1ac
1AC – Plan
The United States should legalize nearly all marihuana in the United States. The
process of legalization should include at least the United States limiting the
United States Congress’ commerce clause authority to prohibit marihuana.
1AC Prohibition
Contention 1 is Prohibition
Scenario 1 is Harm Reduction:
The prohibitionist model remains the global norm for drug policy—this prevents
effective 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 13, “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
Global prohibition has massively undermined public health efforts to deal with
the spread of diseases like AIDS and tuberculosis
Steven Rolles 12, senior policy analyst, George Murkin, Martin Powell, Danny Kushlick, founder, and Jane Slater, Transform
Drug Policy Foundation, THE ALTERNATIVE WORLD DRUG REPORT: COUNTING THE CSTS OF THE WAR ON DRUGS, 2012,
p. 9-12.
5. Threatening public health, spreading disease and death While the war on drugs has primarily been
promoted as a way of protecting health, it has in reality achieved the opposite. It has not only failed in its key aim of reducing or
increased risks and created new health harms – all while establishing political
obstacles to effective public health interventions that might reduce them. • Prevention
and harm reduction messages are undermined by criminalisation of target populations, leading to
distrust and stigmatisation • Criminalisation encourages high-risk behaviours, such as injecting in
unhygienic, unsupervised environments, poly-drug use and bingeing • Enforcement tilts the market towards more
potent but profitable drug products. It can also fuel the emergence of high-risk , new “designer” drugs, or domestically
manufactured drugs (“krokadil”, for instance) • Illegally produced and supplied drugs are of unknown strength and purity,
increasing the risk of overdose, poisoning and infection • The emotive politics of the drug war, and
stigmatisation of drug users, has created obstacles to provision of effective harm reduction, which despite
proven cost-effectiveness remains unavailable in many parts of the world. This contributes to increased overdose
deaths, and fuels the spread of HIV/ AIDS , hepatitis , and tuberculosis among people who inject drugs • The
growing population of people who use drugs in prisons has created a particularly acute health
crisis, as prisons are high-risk environments, inadequately equipped to deal with the challenges they face • The development
impacts of the war on drugs have had much wider negative impacts on health service provision • Drugwar politics have had a chilling effect on provision of opiates for pain control and palliative care,
with over five billion people having little or no access There is an absence of evidence that either
supply- or user-level enforcement interventions have reduced or eliminated use. Instead, drug-related risk is
eliminating drug use, but has
and practical
increased and new harms created – with the greatest burden carried by the most vulnerable populations.
Unchecked AIDS spread causes extinction
(WAIF) 4 Washington AIDS International Foundation, staff, 2004. Available from the World Wide Web at: www.waifaction.org/,
accessed 5-27-09.
Virtually every
nation in the world has been severely hit by the plague of AIDS; we are experiencing an
extinction-causing event. There are no vaccines, no cures, and no group that is not vulnerable .
And, because it is spread largely by sex and by mother-to-child contact, and to a smaller degree by blood contact, it is hitting those
of childbearing age the hardest. This is a silent killer. Without testing, it can go undetected for many years, even as the
carrier transmits it to others. Unfortunately, we know only the most advanced cases in most of the countries of the world. Many
millions of others may be infected, but in the latent stage. WAIF is committed to educate the public about the emergency of the AIDS
epidemic.
Tuberculosis causes extinction—mutations and empirics
Ethan Huff 2/3/14 “Sudden collapse of Harappan civilization may foreshadow superbug threat to modern humans”
http://www.naturalnews.com/043757_harappan_civilization_superbugs_antibiotic_resistance.html#
The mystery surrounding the sudden collapse of the ancient city of Harappa, a major urban center that was a prominent feature of
the now defunct Indus civilization, recently became a little bit less mysterious thanks to new research out of Appalachian State
University. An international team of climatologists, archaeologists and biologists found that rampant disease, among other things,
played a major role in the swift decline of this primordial people group -- and the same thing could happen to modern humanity as a
result of antibiotic-resistant "superbugs," believe some. What exists from the historical record shows that Harappa flourished even
before the Indus civilization as a whole reached its peak, spanning 1 million square kilometers in what is now Pakistan and India.
Scholars say the city thrived primarily between the years of 2600 and 1700 B.C. but suddenly collapsed for reasons that up until
now have remained elusive due to a lack of reliable records and other concrete evidence. But we now know that the
uncontrolled spread of disease played a significant role in the downfall of Harappa, as did the violence
and chaos that erupted as a result of a widening social hierarchy. Specifically, the new research found that a combination of
socioeconomic inequality and disease -- tuberculosis and leprosy, which were new at the time, are believed to
have spread quickly during the final days before the collapse -- were largely to blame for the city's
ultimate demise. "In this case, it appears that the rapid urbanization process in Indus cities, and the increasingly large amount of
culture contact, brought new challenges to the human population," says Gwen Robbins Schug, one of the lead researchers involved
with the project. "Infectious diseases like leprosy and tuberculosis were probably transmitted across an interaction sphere that
spanned Middle and South Asia." Rapid urbanization spawned disease spread that killed
off entire
civilization A recent exhumation of remains from Harappa revealed that, toward the end of the city's existence, violence and
disease had reached epic proportions. Because of this, Harappa was essentially being evacuated in droves by its residents during
the final days leading up to its collapse, a previously unknown fact about the civilization that came as a surprise to historians. "The
collapse of the Indus civilization and the reorganization of its human population has been controversial for a long time," says Schug.
Though the exact cause of all the violence and corresponding disease that ravished Harappa is still somewhat shrouded in mystery,
experts now know that a period of rapid urbanization definitely precluded its undoing. Much like what appears to be occurring in
modern society, Harappa "advanced" too quickly and eventually imploded on itself. "The evidence from Harappa offers insights into
how social and biological challenges impacted past societies facing rapid population growth, climate change and environmental
degradation," adds Schug, as quoted by Science Daily. "Unfortunately, in this case, increasing levels of violence and disease
accompanied massive levels of migration and resource stress and disproportionate impacts were felt by the
most vulnerable members of society." Drug-resistant 'superbugs' threaten to kill off modern civilization There is a tendency when
looking at ancient history through the lens of today to assume that what happened to them could never happen to us. Modern
humanity is simply far too advanced to ever just collapse in on itself, goes the assumption. And yet history also has a seemingly
sinister way of repeating itself when you least expect it, in modern times with the threat of drug-resistant "superbugs"
brought about as a result of so-called advancements in medicine.
China needs to shift to a harm reduction model to avoid economic and social
instability—acting now is key
Verity Robins
20-14.
11, “China’s Flawed Drugs Policy,” Foreign Policy Centre, 6—22—11, http://fpc.org.uk/articles/514, accessed 12-
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 intravenous 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.
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.
the huge U.S. advantage in conventional forces
would increase the temptation for Washington to threaten to or actually use force. Recognizing the temptation
Should Beijing and Washington find themselves in a conflict,
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 ,
miscalculation, there is no guarantee that brinkmanship [ brinkspersonship] would end
before it led to an unanticipated nuclear catastrophe .¶ China, moreover, apparently believes that nuclear
missteps, and
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,
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
both
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.
Scenario 2 is the Environment:
Unregulated marijuana has a massive environmental impact—federal legalization
key
Zuckerman 13 (Seth, journalist, 10-31-13, "Is Pot-Growing Bad for the Environment?" The Nation)
www.thenation.com/article/176955/pot-growing-bad-environment?page=0,2
As cannabis production has ramped up in Northern California to meet the demand for medical and black-market
marijuana, the ecological impacts of its cultivation have ballooned. From shrunken, muddy streams to rivers choked
with algae and wild lands tainted with chemical poisons, large-scale cannabis agriculture is emerging as a
significant threat to the victories that have been won in the region to protect wilderness, keep toxic chemicals out of the
environment, and rebuild salmon runs that had once provided the backbone of a coast-wide fishing industry. River advocate
Scott Greacen has spent most of his career fighting dams and the timber industry, but now he’s widened his focus to include the
costs of reckless marijuana growing. Last year was a time of region-wide rebound for threatened salmon runs, but one of his
colleagues walked his neighborhood creek and sent a downbeat report that only a few spawning fish had returned. Even more
alarming was the condition of the creek bed: coated with silt and mud, a sign that the water quality in this stream was going downhill.
