says.
"But what you can do is emphasize your willingness to cooperate and compromise in the areas where that's possible." In recent
days, Galston says, the White House has begun to understand how little Democratic support there is
for Obama's trade agenda in Congress. The withdrawal of Antonio Weiss as Obama's choice for a
top Treasury Department post because of liberal objections to his Wall Street background shows
the growing power of that wing of the party.
TPA thumps Dem unity
Carol E. Lee and Kristina Peterson, “Obama to Use State of the Union Speech to Outline Areas of Compromise,” WALL STREET
JOURNAL, 1—16—15, www.wsj.com/articles/obama-to-use-state-of-the-union-speech-to-outline-areas-of-compromise1421453019
Mr. Obama has encountered more resistance from his own party on trade, including from Senate Minority
Leader Harry Reid (D., Nev.), when Democrats were in the majority. Many Democrats worry that trade deals are
bad for U.S. workers by not doing enough to stem the flow of jobs overseas and not requiring
trading partners to observe sufficiently strict labor and environmental rules. “This is an area where we
can find common ground with the president, but we need the president to engage,” said House Ways and Means Committee
Chairman Paul Ryan (R., Wis.). “We need him to make it a priority in the State of the Union. We need him to work with his party to
help get the votes.” Rep. Mark Pocan (D., Wis.) said Democrats are hesitant to expedite passage of the Trans-
Pacific Partnership, a free-trade pact under negotiation with the Asia-Pacific region, without
gaining more clarity over its contents. “To give fast-track authority without us really knowing what’s in it is giving up our
responsibility as members of Congress,” Mr. Pocan said. “We are afraid, based on past trade deals, where we’ve had more jobs go
overseas,” that this trade agreement and others could “very negatively affect American workers,” he said.
Link turns
GOP Unity 1AR
Link turn solves the disad- GOP disunity allows Obama to quash Republicans
and re-assure Iran
Rubin, 12-12 -- Washington Post [Jennifer, "Can Congress stop a rotten Iran deal?," Wash Post, 12-12-14,
www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/right-turn/wp/2014/12/12/can-congress-stop-a-rotten-iran-deal/, accessed 1-4-15]
A unified, veto-proof majority on legislation containing these elements would be a strategic win for the West and an historic
reassertion of Congress’s role in protecting its own legislation (sanctions) from executive meddling and outright violation. Sen. Ted
Cruz (R-Tex.) and other hard-liners would prefer immediate sanctions, but the perfect should not be the enemy of the good. A
strictly partisan effort that lowers the vote total and allows the president both to claim this is all Republican harping
and to assure the Iranians he can veto congressional “mischief” would be a disastrous failure. If Cruz was the goat in the
shutdown, imagine the outrage if he held up a bipartisan consensus on preventing Iran from going nuclear.
Internal link controls uniqueness- unity key for GOP and leads to democratic
bandwagoning- try or die to break GOP unity
Kane, 1-4 – Washington Post congressional reporter
[Paul, "New Senate majority leader’s main goal for GOP: Don’t be scary," Washington Post, 1-4-15,
www.washingtonpost.com/politics/new-senate-majority-leaders-main-goal-for-gop-dont-be-scary/2015/01/04/80d27196-9074-11e4a900-9960214d4cd7_story.html, accessed 1-4-15]
McConnell has been coaching his members to understand that, in the initial rounds, they will have to
almost unanimously support the budget outline and the spending bills, because few Democrats will support their policy
riders. With 54 Republicans in his caucus, McConnell knows that he’s a long way from getting 67 votes to override an Obama veto
and that it won’t even be easy getting six Democrats to regularly support legislation so that he can overcome likely filibusters led by
the incoming minority leader, Sen. Harry M. Reid (D-Nev.). Still, on some issues, such as energy and taxes on the health industry,
McConnell thinks there’s enough bipartisan support to get bills onto Obama’s desk. “They’d like to be relevant. They’d like
to be part of the process,” he said of discussions with some rank-and-file Dem ocrat s . “ Assuming
we
have
a
unified conference — I don’t expect that on everything — it wouldn’t
will
on most issues
largely
take a whole lot of Democrats to actually pass legislation in the Senate.”