“The problem with the weed industry is that its impacts are severe, it’s not effectively regulated, and it’s growing so rapidly,”
says Greacen, executive director of Friends of the Eel River, which runs through the heart of the marijuana belt. That lack of
regulation sets marijuana’s impacts apart from those that stem from legal farming or logging, yet the 76year-old federal prohibition on cannabis has thwarted attempts to hold its production to any kind of
environmental standard . As a result, the ecological impact of an ounce of pot varies tremendously, depending on whether it
was produced by squatters in national forests, hydroponic operators in homes and warehouses, industrial-scale operations on
private land, or conscientious mom-and-pop farmers. Consumers could exert market power through their choices, if only they had a
reliable, widely accepted certification program, like the ones that guarantee the integrity of organic agriculture. But thanks to the
prohibition on pot, no such certification program exists for cannabis products. To understand how raising some dried flowers—the
prized part of the cannabis plant—can damage the local ecosystem, you first have to grasp the skyrocketing scale of backwoods
agriculture on the redwood coast. Last fall, Scott Bauer of the California Department of Fish and Wildlife turned a mapping crew loose on satellite photos of two adjoining creeks. In the Staten
Island–sized area that drains into those streams, his team identified more than 1,000 cannabis farms, estimated to produce some 40,000 small-tree-sized plants annually. Bauer holds up the maps, where each
greenhouse is marked in blue and each outdoor marijuana garden in red, with dots that correspond to the size of the operation. It looks like the landscape has a severe case of Technicolor acne. “In the last
couple of years, the increase has been exponential,” Bauer says. “On the screen, you can toggle back and forth between the 2010 aerial photo and the one from 2012. Where there had been one or two sites, now
there are ten.” Each of those sites represents industrial development in a mostly wild landscape, with the hilly terrain flattened and cleared. “When someone shaves off a mountaintop and sets a facility on it,”
Bauer says, “that’s never changing. The topsoil is gone.” The displaced soil is then spread by bulldozer to build up a larger flat pad for greenhouses and other farm buildings. But heavy winter rains wash some of
the soil into streams, Bauer explains, where it sullies the salmon’s spawning gravels and fills in the pools where salmon fry spend the summer. Ironically, these are the very impacts that resulted from the worst
logging practices of the last century. “We got logging to the point that the rules are pretty tight,” Bauer says, “and now there’s this whole new industry where nobody has any idea what they’re doing. You see guys
building roads who have never even used a Cat [Caterpillar tractor]. We’re going backwards.” Then there’s irrigation. A hefty cannabis plant needs several gallons of water per day in the rainless summer growing
season, which doesn’t sound like much until you multiply it by thousands of plants and consider that many of the streams in the area naturally dwindle each August and September. In the summer of 2012, the two
creeks that Bauer’s team mapped got so low that they turned into a series of disconnected pools with no water flowing between them, trapping the young fish in shrinking ponds. “It’s a serious issue for the coho
salmon,” Bauer says. “How is this species going to recover if there’s no water?” The effects extend beyond salmon. During several law enforcement raids last year, Bauer surveyed the creeks supplying marijuana
farms to document the environmental violations occurring there. Each time, he says, he found a sensitive salamander species above the grower’s water intakes, but none below them, where the irrigation pipes
had left little water in the creek. On one of these raids, he chastised the grower, who was camped out onsite and hailed from the East Coast, new to the four- to six-month dry season that comes with California’s
Mediterranean climate. “I told him, ‘You’re taking most of the flow, man,’ ” Bauer recalls. “’It’s just a little tiny creek, and you’ve got three other growers downstream. If you’re all taking 20 or 30 percent, pretty soon
there’s nothing left for the fish.’ So he says, ‘I didn’t think about that.’ ” While some growers raise their pot organically, many do not. “Once you get to a certain scale, it’s really hard to operate in a sustainable
way,” Greacen says. “Among other things, you’ve got a monoculture, and monocultures invite pests.” Spider mites turn out to be a particular challenge for greenhouse growers. Tony Silvaggio, a lecturer at
Humboldt State University and a scholar at the campus’s year-old Humboldt Institute for Interdisciplinary Marijuana Research, found that potent poisons such as Avid and Floramite are sold in small vials under
the counter at grower supply stores, in defiance of a state law that requires they be sold only to holders of a pesticide applicator’s license. Nor are just the workers at risk: the miticides have been tested for use on
decorative plants, but not for their impacts if smoked. Otherwise ecologically minded growers can be driven to spray with commercial pesticides, Silvaggio has found in his research. “After you’ve worked for
months, if you have an outbreak of mites in your last few weeks when the buds are going, you’ve got to do something—otherwise you lose everything,” he says. Outdoor growers face another threat: rats, which
are drawn to the aromatic, sticky foliage of the cannabis plant. Raids at growing sites typically find packages of the long-acting rodent poison warfarin, which has begun making its way up the food chain to
predators such as the rare, weasel-like fisher. A study last year in the online scientific journal PLOS One found that more than 70 percent of fishers have rat poison in their bloodstream, and attributed four fisher
deaths to internal bleeding triggered by the poison they absorbed through their prey. Deep in the back-country, Silvaggio says, growers shoot or poison bears to keep them from raiding their encampments. The
final blow to environmental health from outdoor growing comes from fertilizers. Growers dump their used potting soil, enriched with unabsorbed fertilizers, in places where it washes into nearby streams and is
suspected of triggering blooms of toxic algae. The deaths of four dogs on Eel River tributaries have been linked to the algae, which the dogs ingest after swimming in the river and then licking their fur. The
cannabis industry—or what Silvaggio calls the “marijuana-industrial complex”—has been building toward this collision with the environment ever since California voters approved Proposition 215 in 1996,
legalizing the medicinal use of marijuana under state law. Seven years later, the legislature passed Senate Bill 420, which allows patients growing pot with a doctor’s blessing to form collectives and sell their
herbal remedy to fellow patients. Thus were born the storefront dispensaries, which grew so common that they came to outnumber Starbucks outlets in Los Angeles. From the growers’ point of view, a 100-plant
operation no longer had to be hidden, because its existence couldn’t be presumed illegal under state law. So most growers stopped hiding their plants in discreet back-country clearings or buried shipping
containers and instead put them out in the open. As large grows became less risky, they proliferated—and so did their effects on the environment. Google Earth posted satellite photos taken in August 2012, when
most outdoor pot gardens were nearing their peak. Working with Silvaggio, a graduate student identified large growing sites in the area, and posted a Google Earth flyover tour of the region that makes it clear that
the two creeks Bauer’s team studied are representative of the situation across the region. With all of the disturbance from burgeoning backwoods marijuana gardens, it might seem that raising cannabis indoors
would be the answer. Indoor growers can tap into municipal water supplies and don’t have to clear land or build roads to farms on hilltop hideaways. But indoor growing is responsible instead for a more insidious
brand of damage: an outsize carbon footprint to power the electric-intensive lights, fans and pumps that it takes to raise plants inside. A dining-table-size hydroponic unit yielding five one-pound crops per year
would consume as much electricity as the average US home, according to a 2012 paper in the peer-reviewed journal Energy Policy. All told, the carbon footprint of a single gram of cannabis is the same as driving
seventeen miles in a Honda Civic. In addition, says Kristin Nevedal, president of the Emerald Growers Association, “the tendency indoors is to lean toward chemical fertilizers, pesticides and fungicides to stabilize
the man-made environment, because you don’t have the natural beneficials that are found outdoors.” Nevertheless, the appeal of indoor growing is strong, explains Sharon (not her real name), a single mother
who used to raise marijuana in the sunshine but moved her operation indoors after she split up with her husband. Under her 3,000 watts of electric light, she raises numerous smaller plants in a space the size of
two sheets of plywood, using far less physical effort than when she raised large plants outdoors. “It’s a very mommy-friendly business that provides a dependable, year-round income,” she says. Sharon harvests
small batches of marijuana year-round, which fetch a few hundred dollars more per pound than outdoor-grown cannabis because of consumers’ preferences. Sharon’s growing operation supports her and her
teenage daughter in the rural area where she settled more than two decades ago. Add up the energy used by indoor growers, from those on Sharon’s scale to the converted warehouses favored by urban
dispensaries, and the impact is significant—estimated at 3 percent of the state’s total power bill, or the electricity consumed by 1 million homes. On a local level, indoor cannabis production is blocking climate
stabilization efforts in the coastal city of Arcata, which aimed to cut its greenhouse gas emissions by 20 percent over twelve years. But during the first half of that period, while electricity consumption was flat or
declining slightly statewide, Arcata’s household electrical use grew by 25 percent. City staff traced the increase to more than 600 houses that were using at least triple the electricity of the average home—a level
consistent with a commercial cannabis operation. The city has borne other costs, too, besides simply missing its climate goals. Inexpertly wired grow houses catch fire, and the conversion of residential units to
indoor hothouses has cut into the city’s supply of affordable housing. Last November, city voters approved a stiff tax on jumbo electricity consumers. Now the city council is working with other Humboldt County
local governments to pass a similar tax so that growers can’t evade the fee simply by fleeing the city limits, says City Councilman Michael Winkler. “We don’t want any place in Humboldt County to be a cheaper
place to grow than any other. And since this is the Silicon Valley of marijuana growing, there are a lot of reasons why people would want to stay here if they’re doing this,” he says. “My goal is to make it expensive
enough to get large-scale marijuana growing out of the neighborhoods.” A
tax on excessive electricity use may seem like an indirect way of curbing household
cannabis cultivation, but the city had to back away from its more direct approach—a zoning ordinance—when the federal
government threatened to prosecute local officials throughout the state if they sanctioned an activity that is categorically forbidden
under US law. Attempts in neighboring Mendocino County to issue permits to outdoor growers meeting environmental and publicsafety standards were foiled when federal attorneys slapped county officials with similar warnings—illustrating, yet again, the way
prohibition sabotages efforts to reduce the industry’s environmental damage. Indeed,
observers cite federal cannabis
prohibition as the biggest impediment to curbing the impacts of marijuana cultivation , which
continues to expand despite a decades-long federal policy of zero tolerance. “We don’t have a set of best management practices for
this industry, partly because of federal prohibition,” says researcher Silvaggio. “If a grower comes to the county agricultural
commissioner and asks, ‘What are the practices I can use that can limit my impact?’, the county ag guy says, ‘I can’t talk to you
about that because we get federal money.’ ”
Lack of industry regulation causes widespread use of banned pesticides
Gabriel et al 13 (Mourad, Greta Wengert, Mark Higley, Shane Krogan, Warren Sargent, and Deana Clifford, 4-11-13, "Silent
Forests? Rodenticides on Illegal Marijuana Crops Harm Wildlife" Wildlife Society News) news.wildlife.org/twp/2013-spring/silentforests/
Problem Spreading Like Weeds Illegal marijuana growing is not just a problem for wildlife. The High Sierra Volunteer Trail
Crew is a nonprofit trail-maintenance crew that has spent the past seven years maintaining and cleaning trails throughout the Sierra
Nevadas’ national forests. In the mid-2000s, the group realized that risks associated with large-scale marijuana production
throughout most, if not all, California national forests threatened backcountry use of public lands. Since then, the trail crew’s
Environmental Reclamation Team (ERT) has remediated more than 600 large-scale marijuana cultivation sites on
public lands. The numbers are daunting, especially when considering that these 600 sites were in only two of
California’s 17 national forests and may constitute only a fraction of the actual marijuana cultivation sites that exist in these
forests. Tommy Lanier, Director of the National Marijuana Initiative, a White House supported program, states that “60 percent to 70
percent of the national marijuana seizures come from California annually, and of those totals, about 60 percent comes from public
lands.” Based on data from ERT-remediated sites, at least 50 percent of them have SGARs. Beyond finding anticoagulant
rodenticides, the team and other remediation groups frequently find and remove restricted and banned pesticides
including organo- phosphates, organochlorines, and carbamates as well as thousands of pounds of nitrogenrich fertilizers. Many of the discovered pesticides have been banned for use in the U.S., Canada, and the European Union,
specifically certain carbamates, which gained notoriety worldwide after an explosion of public awareness about their use to kill
African wildlife. Unfortunately, these same malicious uses are occurring in California, where marijuana cultivators place pourable
carbamate pesticides in opened tuna or sardine cans in order to kill black bears, gray foxes, raccoons, and other carnivores that
damage marijuana plants or raid food caches at grow-site encampments. In many cases, law enforcement officers approaching
grow sites observe wildlife exposed to what officers call “wildlife bombs” due to their high potential for mass wildlife killing. For
example, as federal and state officers approached a grow site in Northern California, they discovered a black bear and her cubs
seizing and convulsing as they slowly succumbed to the neurological effects of these pesticides. Because toxicants are usually
dispersed throughout cultivation sites, it is remarkably difficult to detect and remove all pesticide threats.
Those cause endocrine disruption
Cappiello et al 14 (A, LC-MS Laboratory, DiSTeVA, University of Urbino, Piazza Rinascimento 6, 61029, Urbino, Italy, G
Famiglini, Palma P, V Termopoli, AM Lavezzi, L Matturri, May 2014, "Determination of selected endocrine disrupting compounds in
human fetal and newborn tissues by GC-MS." www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24633505
Endocrine disrupting compounds (EDCs) include organochlorine pesticides (OCPs), organophosphate
pesticides (OPPs), carbamate pesticides, and plasticizers, such as bisphenol A (BPA). They persist in the
environment because of their degradation resistance and bioaccumulate in the body tissues of humans
and other mammals. Many studies are focused on the possible correlation between in utero exposure to EDCs and adverse health
hazards in fetuses and newborns. In the last decade, environmental pollution has been considered a possible trigger for Sudden
Infant Death Syndrome (SIDS) and Sudden Intrauterine Unexplained Death Syndrome (SIUDS), the most important death-causing
syndromes in fetuses and newborns in developed countries. In this work, a rapid and sensitive analytical method was developed to
determine the level of OCPs and OPPs, carbamates, and phenols in human fetal and newborn tissues (liver and brain) and to unveil
the possible presence of non-targeted compounds. The target analytes where selected on the basis of their documented presence
in the Trentino-Alto Adige region, an intensive agricultural area in northern Italy. A liquid-solid extraction procedure was applied on
human and animal tissues and the extracts, after a solid phase extraction (SPE) clean-up procedure, were analyzed by gas
chromatography coupled to a quadrupole mass spectrometric detector (GC-qMS). A GC-TOFMS (time-of-flight) instrument, because
of its higher full-scan sensitivity, was used for a parallel detection of non-targeted compounds. Method validation included accuracy,
precision, detection, and quantification limits (LODs; LOQs), and linearity response using swine liver and lamb brain spiked at
different concentrations in the range of 0.4-8000.0 ng/g. The method gave good repeatability and extraction efficiency. Method
LOQs ranged from 0.4-4.0 ng/g in the selected matrices. Good linearity was obtained over four orders of magnitude starting from
LOQs. Isotopically labeled internal standards were used for quantitative calculations. The method was then successfully applied to
the analysis of liver and brain tissues from SIUDS and SIDS victims coming from the above mentioned region.
Extinction
Togawa 99 (Tatsuo, Institute of Biomaterials and Bioengineering – Tokyo Medical and Dental University, Technology in
Society, August)
Advanced technology provides a comfortable life for many people, but it also produces strong destructive forces that can cause
extinction of the human race if used accidentally or intentionally. As stated in the Russell-Einstein Manifesto of 1955, hydrogen
bombs might possibly put an end to the human race.1 Nuclear weapons are not the only risks that arise from modem technologies.
In 1962, Rachel Carson wrote in her book, Silent Spring [2], that the amount of the pesticide parathion used on California farms
alone at that time could provide a lethal dose for five to ten times the whole world's population. Destruction of the ozone layer, the
greenhouse effect, and chemical pollution by endocrine destructive chemicals began to appear as the result of
advanced technology, and they are now
considered to be potential causes of extinction of the human
race unless they are effectively controlled.
1AC Federalism
Contention 2 is Federalism
Raich represented the biggest ever expansion of Congress’ commerce powers,
destroying federalism, judicial review and allowing for state control of police
powers
Brandon J. Stoker 9, J.D. Candidate, J. Reuben Clark Law School, Brigham Young University, “Note and Comment: Was
Gonzales v. Raich the Death Knell of Federalism? Assessing Meaningful Limits on Federal Intrastate Regulation in Light of U.S. v.
Nascimento”, 23 BYU J. Pub. L. 317, lexis
When the Supreme Court decided Gonzales v. Raich2 in 2005, it marked the first occasion in over a decade that
the Court broadly construed the Commerce Clause to permit federal regulation of intrastate activity. More
importantly, Raich signaled an abrupt end to the Rehnquist Court’s “federalism revolution” by circumscribing three
recent cases delineating meaningful limits on Congress’s Commerce Clause powers.3
It represents the boldest
assertion of congressional power to “regulate commerce . . . among the several states” in the history of the
Court .4 Indeed, Raich and its progeny threaten to undermine the delicate balance of federal and state
power structurally imbued in our constitutional republic by acquiescing to the unbridled exercise of federal power.
Though some have expressed skepticism about the ostensibly broad effect Raich might have on federalism jurisprudence, recent
circuit court cases decided pursuant to the standards set forth in Raich demonstrate federal appropriation of
“core” state powers,5 including, in particular, state police powers. This Comment argues that the Supreme Court
should limit Raich by reviving the limitation on congressional regulation of noneconomic
intrastate activity to circumstances where failure to regulate such activity would undermine a broader regulatory program. The
Court should also narrowly confine Raich’s definition of “economic activity” to prevent lower courts from “piling inference upon
inference” to demonstrate otherwise tenuous connections to interstate commerce. This approach would not require the Court to
overrule Raich, but merely to enforce the clear standards articulated in United States v. Lopez6 and United States v. Morrison.7 Part
II provides background on the Supreme Court’s Commerce Clause jurisprudence between 1937 and 1994—a period of virtually
unchecked federal expansion—and the Rehnquist Court’s “federalism revolution” between 1995 and 2005 that
reestablished limits on federal commerce powers. This section examines in particular how United States v. Lopez
and United States v. Morrison limited the scope and nature of activity within Congress’s regulatory purview by (1) moving away from
the “rational basis” test when evaluating Commerce Clause challenges, (2) limiting regulation to quintessential “economic” activity,
and (3) enforcing the “essential” component of the broader regulatory regime exception. Part III explains how Raich largely
unraveled the progress made by the Rehnquist Court. First, the Court adopted a definition of “economic” that fails to limit the
scope of activity within Congress’s regulatory purview. Second, the decision opens the door to federal regulation of noneconomic,
intrastate activity that falls within a broader regulatory scheme regardless of whether such activity is “essential” to the larger
regulatory program. Finally, the Court reasserted a “rational basis” test that effectively eliminates judicial scrutiny of the actual
aggregate effect of a regulated activity on interstate commerce, inquiring rather “whether a ‘rational basis’ exists for so concluding.”8
These standards have reduced judicial review of Commerce Clause challenges to a rubberstamping exercise
where the regulated activity is rationally related to commerce. More important, they have rendered “as-applied” challenges to
otherwise valid statutes nearly impossible. Part IV considers one of the first casualties in the breakdown of meaningful limits on
federal commerce powers in Raich’s jurisprudential wake: appropriation of state police powers through RICO
prosecutions. This section contrasts two nearly identical cases in which federal prosecutors charged local street gangs members
with racketeering for engaging in intrastate, noneconomic criminal activity. The Sixth Circuit reversed the federal conviction in United
States v. Waucaush9 by applying the clear principles articulated in Morrison and Lopez without the encumbrances of Raich. The
First Circuit, however, affirmed the criminal convictions in United States v. Nascimento10 by taking Raich to its logical end, which is
to say, by not imposing meaningful limits on the federal government’s prosecutorial powers under RICO. These cases aptly
demonstrate how Raich encourages judicial acquiescence to federal appropriation of traditional state powers by narrowly
limiting the force of judicial review.
That trades off with effective counter-terrorism
Little 6
Erica
, Legal Analyst for Heritage, Brian W. Walsh, Senior Legal Research Fellow in the Center for Legal and Judicial
Studies at Heritage, Federalizing “Gang Crime” is Counterproductive and Dangerous,
http://www.heritage.org/Research/Crime/wm1221.cfm
Congress should discontinue its habit of expanding federal criminal law. The phenomenon of
overfederalization of crime undermines state and local accountability for law enforcement, undermines
more cooperative and creative efforts to fight crime (that is, allowing the states to act as "laboratories of democracy"), and
injures America's federalist system of government. One of the more concrete problems that comes with federal
overcriminalization is the misallocation of scarce federal law enforcement resources , which results in selective
prosecution. New demands distract the F ederal Bureau of Investigation, the U.S. Attorneys, and other federal law
enforcers from national problems that undeniably require federal attention, such as the investigation and
prosecution of espionage and terrorism . Moreover, federal prosecution is more expensive than state-level prosecution.
More broadly,
Lone wolf terrorism poses a unique threat- we need to use more federal
resources to prevent attacks
Majoran 14, Andrew Majoran (MS from the Transnational Security Studies program at Royal Holloway, University of London in
the United Kingdom, specializes in international security, counter-terrorism, multilateral defense, and maritime security), The
Mackenzie Institute, “Wolves Among Us: The Dangers Of Lone Wolf Terrorism”, July 5, 2014, acc 12/19,
http://www.mackenzieinstitute.com/wolves-among-us-dangers-lone-wolf-terrorism/
In conclusion, Western understanding of terrorism must evolve to ensure that the threat of lone wolf terrorism is contained. For too
long Western governments, media outlets, and general populations have stereotyped terrorism as large recognizable extremist
groups like Al-Qaeda, ISIS, and Boko Haram. Although these terrorist groups do pose a threat to Western security, they
have been hindered in recent years by increased law enforcement, government presence, and counter-insurgency
efforts.23 On the other side of the terrorism spectrum, the societal focus on large terrorist groups has benefitted
the individual lone wolf terrorist efforts domestically and internationally. Lone wolves are difficult to detect due
to their isolationist nature and are seldom discovered until after their terrorist attacks have taken place. It is evident that lone wolf
terrorism is difficult to stop using traditional counter-terrorism tactics; however, this does not mean that
more cannot be done to prevent lone wolf terrorism from continuing to grow. Measures such as monitoring of the
internet, identifying overly aggressive political activism publically, enhancement of weapon identification
devices, the expansion of CCTV in public areas, and the use of advanced biometrics to simplify surveillance and gather
data must be taken.24 It is evident that lone wolves pose a significant threat to the security of the West, and they
will continue to do so as long as we remain complacent. Lone wolf terrorism can be fought effectively, but it requires us to move
away from associating terrorism with large international terrorist groups and practicing vigilance in our own communities.
They’ll use WMDs – causes extinction
Gary A. Ackerman 14 & Lauren E. Pinson, Gary is Director of the Center for Terrorism and Intelligence Studies, Lauren is
Senior Researcher and Project Manager for the National Consortium for the Study of Terrorism and Responses of Terrorism, An
Army of One: Assessing CBRN Pursuit and Use by Lone Wolves and Autonomous Cells, Terrorism and Political Violence, Volume
26, Issue 1
The first question to answer is whence the concerns about the nexus between CBRN weapons and isolated actors come and
whether these are overblown. The general threat of mass violence posed by lone wolves and small autonomous cells has been
detailed in accompanying issue contributions, but the potential use of CBRN weapons by such perpetrators presents some singular
features that either amplify or supplement the attributes of the more general case and so are deserving of particular attention. Chief
among these is the impact of rapid technological development. Recent and emerging advances in a variety of areas, from
synthetic biology 3 to nanoscale engineering, 4 have opened doors not only to new medicines and materials, but also to
new possibilities for malefactors to inflict harm on others. What is most relevant in the context of lone actors and small autonomous
cells is not so much the pace of new invention, but rather the commercialization and consumerization of CBRN weaponsrelevant technologies. This process often entails an increase in the availability and safety of the technology, with a
concurrent diminution in the cost, volume, and technical knowledge required to operate it. Thus, for example,
whereas fifty years ago producing large quantities of certain chemical weapons might have been a dangerous
and inefficient affair requiring a large plant, expensive equipment, and several chemical engineers, with the advent of chemical
microreactors, 5 the same processes might be accomplished far more cheaply and safely on a desktop assemblage,
purchased commercially and monitored by a single chemistry graduate student.¶ The rapid global spread and increased
user-friendliness of many technologies thus represents a potentially radical shift from the relatively small scale of harm a single
individual or small autonomous group could historically cause. 6 From the limited reach and killing power of the sword, spear, and
bow, to the introduction of dynamite and eventually the use of our own infrastructures against us (as on September 11), the
number of people that an individual who was unsupported by a broader political entity could kill with a single action has
increased from single digits to thousands. Indeed, it has even been asserted that “over time … as the leverage provided by
technology increases, this threshold will finally reach
its culmination—with the ability of one man to declare
war on the world and win .” 7 Nowhere is this trend more perceptible in the current age than in the area of unconventional
weapons.¶ These new technologies do not simply empower users on a purely technical level. Globalization and the expansion of
information networks provide new opportunities for disaffected individuals in the farthest corners of the globe to become familiar with
core weapon concepts and to purchase equipment—online technical courses and eBay are undoubtedly a boon to would-be
purveyors of violence. Furthermore, even the most solipsistic misanthropes, people who would never be able to function socially as
part of an operational terrorist group, can find radicalizing influences or legitimation for their beliefs in the maelstrom of virtual
identities on the Internet.¶ All of this can spawn, it is feared, a more deleterious breed of lone actors, what have been referred to in
some quarters as “super-empowered individuals.” 8 Conceptually, super-empowered individuals are atomistic game-changers, i.e.,
a single (and often singular) individual who can shock the entire system (whether national,
regional, or global) by relying only on their own resources . Their core characteristics are that they have superior
they constitute
intelligence, the capacity to use complex communications or technology systems, and act as an individual or a “lone-wolf.” 9 The
end result, according to the pessimists, is that if one of these individuals chooses to attack the system, “the unprecedented nature of
his attack ensures that no counter-measures are in place to prevent it. And when he strikes, his attack will not only kill
massive amounts of people, but also profoundly change the financial, political, and social systems that govern modern life.” 10 It
almost goes without saying that the same concerns attach to small autonomous cells, whose members' capabilities and resources
can be combined without appreciably increasing the operational footprint presented to intelligence and law enforcement agencies
the most likely means by which
to accomplish this level of system perturbation is through the use of CBRN agents as WMD . On the motivational side, therefore,
seeking to detect such behavior.¶ With the exception of the largest truck or aircraft bombs,
lone actors and small autonomous cells may ironically be more likely to select CBRN weapons than more established terrorist
groups—who are usually more conservative in their tactical orientation—because the extreme asymmetry of these weapons may
provide the only subjectively feasible option for such actors to achieve their grandiose aims of deeply affecting the system. The
inherent technical challenges presented by CBRN weapons may also make them attractive to self-assured individuals who may
have a very different risk tolerance than larger, traditional terrorist organizations that might have to be concerned with a variety of
constituencies, from state patrons to prospective recruits. 11 Many other factors beyond a “perceived potential to achieve mass
casualties” might play into the decision to pursue CBRN weapons in lieu of conventional explosives, 12 including a fetishistic
fascination with these weapons or the perception of direct referents in the would-be perpetrator's belief system.¶ Others are far
more sanguine about the capabilities of lone actors (or indeed non-state actors in general) with respect to their potential for using
CBRN agents to cause mass fatalities, arguing that the barriers to a successful large-scale CBRN attack remain high, even in
today's networked, tech-savvy environment. 13 Dolnik, for example, argues that even though homegrown cells are “less
constrained” in motivations, more challenging plots generally have an inverse relationship with capability, 14 while Michael Kenney
cautions against making presumptions about the ease with which individuals can learn to produce viable weapons using only the
Internet. 15 However, even most of these pundits concede that low-level CBR attacks emanating from this quarter will probably
lead to political, social, and economic disruption that extends well beyond the areas immediately affected by the attack. This
raises an essential point with respect to CBRN terrorism: irrespective of the harm potential of CBRN weapons or an actor's
capability (or lack thereof) to successfully employ them on a catastrophic scale, these weapons invariably exert a stronger
psychological impact on audiences—the essence of terrorism—than the traditional gun and bomb. This is surely not lost on those
lone actors or autonomous cells who are as interested in getting noticed as in causing casualties.¶ Proven Capability and Intent¶
While legitimate debate can be had as to the level of potential threat posed by lone actors or small autonomous cells wielding CBRN
weapons, possibly the best argument for engaging in a substantive examination of the issue is the most concrete one of all—that
these actors have already demonstrated the motivation and capability to pursue and use CBRN weapons, in some
cases even close to the point of constituting a genuine WMD threat. In the context of bioterrorism, perhaps the most
cogent illustration of this is the case of Dr. Bruce Ivins, the perpetrator behind one of the most serious episodes of bioterrorism in
living memory, the 2001 “anthrax letters,” which employed a highly virulent and sophisticated form of the agent and not only killed
five and seriously sickened 17 people, but led to widespread disruption of the U.S. postal services and key government facilities.