More time locks in gains- makes it impossible for GOP to fight
Fikenscher, 14 -- Harvard International Security Program research fellow
[Sven-Eric, and Robert J. Reardon is Assistant Professor of Political Science in the School of Public and International Affairs at
North Carolina State University, "The Fool's Errand for a Perfect Deal with Iran," The Washington Quarterly, Fall 2014, 37:3,
https://twq.elliott.gwu.edu/sites/twq.elliott.gwu.edu/files/downloads/Fikenscher-Reardon_Fall2014.pdf, accessed 1-1-15]
Also, an incremental process would help build mutual trust over time as the two sides reach and honor agreements. Likewise, the
compromises made by each side would increasingly lock in over time, as the political constituencies that benefit from them lobby
for continued or deepened cooperation, hardline opposition loses political traction, and the more moderate forces that advanced
compromise reap domestic political rewards. As a result, issues that are at present intractable could over time become easier to
resolve.
Winners Win 1AR
[finish 2ac card]
olitical observers caution that Obama will face significant roadblocks in the months ahead, especially now that all of Capitol Hill is
Republican-controlled territory “It will be much, much harder,” said Julian Zelizer, a professor of history and public affairs at
Princeton University.
Keeping the streak going is key- Obama needs a new win to prevent conservative
reprieve
Yong, 12-27 -- Strait Times
[Jermey Au, "US President Obama gets his groove back," 12-27-14, news.asiaone.com/news/world/us-president-obama-gets-hisgroove-back, accessed 1-4-15]
He gave a clear hint of the sort of thinking that will drive his interactions with a Republican-controlled Congress next year: He still
has veto power and is not about to be bullied. "In order for their initiatives to become law, I'm going to have to sign off and that
means they have to take into account the issues I care about, just as I'm going to take into account the issues they care about." The
turnaround has come almost entirely off the back of actions Mr Obama has taken on his own. After his shellacking by the
Republicans at the mid-term elections, it is almost as if a switch went off. In a few short weeks, he has signed a landmark emissions
deal with China, taken significant executive action on immigration reform, managed to get a comprehensive budget passed and
started the process of normalising relations with Cuba. That rapid-fire string of achievements has now given Mr Obama the
sort of momentum he struggled to achieve all year. Throughout 2014, he seemed to be lurching from crisis to crisis, whether it
was Russia invading Ukraine, China towing an oil rig into disputed waters in the South China Sea, the Ebola outbreak in West Africa
or the threat of the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria militant group. His favourability among Hispanic voters has shot up, he has fired
up his liberal political base and sent Republicans scrambling for a response. In pushing ahead with immigration reform despite a
multitude of threats, he has also shown renewed political nous, gambling that the Republicans would not risk a mutually destructive
government shutdown to punish him. Add to that a compressed time frame and the fact that the GOP had yet to take over the
Senate, the Republicans indeed duly passed a US$1.1 trillion (S$1.3 trillion) spending Bill with only a token symbol of their objection
to his immigration action attached. But the conservatives, too, will be looking forward to the new year because, at some point,
the President is going to run out of things he can do o
n his own.
Popularity 1AR
Plan is popular
Motel 14 (11-5-14 (Seth, "6 facts about marijuana" Pew Research Center) www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2014/11/05/6-factsabout-marijuana/
Attitudes about marijuana have undergone a rapid shift in public opinion, paralleled by few other
trends in the U.S. Our recent data, along with historical figures from Gallup and the General Social Survey, reveal how
views have shifted about the drug over time. Earlier this year, our survey found that many more Americans
now favor shifting the focus of the nation’s overall drug policy. Here are six key facts about public opinion and marijuana:
1Support for marijuana legalization is rapidly outpacing opposition . A slim majority (52%) of Americans say
the drug should be made legal, compared with 45% who want it to be illegal. Opinions have changed drastically since 1969, when
Gallup first asked the question and found that just 12% favored legalizing marijuana use. Much of the change in opinion has
occurred over the past few years — support rose 11 points between 2010 and 2013 (although it has remained unchanged in the
past year). Separately, 76% in our February survey said people convicted of minor possession should not serve time in jail.