16¶ Other historical cases of CBRN pursuit and use by lone actors and small autonomous cells highlight the need for further
exploration. Among the many extant examples: 17¶ Thomas Lavy was caught at the Alaska-Canada border in 1993 with 130 grams
of 7% pure ricin. It is unclear how Lavy obtained the ricin, what he planned to do with it, and what motivated him.¶ In 1996, Diane
Thompson deliberately infected twelve coworkers with shigella dysenteriae type 2. Her motives were unclear.¶ In 1998, Larry
Wayne Harris, a white supremacist, was charged with producing and stockpiling a biological agent—bacillus anthracis, the causative
agent of anthrax.¶ In 1999, the Justice Department (an autonomous cell sympathetic to the Animal Liberation Front) mailed over
100 razor blades dipped in rat poison to individuals involved in the fur industry.¶ In 2000, Tsiugio Uchinshi was arrested for mailing
samples of the mineral monazite with trace amounts of radioactive thorium to several Japanese government agencies to persuade
authorities to look into potential uranium being smuggled to North Korea.¶ In 2002, Chen Zhengping put rat poison in a rival snack
shop's products and killed 42 people.¶ In 2005, 10 letters containing a radioactive substance were mailed to major organizations in
Belgium including the Royal Palace, NATO headquarters, and the U.S. embassy in Brussels. No injuries were reported.¶ In 2011,
federal agents arrested four elderly men in Georgia who were plotting to use ricin and explosives to target federal buildings, Justice
Department officials, federal judges, and Internal Revenue Service agents.¶ Two recent events may signal an even greater interest
in CBRN by lone malefactors. First, based on one assessment of Norway's Anders Breivik's treatise, his references to CBRN
weapons a) suggest that CBRN weapons could be used on a tactical level and b) reveal (to perhaps previously uninformed
audiences) that even low-level CBRN weapons could achieve far-reaching impacts driven by fear. 18 Whether or not Breivik would
actually have sought or been able to pursue CBRN, he has garnered a following in several (often far-right) extremist circles and his
treatise might inspire other lone actors. Second, Al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula (AQAP) released two issues of Inspire
magazine in 2012. Articles, on the one hand, call for lone wolf jihad attacks to target non-combatant populations and, on the other,
permit the use of chemical and biological weapons. The combination of such directives may very well influence the weapon
selection of lone actor jihadists in Western nations. 19¶
Limiting Commerce Clause authority of Congress allows state experimentation
on immigration policy
Chacón 14, Jennifer Chacon is a professor of law at the University of California, Irvine School of Law. She does research in the
fields of immigration law, constitutional law, and criminal law and procedure “Who is Responsible for U.S. immigration policy?”,
Insights on Law and Society Spring 2014 vol 14, No. 3,
http://www.americanbar.org/publications/insights_on_law_andsociety/14/spring-2014/who-is-responsible-for-u-s--immigration-policy.html
Article I, Section 8, clause 4 of the Con­stitution entrusts the federal legislative branch with the power to “establish an uniform Rule
of Naturalization.” This clear textual command for uniformity establishes that the federal government, specifically Congress, is
responsible for crafting the laws that determine how and when noncitizens can become
nat-uralized citizens of the United States. But control over naturalization does not necessarily
require full control over immigration. And indeed, for the first century of the United States’
existence, many states enacted laws regulating and controlling immigration into their own
borders. Various states passed laws aimed at preventing a variety of populations from entering the borders of their states,
including individuals with criminal records, people reliant on public assistance, slaves, and free blacks. It was not until the
late 19th centu-ry that Congress began to actively reg-ulate immigration, in particular, with measures
designed to restrict Chinese immigration. By this time, the Supreme Court had begun to articulate clear limits
on state immigration powers. In 1849, with the Passenger Cases, the Supreme Court struck down efforts by
New York and Massachusetts to impose a head tax on incoming immigrants. Four justices concluded that such
taxes usurped congressional power to regu-late commerce under Article I, Section 8, clause 3 of the Constitution.
A unanimous court applied the same rationale in 1876, striking down a New York state statute taxing immigrants on
incoming vessels in Henderson v. Mayor of New York. A few years later, in 1884, with a decision in the Head Money
Cases, the Court for the first time upheld a federal regulation of immigration, also on Com-merce Clause
grounds.
State experimentation solves immigration – best at distributing high-skilled labor
effectively
Fuller and Rust 14(Brandon Fuller is a research scholar at New York University and deputy director of the Urbanization
Project at the NYU Stern School of Business. Sean Rust is a practicing attorney and a recent graduate of Temple University’s
Beasley School of Law where he was a law and public policy scholar, “State-Based Visas A Federalist Approach to Reforming U.S.
Immigration Policy,” CATO, April 23, http://object.cato.org/sites/cato.org/files/pubs/pdf/pa748_web_1.pdf)
U.S. immigration policy currently prevents many productive foreign workers
from contributing to
the
economy
policy- makers should consider
By
allowing states a greater say in managing immigration, the United States can reap
benefits by
allowing state experimentation with different levels of immigration. State-based visas would be
temporary work visas that allow the visa holder to live and work anywhere within the sponsoring state
and entrepreneurs
American
. To help move American immigration policy in a more open direction,
including principles of federalism as part of immigration reform.
economic
. Law-
abiding visa holders would be eligible for renewal and free to apply for permanent residency during their stay in the United States. Under the work permit, the migrant worker would be unable to work for an employer out- side of the state, but if the migrant becomes a
program would allow state governments
to tailor a state-based immigration strategy to meet their local economic demands
Successful regional visa programs in Canada and Australia have aided economic
growth in formerly
depressed regions
permanent resident, he or she would be able to travel freely around the United States. Al- though overseen by the federal government, the
to work with local
governments and employers
.
and population
. American policymakers could apply les- sons learned in those countries when creating a similar program in the United States. Based on the experiences of Canada and Austr alia with their regional visa programs, we
outline many of the options that are open to American policymakers for designing and implementing a state-based visa program. THE ECONOMIC BENEFITS OF STATE-BASED IMMIGRATION There are millions of hard working and tal- ented people throughout
There are many states
doing so because of federal immigration restrictions. A federalist approach
greater say in the numbers and types of foreign workers that they allow
the world who would gladly move to the United States if given the chance.
also
prevented from
would give states a
within the United States that would be happy to welcome them but are currently
to immigration policy
in. State-based visas would allow those states that want immigration to recruit the
foreign work- ers that best meet their local economic needs. If a state does not want additional immigrants, it would simply choose not to issue any state- based visas. If the migrants who enter on a state-based visa eventually earn lawful perma- nent residency
(LPR) status then they would be able to move to other states, but not all workers would choose LPR status and they would likely move to areas with economic growth, which are also likely to be areas that support state- level guest-worker visas. In short,
state-based visas
generate the largest benefits
would be good for the United States be- cause they
would funnel
additional
immigrants to parts of the country where they will
. American nominal and real wages are also affected by immigration. A worker’s nominal wage is the dollar amount of his paych eck, while the real wage is the actual quantity of goods and
services that his paycheck can buy. Immigration has modest positive effects on the nominal wages of most American workers because immigrants do not generally comp ete with many Americans for the same jobs. Rather, immigrants tend to complement the work
of natives and thereby increase their wages.1 Americans of varying skill levels are impacted differently. In the short run, there are positive effects on wages for U.S.-born workers with at least a high-school degree but small negative nominal wage effects on those
without a high- school degree.2 However, in the long run there is a modest positive wage effect on all workers as the rest of the economy adjusts to the pres - ence of the immigrants, likely outweighing the short-run negative impact on the wages of U.S.-born
workers who have not completed high school.3 The wages of U.S.-born high- school dropouts relative to those of U.S.-born high-school graduates have remained nearly  constant since 1980, despite pressures from immigrant inflows that increase the relative
supply of low-skilled labor.4 Real wages generally increase as a result of immigration because it lowers the costs of cer- tain goods and services by expanding supply. For example, firms that provide services such as child care, gardening, housekeeping, and home
health care make relatively intensive use of immigrant workers. In the absence of im- migration, the prices of such services would be higher for natives.5 Beyond wages, immigrants can shore up faltering housing markets on the demand side. Jacob Vigdor, a
professor of public policy and economics at Duke University, finds that im- migrants substantially boost housing demand— each immigrant in the United States adds, on average, 11.6 cents to the value of a home in their local county.6 Immigration is especially
beneficial for less desirable neighborhoods. Drawn by lower housing prices, the immigrants who arrive in such neighborhoods help to cre- ate a virtuous circle in which the vitality of the neighborhood improves and the area once again begins to attract middle and
working class Americans. Immigrants were particularly effective in staunching the decline of popula- tion in New York City over the past few de- cades.7 Immigrants tend to avoid areas where the price of housing is higher and move to areas where housing supply is
more elastic—bringing old housing back onto the market rather than driving up the price for existing housing.8 There are negative externalities associated with housing vacancies, so an immigration- driven increase in population is going to have much higher positive
spill-over effects in ar- eas where population is declining—like in the Rust Belt.9 This is a major reason why mayors in cities such as Dayton, Ohio, and Baltimore, Maryland, are experimenting with policies designed to attract and retain immigrants.10 In January
2014, Michigan Governor Rick Snyder proposed carving out a share of fed- eral EB-2 employment green cards specifically for the city of Detroit.11 In contrast, areas in which the supply of housing is more inelastic and housing vacancy rates are near zero, such as
San Francisco, will experience crowding from additional migrants, be they immigrants or newcomers from elsewhere in the United States. That is not to suggest that a city like San Francisco does not benefit from immigration, just that cities like Dayton have
comparatively more to gain from attracting immigrants. Immigrants tend to be especially entrepreneurial and innovative. They are 30 percent more likely to start a business than non-immigrants and were founding members of 25 percent of venture-capital-backed
companies that went public between 1990 and 2006.13 Immigrants or children of immigrants found- ed 40 percent of the Fortune 500 companies in the United States.14 On the innovation side, immigrant college graduates are more likely to file a patent than
similarly educated native- born Americans. A 1 percent increase in the share of immigrant college graduates increases patents per capita by about 15 percent, after accounting for the fact that the presence of high-skilled immigrants tends to increase in- novation by
the native born.15 In addition to starting new businesses and developing new technologies, immigrants help to facilitate trad e and investment links with their home countries.16 Immigration also affects government finances. Taxes paid by immigrants and their
children generally exceed the costs of the pub- lic services that they use on the federal level. High-skilled immigrants are particularly beneficial for the federal treasury. Relaxing green card and H-1B constraints would produce net positive effects on the federal
budget running into the tens of billions of dollars over a 10- year period.17 Even lower-skilled immigrants generally have a positive impact on the fed- eral budget, often consuming fewer govern- ment services than their educationally simi- lar U.S.-born counterparts
A federalist
approach
is preferable
because states can better understand the fiscal costs
and benefits of ad- ditional immigrants
A
state-based visa program will allow states to harness additional economic gains from immi- gration
without relying upon the federal gov- ernment to change immigration policy for the entire nation.
and having higher labor-force participation rates.18 Although immigrants produce a fiscal surplus at the fed- eral level, the U.S.-born citizen children of im- migrants are a fiscal cost at the local level due primarily to school costs.19
to immigration
to one entirely dominated by the federal government
. Because state and local governments incur much of the short-term fis- cal costs of immigration, it is important that they have a say in directing the optimal flow.20
While not all immigrants
who enter on state-based visas would stay in the state they initially settled in, evidence from Australia and Canada suggests that out move- ment would be minor. In the United States, agricultural workers are highly mobile due to the migratory and seasonal nature
of their labor, so they are most likely to illegally leave the states they are per- mitted to work in for work opportunities else- where. States could solve this issue by entering into voluntary agreements with each other to share agricultural guest workers by allowing
them to move back and forth. For instance, California farmers could be allowed to hire an individual guest worker for the spring and sum- mer while Washington farmers would be able to hire the same worker in the fall to help with the harvesting of different crops . In
addition to state agreements to manage guest workers, it is important that a state-level guest-worker visa for agricultural workers operate similarly to an earlier agricultural visa: the so-called Bracero program. Under Bracero, about five million Mexican farm workers
legally entered the United States for work from 1942 to 1964 and returned home in a process called circular migration.21 One deficiency of Bracero was the legal difficulty of a migrant changing employ- ers, which should be corrected. After Bracero was ended in
1964, the resulting unauthorized immigrants that still worked in agriculture continued to circularly migrate: from 1965 to 1985, there was an estimated 26.7 million en- tries of unauthorized Mexican migrants into the United States and 21.8 million departures to
Mexico.22 Circular migration ended when increased border security after 1986 raised the cost of moving back and forth, incentivizing permanent settlement in the United States.23 Legal changes could also incentivize com- pliance with the terms of the visa. For instance, following the visa regulations should guarantee the guest worker the ability to re- turn the next year. In addition, a bond system for migrant workers, funded by migrant and employer contributions whereby the migrant and employer lose their contributions if
the migrant violates the terms of his work visa, would also disincentivize illegal work.24 Fur- ther incentives to follow the law are also pro- vided by the market. Authorized immigrants realize a wage premium relative to unauthor- ized immigrants of around 6 to 25
percent, so working in the black market would come with a steep and immediate wage penalty.25 Higher and more mid-skill professions are less mo- bile so it is unlikely that these rules would be needed for those guest workers there. States can judge the costs and
benefits of immigration better than the federal government can. CHANGING THE POLITICAL ECONOMY OF IMMIGRATION The federal government dictates immigration policy in t he United States but state and local governments occasionally pursue immigrationenforcement policies that affect the flow of immigrants to their jurisdictions. These policies often create conflict between the objectives of the federal immigration policy and the objectives of the state and lo- cal governments.26 A state-based visa program would
allow states to choose to offer lawful immigration opportunities instead of the enforcement-only policies that some of them currently pursue. For example, in 2010 the state of Arizona passed Senate Bill 1070 (SB 1070) in an effort to stop the flow of unauthorized
immigrants into the state and force the ones settled there to leave.27 Among other things, the law re- quired immigrants to carry immigration docu-  ments and made it illegal for an immigrant to apply for work without federal authoriza- tion.28 The federal
government challenged SB 1070 in court, and the Supreme Court found that much of the bill was discriminatory and preempted by federal law.29 Arizona was determined to deter unau- thorized immigrants but other localities want to attract them. Cities such as
Baltimore, Los Angeles, New York, and Dayton are pass- ing laws designed to make it easier for immi- grants to live and work in their jurisdictions. The local pro-immigration strategies often reflect desires to spur population and eco- nomic growth.30 Proimmigration measures include prohibiting police and local services from asking about an individual’s immigration status, issuing state identification cards, and limiting cooperation with federal immigration enforcement to that required by law.31
should be able to go even further by creating legal immigration opportunities.
States
Federal immigration reform pits median voters in pro-immigration states
against me- dian voters in anti-immigration states. Some voters feel vulnerable to the additional inflows of immigrants favored by pro-immigration states, and pro-immigration states feel that their economic development prospects are hamstrung by the restrictions
favored by anti- immigration states. A state-based visa pro- vides an opportunity to mitigate these differ- ences on the state level as each state pursues its own policies, even though there will be some unavoidable immigrant movement be- tween states. By creating
a state-based visa program, the United States would not be stepping into the unknown with an untested approach to im- migration policy.
Similar policies have worked well elsewhere.
That’s key to heg
Joseph S. Nye 12, a former US assistant secretary of defense and chairman of the US National Intelligence Council, is University
Professor at Harvard University. “Immigration and American Power,” December 10, Project Syndicate, http://www.projectsyndicate.org/commentary/obama-needs-immigration-reform-to-maintain-america-s-strength-by-joseph-s--nye
The U
S
is a nation of immigrants.
CAMBRIDGE –
nited
tates
Except for a small number of Native Americans, everyone is originally from somewhere else, and even recent
immigrants can rise to top economic and political roles. President Franklin Roosevelt once famously addressed the Daughters of the American Revolution – a group that prided itself on the early arrival of its
In recent years, however, US politics has had a strong anti-immigration slant, and the issue played an
But Barack Obama’s re-election demonstrated the electoral power of Latino voters, who rejected Republican presidential
candidate Mitt Romney by a 3-1 majority, as did Asian-Americans.¶ As a result, several prominent Republican politicians are now urging their
party to reconsider its anti-immigration policies, and plans for immigration reform will be on the agenda at
the beginning of Obama’s second term. Successful reform will be an important step in preventing the
decline of American power .¶ Fears about the impact of immigration on national values and on a coherent sense of American identity are not new. The nineteenth-century “Know
ancestors – as “fellow immigrants.”¶
important role in the Republican Party’s presidential nomination battle in 2012.
Nothing” movement was built on opposition to immigrants, particularly the Irish. Chinese were singled out for exclusion from 1882 onward, and, with the more restrictive Immigration Act of 1924, immigration in
general slowed for the next four decades.¶ During the twentieth century, the US recorded its highest percentage of foreign-born residents, 14.7%, in 1910. A century later, according to the 2010 census, 13% of
the American population is foreign born. But, despite being a nation of immigrants, more Americans are skeptical about immigration than are sympathetic to it. Various opinion polls show either a plurality or a
majority favoring less immigration. The recession exacerbated such views: in 2009, one-half of the US public favored allowing fewer immigrants, up from 39% in 2008.¶ Both the number of immigrants and their
origin have caused concerns about immigration’s effects on American culture. Demographers portray a country in 2050 in which non-Hispanic whites will be only a slim majority. Hispanics will comprise 25% of the
population, with African- and Asian-Americans making up 14% and 8%, respectively.¶ But mass communications and market forces produce powerful incentives to master the English language and accept a
degree of assimilation. Modern media help new immigrants to learn more about their new country beforehand than immigrants did a century ago. Indeed, most of the evidence suggests that the latest immigrants
immigration strengthens US
power. It is estimated that at least 83 countries and territories currently have fertility rates that are below the level
needed to keep their population constant. Whereas most developed countries will experience a shortage of people as the century progresses, America is
one of the few that may avoid demographic decline and maintain its share of world population.¶ For example, to
are assimilating at least as quickly as their predecessors.¶ While too rapid a rate of immigration can cause social problems, over the long term,
maintain its current population size, Japan would have to accept 350,000 newcomers annually for the next 50 years, which is difficult for a culture that has historically been hostile to immigration. In contrast, the
Today, the US is the world’s third most populous country;
50 years from now it is still likely to be third (after only China and India). This is highly relevant to economic power :
whereas nearly all other developed countries will face a growing burden of providing for the older
generation, immigration could help to attenuate the policy problem for the US.¶ In addition, though studies suggest that the short-term
economic benefits of immigration are relatively small, and that unskilled workers may suffer from competition, skilled immigrants can be important to particular sectors – and
to long-term growth . There is a strong correlation between the number of visas for skilled applicants and
patents filed in the US. At the beginning of this century, Chinese- and Indian-born engineers were running
one-quarter of Silicon Valley’s technology businesses , which accounted for $17.8 billion in sales; and, in 2005, immigrants had helped to start one-quarter of
all US technology start-ups during the previous decade. Immigrants or children of immigrants founded roughly 40% of the 2010
Fortune 500 companies.¶ Equally important are immigration’s benefits for America’s soft power. The fact
that people want to come to the US enhances its appeal, and immigrants’ upward mobility is attractive to
people in other countries. The US is a magnet , and many people can envisage themselves as
Americans, in part because so many successful Americans look like them. Moreover, connections between
immigrants and their families and friends back home help to convey accurate and positive information
about the US.¶ Likewise, because the presence of many cultures creates avenues of connection with other countries, it helps to broaden Americans’ attitudes
and views of the world in an era of globalization. Rather than diluting hard and soft power, immigration
Census Bureau projects that the US population will grow by 49% over the next four decades.¶
enhances both .¶ Singapore’s former leader, Lee Kwan Yew, an astute observer of both the US and China, argues that China will not surpass the US as the
leading power of the twenty-first century, precisely because the US attracts the best and brightest from the rest of
the world and melds them into a diverse culture of creativity. China has a larger population to recruit from domestically, but, in Lee’s view, its Sino-centric culture will make it less creative than the US.¶ That is a
If Obama succeeds in enacting immigration reform in his second term, he will have
gone a long way toward fulfilling his promise to maintain the strength of the US.
view that Americans should take to heart.
Hegemony solves conflicts that cause extinction
Thomas P.M. Barnett, chief analyst, Wikistrat, “The New Rules: Leadership Fatigue Puts U.S. and Globalization, at
Crossroads,” WORLD POLITICS REVIEW, 3—7—11, www.worldpoliticsreview.com/articles/8099/the-new-rules-leadershipfatigue-puts-u-s-and-globalization-at-crossroads
Events in Libya are a further reminder for Americans that we stand at a crossroads in our continuing evolution
as the world's sole full-service superpower. Unfortunately, we are increasingly seeking change without cost, and shirking from
risk because we are tired of the responsibility. We don't know who we are anymore, and our president is a big part of that problem.
Instead of leading us, he explains to us. Barack Obama would have us believe that he is practicing strategic patience. But many
experts and ordinary citizens alike have concluded that he is actually beset by strategic incoherence -- in effect, a man overmatched
by the job. It is worth first examining the larger picture: We live in a time of arguably the greatest structural change in the global
order yet endured, with this historical moment's most amazing feature being its relative and absolute lack of mass violence. That is
something to consider when Americans contemplate military intervention in Libya, because if we do take the step to prevent largerscale killing by engaging in some killing of our own, we will not be adding to some fantastically imagined global death count
stemming from the ongoing "megalomania" and "evil" of American "empire." We'll be engaging in the same sort of systemadministering activity that has marked our stunningly successful stewardship of global order since World War II. Let me be more
blunt: As the guardian of globalization, the U.S. military has been the greatest force for peace the
world has ever known. Had America been removed from the global dynamics that governed the 20th
century, the mass murder never would have ended. Indeed, it's entirely conceivable there would now be no identifiable
human civilization left, once nuclear weapons entered the killing equation. But the world did not
keep sliding down that path of perpetual war. Instead, America stepped up and changed everything by
ushering in our now-perpetual great-power peace . We introduced the international liberal trade order known as
globalization and played loyal Leviathan over its spread. What resulted was the collapse of empires, an explosion of
democracy, the persistent spread of human rights, the liberation of women, the doubling of life
expectancy, a roughly 10-fold increase in adjusted global GDP and a profound and persistent
reduction in battle deaths from state-based conflicts. That is what American "hubris" actually delivgered. Please
remember that the next time some TV pundit sells you the image of "unbridled" American military power as the cause of global
disorder instead of its cure. With self-deprecation bordering on self-loathing, we now imagine a post-American world that is anything
but. Just watch who scatters and who steps up as the Facebook revolutions erupt across the Arab world. While we might imagine
ourselves the status quo power, we remain the world's most vigorously revisionist force. As for the sheer "evil" that is our militaryindustrial complex, again, let's examine what the world looked like before that establishment reared its ugly head. The last great
period of global structural change was the first half of the 20th century, a period that saw a death toll of about 100 million across two
world wars. That comes to an average of 2 million deaths a year in a world of approximately 2 billion souls. Today, with far more
comprehensive worldwide reporting, researchers report an average of less than 100,000 battle deaths annually in a world fast
approaching 7 billion people. Though admittedly crude, these calculations suggest a 90 percent absolute drop and
a 99 percent relative drop in deaths due to war . We are clearly headed for a world order characterized by
multipolarity, something the American-birthed system was designed to both encourage and accommodate. But given how things
turned out the last time we collectively faced such a fluid structure, we would do well to keep U.S. power, in all of its forms , deeply
embedded in the geometry to come. To continue the historical survey, after salvaging Western Europe from its half-century of civil
war, the U.S. emerged as the progenitor of a new, far more just form of globalization -- one based on actual free trade rather than
colonialism. America then successfully replicated globalization further in East Asia over the second half of the 20th century, setting
the stage for the Pacific Century now unfolding.
Synthetic biology makes bioterror inevitable- creates means and motive
Rose, 14 -- PhD, recognized international biodefense expert
[Patrick, Center for Health & Homeland Security senior policy analyst & biosecurity expert, National Defense University lecturer, and
Adam Bernier, expert in counter-terrorism, "DIY Bioterrorism Part II: The proliferation of bioterrorism through synthetic biology,"
CBRNePortal, 2-24-14, www.cbrneportal.com/diy-bioterrorism-part-ii-the-proliferation-of-bioterrorism-through-synthetic-biology/,
accessed 8-16-14]
synthetic biology has made bio-engineering
accessible to the mainstream biological community. Non-state actors who wish to employ biological agents
for ill intent are sure to be aware of how tangible bio-weapons are becoming as applications of
synthetic biology become more affordable and the probability of success increases with each scientific breakthrough.
In Part I of this series, we examined how the advancement of
The willingness of non-state actors to engage in biological attacks is not a new concept; however, the past biological threat
environment has been subdued compared to that of conventional or even chemical terrorism. The frequency and deadliness of
biological attacks has, thankfully, been limited; much of which can be attributed to the technical complexity or apparent ineptitude of
the perpetrators developing biological weapons. Despite the infrequency and ineffectiveness of biological attacks in
the last four decades, the threat may be changing with the continued advancement of synthetic
biology applications. Coupled with the ease of info rmation sharing and a rapidly growing do-ityourself-biology (DIYbio) movement (discussed in Part I), the chances of not only , more attacks , but
more deadly ones will inevitably increase .¶ During the last half century terrorist organizations have
consistently had an interest in using biological weapons as a means of attacking their targets, but only few have
potentially
actually made a weapon and used it. The attraction is that terrorist activities with biological weapons are difficult to detect and even
more difficult to attribute without a specific perpetrator claiming responsibility. Since 1971 there have been more than 113,113
terrorist attacks globally and 33 of them have been biological. The majority of bio-terrorism incidents recorded occurred during the
year 2001 (17 of the 33); before 2001 there were 10 incidents and since 2001 there were 6 (not counting the most recent Ricin
attacks). The lack of a discernable trend in use of bio-terrorism does not negate the clear intent of extremist organizations to use
biological weapons. In fact, the capacity to harness biological weapons more effectively today only increases the risk that they will
successfully be employed.¶ The landscape is changing : previously the instances where biological attacks had the
potential to do the most harm (e.g., Rajneeshees cult’s Salmonella attacks in 1984, Aum Shinri Kyo’s Botulinum toxin, and Anthrax
attacks in the early 90’s) included non-state actors with access to large amounts of funding and scientists. Funding and a cadre of
willing scientists does not guarantee success though. The assertion was thus made that biological weapons are not
only expensive, they require advanced technical training to make and are even more difficult to
effectively perpetrate acts of terrorism with. While it is difficult to determine with certainty whether the expense and expertise
needed to create biological weapons has acted as a major deterrent for groups thinking of obtaining them, many experts would
argue that the cost/expertise barrier makes the threat from biological attacks extremely small. This assertion is supported by the
evidence that the vast majority of attacks have taken place in Western countries and was performed by Western citizens with
advanced training in scientific research.¶ In the past decade the cost/expertise assertion has become less
accurate. Despite the lack of biological attacks, there are a number of very dangerous and motivated
organizations that have or are actively pursuing biological weapons. The largest and most outspoken
organization has been the global Al Qaeda network, whose leaders have frequently and passionately called for the development (or
purchase) of Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD). The principal message from Al Qaeda Central and Al Qaeda in the
Arabian Peninsula (AQAP) has included the call to use biological WMDs to terrorize Western nations. Al Qaeda has
had a particular focus on biological and nuclear weapons because of their potential for greatest harm. Osama Bin Laden, Ayman alZawahiri and Anwar al-Awlaki have all called for attacks using biological weapons, going so far as to say that Muslims everywhere
should seek to kill Westerners wherever possible and that obtaining WMDs is the responsibility of all Muslims. Before the US-led
invasion of Afghanistan, Al Qaeda had spent significant funds on building a bio-laboratory and had begun collecting scientists from
around the world; however, the Afghanistan invasion and subsequent global War on Terrorism is thought to have disrupted their
capabilities and killed or captured many of their assets. Despite the physical setbacks, this disruption does not appear to
have changed the aggressive attitude towards obtaining WMDs (e.g., more recently U.S. Intelligence
has been concerned about AQAP attempting to make Ricin).¶ The emergence of synthetic biology
and DIYbio has increased the likelihood that Al Qaeda will succeed in developing biological
WMDs. The low cost and significantly reduced level of necessary expertise may change how
many non-state actors view bio logical weapons as a worthwhile investment. This is not to say
that suddenly anyone can make a weapon or that it is easy. To the contrary making an effective
biological weapon will still be difficult, only much easier and cheaper than it has been in the past.¶
The rapid advancements of synthetic bio logy could be a game changer , giving organizations
currently pursuing biological weapons more options, and encouraging other organizations to
reconsider their worth. Because the bar for attaining bio logical weapons has been lowered and is
likely to continue to be lowered as more advances in biological technology are made, it is important that the
international community begin to formulate policy that protects advances in science that acts to prevent the intentional misuse of
synthetic biology. Disregard for this consideration will be costly. A successful attack with a potent
biological weapon, where no pharmaceutical interventions might exist, will be deadly and the
impact of such an attack will reverberate around the globe because biological weapons are not
bound by international borders.
2ac
A2 Fism O- Fracking
Narrowing the Commerce Clause still allows for federal environmental protection
Jonathan H. Adler 5, Professor of Law and Co-Director, Center for Business Law and Regulation, Case Western Reserve
University School of Law, “Judicial Federalism and the Future of Federal Environmental Regulation”, 2/21,
http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=690827&download=yes
C. A CONTINUING FEDERAL ROLE¶ This Article’s focus on the extent to which federalism doctrines could, and perhaps should,
curtail federal regulatory authority in the environmental context should not obscure the fact that federal regulatory power is likely to
remain substantial for the foreseeable future. Federalism limits the regulatory power of the federal
government, but it does not eviscerate federal efforts. Where federalism’s pinch is most severe, it is reasonable
to expect one or more justices to blink before applying the logic of existing precedents. Yet even if the Court applies the
federalism principles in an unflinching manner, it will still be possible to protect environmental
values . ¶ Under strict application of Lopez and Morrison, the federal government will retain the
ability to regulate economic activity and truly interstate environmental problems.625 Industrial
operations will remain within the federal government’s regulatory ambit, as would activities that
produce interstate spillovers. Precedents such as Hodel would not be threatened by such an
approach to the Commerce Clause, nor would lower court decisions upholding federal regulatory
statutes that focus on industrial enterprises and other economic activity. Adding a jurisdictional
element to even the most ambitious federal environmental statutes would preserve their
constitutionality, albeit at the expense of each statute’s comprehensiveness.626 A requirement that Congress
include jurisdictional elements in environmental statutes that criminalize or otherwise regulate
non-commercial activity would still cover the vast majority of environmentally destructive
behavior. Commercial real estate developments of the sort at issue in Rancho Viejo and GDF Realty would satisfy even fairly
narrow readings of such requirements, whereas non-commercial activities by individual landowners would not.627
No impact to grid
Douglas Birch 12, former foreign correspondent for the Associated Press and the Baltimore Sun who has written extensively on
technology and public policy, "Forget Revolution," October 1, Foreign Policy,
www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2012/10/01/forget_revolution?page=full
But are cyber attacks really a clear and present danger to society's critical life support systems,
capable of inflicting thousands of casualties? Or has fear of full-blown cybergeddon at the hands
of America's enemies become just another feverish national obsession -- another of the long, dark shadows
of the 9/11 attacks?¶ Worries about a large-scale, devastating cyber attack on the United States date back several decades, but
escalated following attacks on Estonian government and media websites during a diplomatic conflict with Russia in 2007. That
digital ambush was followed by a cyber attack on Georgian websites a year later in the run-up to the brief shooting war between
Tbilisi and Moscow, as well as allegations of a colossal, ongoing cyber espionage campaign against the United States by hackers
linked to the Chinese army.¶ Much of the concern has focused on potential attacks on the U.S. electrical
grid. "If I were an attacker and I wanted to do strategic damage to the United States...I probably would sack electric power on the
U.S. East Coast, maybe the West Coast, and attempt to cause a cascading effect," retired Admiral Mike McConnell said in a 2010
interview with CBS's 60 Minutes.¶ But the scenarios sketched out above are not solely the realm of fantasy. This summer, the
United States and India were hit by two massive electrical outages -- caused not by ninja cyber assault teams
but by force majeure. And, for most people anyway, the results were less terrifying than imagined .¶ First, the freak
"derecho" storm that barreled across a heavily-populated swath of the eastern United States on the afternoon of June 29 knocked
down trees that crushed cars, bashed holes in roofs, blocked roads, and sliced through power lines. ¶ According to an August report
by the U.S. Department of Energy, 4.2 million homes and businesses lost power as a result of the storm, with the blackout stretching
across 11 states and the District of Columbia. More than 1 million customers were still without power five days later, and in some
areas power wasn't restored for 10 days. Reuters put the death toll at 23 people as of July 5, all killed by storms or heat stroke.¶ The
second incident occurred in late July, when 670 million people in northern India, or about 10 percent of the world's population, lost
power in the largest blackout in history. The failure of this huge chunk of India's electric grid was attributed to higher-than-normal
demand due to late monsoon rains, which led farmers to use more electricity in order to draw water from wells. Indian officials told
the media there were no reports of deaths directly linked to the blackouts.¶ But this cataclysmic event didn't cause
widespread chaos in India -- indeed, for some, it didn't even interrupt their daily routine . "[M]any
people in major cities barely noticed the disruption because localized blackouts are so common
that many businesses, hospitals, offices and middle-class homes have backup diesel generators,"
the New York Times reported.¶ The most important thing about both events is what didn't happen. Planes didn't fall out of
the sky. Governments didn't collapse. Thousands of people weren't killed. Despite disruption and
delay, harried public officials, emergency workers, and beleaguered publics mostly muddled
through.¶ The summer's blackouts strongly suggest that a cyber weapon that took down an
electric grid even for several days could turn out to be little more than a weapon of mass
inconvenience.¶ "Reasonable people would have expected a lot of bad things to happen " in the storm's
aftermath, said Neal A. Pollard, a terrorism expert who teaches at Georgetown University and has
served on the United Nation's Expert Working Group on the use of the Internet for terrorist
purposes. However, he said, emergency services, hospitals, and air traffic control towers have backup
systems to handle short-term disruptions in power supplies. After the derecho, Pollard noted, a generator truck
even showed up in the parking lot of his supermarket.¶ The response wasn't perfect, judging by the heat-related deaths and lengthy
delays in the United States in restoring power. But nor were the people without power as helpless or clueless as is sometimes
assumed.¶ That doesn't mean the United States can relax. James Lewis, director of the technology program at
the Center for Strategic and International Studies, believes that hackers threaten the security of U.S. utilities and
industries, and recently penned an op-ed for the New York Times calling the United States "defenseless" to a cyber-assault. But he
told Foreign Policy the recent derecho showed that even a large-scale blackout would not
necessarily have catastrophic consequences.¶ "That's a good example of what some kind of attacks would be like,"
he said. "You don't want to overestimate the risks. You don't want somebody to be able to do this
whenever they felt like it, which is the situation now. But this is not the end of the world ."
CP
Raich’s key --- Swiss cheese precedents cause lower court confusion
Andrew Fan 6, UC-Irvine Law Forum Journal, "Raich v. Gonzales: Ramifications on Future Commerce Clause Jurisprudence and
Congressional Regulation", Fall, www.socsci.uci.edu/lawforum/content/journal/LFJ_2006_fan.pdf
Unfortunately, the
Raich Majority opinion is so lengthy and complex that future courts will struggle to
determine its specific meaning. In fact, it is possible that Justices Stevens, Souter, Ginsburg, Breyer
and Kennedy upheld the CSA for differing reasons, as did Justice Scalia, making this case even
more confusing as precedent for the future . ¶ Ultimately, the Court should have attempted to
consolidate the various considerations involved in deciding the Raich case. The Majority was undoubtedly
aware of the controversy that their decision would create in light of recent Commerce Clause
cases, and yet they were still unable to create a precedent that would be useful in determining
future Commerce Clause cases. Instead, the Majority seems to have tried to reconcile and incorporate the Wickard v. Filburn and U.S.
v. Lopez precedents with its own views on the effects test, even though these principles are arguably at odds with one another. In the end, the “new”
Raich Majority could have best served the law if they agreed that they wanted to do away with Rehnquist’s “economic in nature” test in favor of the
the need for clear
legal standards cannot be ignored . If the Supreme Court issues an unclear opinion, then lower
courts are left without guidelines to decide future Commerce Clause cases. In order to avoid
potential conflicting lower court opinions in the future, it would have been better for the Majority
to clarify exactly which test they wanted future courts to use, rather than forcing Congress and the
lower courts to guess as to where our Commerce Clause jurisprudence currently stands.
“economic in impact” test. Although the “economic in impact” test is more liberal in giving regulatory power to Congress,
AT: Waivers
Say no—zero state governors, or state policy makers support legalization
Wing 4/9 (Nick, Senior viral editor at Huffington Post, Here Are All The U.S. Senators And Governors Who Support Legalizing
Marijuana, http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/04/09/marijuana-legalization-senators-governors_n_5107508.html)
That's right -- out
of 50 governors and 100 U.S. senators, not a single one has announced support for
full legalization, even in Colorado and Washington, which have already passed laws legalizing the sale of
recreational marijuana. Colorado Gov. John Hickenlooper (D) has repeatedly said he respects the will of his state's voters,
who approved Amendment 64 by a 10-point margin in 2012. But he's also maintained that he "hates" the
"experiment" and believes it will ultimately be detrimental to Colorado. In Washington, which will begin
legal marijuana sales later this spring, Gov. Jay Inslee (D) told The New York Times that while he understands some of
the reasons for ending marijuana prohibition, he has concerns about the law's possible effects on children .
Nationwide, only Vermont Gov. Peter Shumlin (D) has said he's willing to discuss the prospect of legalizing pot, though Rhode
Island Gov. Lincoln Chafee (D) did tell HuffPost Live that the potential revenue stream was "enticing" and that he wouldn't rule out
the idea. Since the passage of legalization laws in Colorado and Washington, senators from those states and others have gotten
behind efforts to help transition marijuana into a well-regulated, legitimate industry, but none have come out in support of
legalization itself. Other lawmakers have emerged as relatively progressive on the broader issue of pot policy, but while many
high-profile politicians across the nation have made pushes to increase access to medical
marijuana or to decriminalize possession of small amounts of the substance -- still federally classified as
a Schedule I drug, alongside heroin and LSD -- nobody has been willing to go so far as to endorse
legalization. Sen. Patty Murray (D-Wash.) perhaps came closest earlier this year when she said that she supported "what
Washington State voters have done" with regards to legalizing marijuana, though she herself voted against the measure. And it's
not like they haven't had the opportunity to do so. Seventeen states have introduced legislation to
legalize recreational marijuana, according to the Times. While these bills have not gained widespread
favor among state lawmakers, not a single senator or governor has backed the efforts , with most
either opposing or opting to remain entirely silent on the issue. At the national level, legalization legislation offered
in the House similarly failed to move any senators to be more aggressive on the issue. As Ethan
Nadelmann, founder of the Drug Policy Alliance, told the Times, prominent politicians likely still feel vulnerable to
charges from the right of being soft on drugs and crime. This line of attack has been popular since the beginning of
the war on drugs, and anti-pot groups told the Times that risk-averse politicians were right to fear a potential backlash for supporting
legalization. But as Tony Newman, also of the Drug Policy Alliance, wrote in a blog for The Huffington Post, the refusal to support
legalization actually appears increasingly unwise for lawmakers looking to expand their national profile:
Aca da
Marijuana scheduling case thumps the DA
Abby Haglage 11/4, The Daily Beast, "Judge Could Smash Marijuana Law", 2014,
www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/11/04/pot-s-day-in-court.html
A judge in California is examining the legality of America’s marijuana laws, she may be on the verge
of throwing the entire system into chaos .¶ Three states, one district, and two cities will vote on various aspects of the nation’s drug laws on
Tuesday but the most crucial marijuana decision being weighed in the coming days will be made by just one person. U.S. District Judge Kimberly J. Mueller could
be about to start a legal revolution .¶ After a five-day hearing in California, she is considering the validity of the
science surrounding pot’s classification as one of the most dangerous drugs in the world .¶ In May, she
became the first judge in decades to agree to hear evidence relating to the Drug Enforcement Administration’s classification of marijuana which puts it in the same category as
Over the next few weeks, Mueller will comb through hundreds of pages of witness
testimony, scientific research, and public health policy to determine whether the Schedule I Substance
classification of marijuana is unconstitutional.¶ Her ruling will only apply in the specific case she is hearing, but some argue that a first
judicial ruling against the legality of the DEA’s current drug classifications would invite a flood of
similar legal challenges all over the country .¶ The case in question concerns six men who were charged with growing marijuana on national
heroin and meth.
forest land. It dates back to three police raids in the Northern California town of Hayfork on October 3, 2011 conducted by two local narcotic task forces in tandem with the
United State Forest Service (USFS) and California Highway Patrol (CHP). They confirmed what the agents had been suspecting for years: there was a massive grow operation
hidden in the depths of the Shasta-Trinity National Forest.¶ Over the course of several days, police arrested 15 suspects and uncovered more than 500 marijuana plants, 1,000
pounds of processed cannabis, eight firearms, and more than $35,000 in cash. Brian Pickard and Bryan Schweder, the two owners of the land, were pinpointed as the leaders
of the operation, according to witness testimony and law enforcement officers.¶ Facing a variety of drug charges ranging from possession of marijuana to cultivation, the men
face upwards of 10-15 years in prison. Nothing especially unusual thus far, but then the defense counsel argued that such tough legal sanctions should never have applied to
Much to everyone’s surprise, Mueller agreed to grant an evidentiary hearing on
marijuana’s classification.¶ Her decision was based on a tiny footnote written by U.S. Supreme Court Justice John
Stevens in 2005. In the medical marijuana case of Gonzalez v. Raich ,
marijuana in the first place.¶
he wrote: “We acknowledge that evidence proffered by respondents in this case regarding the effective medical uses for marijuana, if found credible after trial, would cast
serious doubt on the accuracy of the findings that require marijuana to be listed in Schedule I,” it reads. “Respondents' submission, if accepted, would place all homegrown
medical substances beyond the reach of Congress' regulatory jurisdiction.”¶ Mueller said that was enough to justify a hearing. ““[T]here is new scientific and medical information
raising contested issues of fact regarding whether the continued inclusion of marijuana as a Schedule I controlled substance ... passes constitutional muster,” she said, at the
time of the decision.¶ A five-day hearing ended on Friday after evidence from doctors and scientists who argued over the science behind marijuana use in the U.S. The debate
itself centers on the DEA’s classification of marijuana as a Schedule I Substance—which by definition implies that it has “no currently accepted medical use” and a “high
potential for abuse.” With 23 states where medical marijuana is legal and two where it is recreationally as well, a growing chorus of voices deem the classification a relic of the
war on drugs.¶ With this hearing, the long discussions held among drug policy experts, doctors, and politicians were finally given their day in court.¶ Dr. Gregory Carter, who
discovered the effectiveness of treating ALS with marijuana, was one of the first to testify. In a grueling two-hour questioning, Carter provided testimony as to why the drug can
be useful in pain management. The government, led by Attorney Gregory Broderick, challenged Carter’s connection to the drug asking if he had smoked it himself. Carter, who
responded that he had gone to “college in California in the 70s,” and went on to say that he hadn’t done it in 25 years—but that he would if he had ALS.¶ Dr. Carl T. Hart, an
associate professor of psychology and psychiatry at Columbia University and a trailblazing researcher on the effects of drugs on humans, spoke on day two. “[I]t is my
considered opinion that including marijuana in Schedule I of the Controlled Substances Act is counter to all the scientific evidence in a society that uses and values empirical
evidence,” Dr. Hart said. “After two decades of intense scientific inquiry in this area, it has become apparent the current scheduling of cannabis has no footing in the realities of
science and neurobiology.Ӧ Other evidence for the defense was provided from Marine Sgt. Ryan Begin, an Iraq war veteran, Jennie Stormes the mother of a child with pediatric
epilepsy, and James Nolan, PhD an associate professor of sociology and anthropology at West Virginia University and a former crime analyst for the US Federal Bureau of
Investigation.¶ The prosecution called just one witness, Dr. Bertha Madras, a Professor of Psychobiology at Harvard Medical School and the former drug czar under George W.
Bush. Madras, who endured two days of cross-examination, based her testimony on the claim that marijuana has no accepted medical value.¶ Madras focused her arguments
on the fact that marijuana has not reached the “high standards of proof” necessary to obtain FDA approval—which she says highlights both the lack of clear evidence about its
efficacy as well as an accepted method of delivery for the treatment. She also zeroed in on the potentially negative consequences of marijuana use, claiming that it “contains
significant amounts of toxic chemicals,” and that there is “no such thing as medical marijuana.”¶ Paul Armentano, deputy director of NORML served as the principal investigator
for Pickard’s defense team and was present for all five days of testimony. “In 2014, most reasonable people would likely argue that any society where 23 states presently
acknowledge by statute the therapeutic use of marijuana in certain circumstances, that that alone would qualify as accepted medical use,” he tells me. Given this fact,
Armentano believes the feds were left with an “unenviable task” at this hearing: “To convince the court that the earth is flat when the rest of society appropriately has concluded
that the earth is round.Ӧ Armentano says the irony is that the case took place just weeks after Attorney General Eric Holder told Katie Couric that the option of rescheduling
should be explored. “I think it’s certainly a question that we need to ask ourselves—whether or not marijuana is as serious a drug as in heroin,” Holder said. “The question of
Now
that the hearing is officially over, Justice Mueller needs time to review the hours and hours of testimony, along with the
hundreds of pages of relevant scientific material. While her hearing will only be immediately applicable to the
defendants in the case, some argue that it may usher era of marijuana regulation .¶ " It's earth-shattering to even
have this hearing ," Stetson University College of Law Professor Adam Levine told The Christian Science Monitor. "The fact
that the judge is willing to hear this case means she is willing to question if the DEA's original
classification is constitutional."¶ Armentano agrees. “ That decision will have national implications. You will
see defense attorneys around the country filing similar motions ,” he says. “That will perhaps kick open
the door to begin the long overdue discussion in the legislative halls of government—where arguably it ought to be
whether or not they should be in the same category is something that I think we need to ask ourselves, and use science as the basis for making that determination.Ӧ
taken place in the first place.”
Econ--1NC
No impact to econ
Daniel Drezner 14, IR prof at Tufts, The System Worked: Global Economic Governance during the Great Recession, World
Politics, Volume 66. Number 1, January 2014, pp. 123-164
The final significant outcome addresses a dog that hasn't barked: the effect of the Great Recession on cross-border conflict
and violence. During the initial stages of the crisis, multiple analysts asserted that the financial crisis
would lead states to increase their use of force as a tool for staying in power.42 They voiced genuine concern that
the global economic downturn would lead to an increase in conflict—whether through greater internal repression,
diversionary wars, arms races, or a ratcheting up of great power conflict. Violence in the Middle East,
border disputes in the South China Sea, and even the disruptions of the Occupy movement fueled impressions of a surge in global
public disorder.
The aggregate data suggest otherwise , however. The Institute for Economics and Peace has
concluded that "the average level of peacefulness in 2012 is approximately the same as it was in
2007."43 Interstate violence in particular has declined since the start of the financial crisis, as have
military expenditures in most sampled countries. Other studies confirm that the Great Recession has not
triggered any increase in violent conflict, as Lotta Themner and Peter Wallensteen conclude: "[T]he pattern is one of
relative stability when we consider the trend for the past five years."44 The secular decline in violence that started with
the end of the Cold War has not been reversed. Rogers Brubaker observes that "the crisis has not to date
generated the surge in protectionist nationalism or ethnic exclusion that might have been
expected."43
I-law thumper 2AC
Iran letter independently kills I-law
Jacobson 3/11, Fact-checking recent claims about an Iran nuclear deal By Louis Jacobson on Wednesday, March 11th,
2015, Polifact, http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2015/mar/11/fact-checking-recent-claims-about-iran-nuclear-dea/
Citing Michael Ramsey- Law professor at the U of San Diego
Going back on an executive agreement may violate international law. While Congress has the power to
violate international law -- and the ability of the international community to punish a violation is debatable -- "the real question, which
I think both sides are missing, is whether overriding would violate international law," which requires compliance with
binding agreements, said Michael D. Ramsey, a law professor at the University of San Diego. • Going back on an
executive agreement could have significant, if intangible, consequences for the nation’s diplomatic
credibility. Retreating from one executive agreement would be a pretty radical step historically
and could endanger the nation's ability to both ensure that old agreements stand and to strike
new agreements.
Treaties DA 2AC
The UN Drug Conventions will collapse now
Martin Jelsma 14, co-oordinated TNI's Drugs & Democracy Programme, w/ Tom Blickman, “The Rise and Decline of Cannabis
Prohibition¶ the History of cannabis in the UN drug control system and options for reform : Treaty reform options,”
http://www.tni.org/files/download/rise_and_decline_ch4.pdf
Decades of doubts, soft defections, legal hypocrisy and policy experimentation have now reached
the point where de jure legal regulation of the whole cannabis market is gaining political
acceptability, even if it violates certain outdated elements of the UN conventions. Tensions
between countries seeking more flexibility and the UN drug control system and its specialized agencies, as well as with
countries strongly in favour of defending the status quo, are likely to further increase . This seems
inevitable because the trend towards cannabis regulation appears irreversible and is rapidly
gaining more support across the Americas, as well as among many local authorities in Europe that have to face the
difficulties and consequences¶ of implementing current control mechanisms.¶ In the untidy conflict of procedural and political
constraints on treaty reforms versus the movement towards a¶ modernized more flexible global drug
control regime, the system will likely go through a period of legally dubious interpretations and
questionable if not at times hypocritical justifications for national reforms. And the situation is
unlikely to change until a tipping point is reached and a group of like-minded countries is ready
to engage in the challenge to reconcile the multiple and increasing legal inconsistencies and
disputes. The question appearing on the international policy agenda is now no longer whether or not there is a
need to reassess and modernize the UN drug control system, but rather when and how . The
question is if a mechanism can be found soon enough to deal with the growing tensions and to
transform the current system in an orderly fashion into ¶ one more adaptable to local concerns and priorities, and ¶ one that
is more compatible with basic scientific norms and UN standards of today. If not, a critical mass of dissenters will soon feel
forced to opt out of the current system’s strictures, and, using any of the available reservation,
modification or denunciation options, use or create a legal mechanism or interpretation to pursue
the drug policy reforms they are convinced will most protect the health and safety of their people.
.
Court decision doesn’t link
David R. Bewley-Taylor 2, Department of American Studies, University of Wales Swansea, Challenging the UN drug control
conventions: problems and possibilities, International Journal of Drug Policy 14 (2003) 171-179
Should Parties prefer not to follow the denunciation¶ route, they could
exploit what Webster has called an¶ "important
loophole" in the treaties. As Webster notes,¶ the United Nations Drug Control Programme¶ (UNDCP) (1997) World Drug Report slates:¶ .
.[none of the] three international drug Conventions insist on the establishment of drug
consumption per se as a punishable offence. Only the 1988 Convention clearly requires parties to establish
as¶ criminal offences under law the possession, pur-¶ chase or cultivation of controlled drugs for the¶ purpose of non-medical, personal
consumption.¶ unless to do so would be contrary to the constitutional principles and basic concepts
of their legal systems" (italics added) (Webster. 2001).¶ Thus, if the highest courts in signatory nations ruled
that prohibition of a single drug (cannabis for example)¶ or a selection of outlawed substances, was
unconstitutional then the Parties involved would no longer be bound by the limitations of the
Conventions with respect to those drugs. Such action would be perfectly legitimate according to
the provisions of the treaties themselves. Debate already exists with regard to the¶ value of challenging drug prohibition on the
grounds of human rights violations (Riley, 1998; Van Rcc, 1999).
Setting a precedent for withdrawal reinvigorates multilat
Curtis A. Bradley 10, Richard A. Horvitz Professor, Duke Law School and Mitu Gulati is Professor, Duke Law School,
“Withdrawing from International Custom,” The Yale Law Journal, Vol. 120, No. 2, November, pp. 202-275
A second set of concerns raised by the Mandatory View is that inefficient rules will be unduly perpetuated, something that is referred
to in scholarship on contract theory as a “stickiness” problem.'8' Although CIL rules may not be difficult to form in the first instance,
the Mandatory View makes it hard to change established rules by constraining nations from
withdrawing. Presumably, the key assumption underlying this regime is that, unless constrained, nations will engage in
excessive withdrawal from CIL rules. In fact, there are reasons to suspect that, even under a default approach to CIL, the system
will face the opposite problem: CIL rules will remain in place even after they are no longer socially desirable. If so, the
Mandatory View would be worsening an already present stickiness problem. ¶ First, consider the
assumption that a Default View will lead to excessive withdrawals. As discussed earlier, there was a significant period of
time during the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries when commentators believed that nations
could unilaterally withdraw from at least some rules of CIL. '82 We have found no indication from
these commentaries, however, that this Default View led to excessive withdrawals. Nor have we
found suggestions that the shift from the Default View to the Mandatory View occurred because a
spate of withdrawals from CIL had undermined the system.¶ Second, in the modern era, nations are allegedly
able to opt out of CIL rules before they form through persistent objection. Nevertheless, nations rarely invoke this right. Although
there have been predictions that nations would begin invoking the persistent objector doctrine
more frequently, this prediction has not been borne out.183 Professor Byers suggests that part of the
reason for this is that there are significant nonlegal pressures, such as the reciprocal nature of
most interstate relationships, that result in even powerful nations such as the United States, Japan, and
the United Kingdom eventually backing away from their objections to CIL rules.184 Whatever the reason, the key
point is that the Mandatory View does not appear to be necessary to deter exit. ¶ Third, as seen from
Professor Heifer’s research, many treaties either have explicit withdrawal clauses or implicitly allow for withdrawal.,8s
Commentators have evinced few concerns, however, about excessive withdrawals from multilateral treaties.'86 Nor do
we
know of any evidence suggesting that nations have moved away from including withdrawal
clauses in treaties due to perceived abuses.187 While it could be argued that the Mandatory View of CIL is itself
deterring treaty withdrawals, we think this is unlikely. Treaties and CIL do not have identical content, and many treaties are
“progressive” in that they codify principles not contained in CIL.'88 Moreover, even when treaties and CIL contain substantively
similar rules, treaties tend to be more specific and are more likely to be connected to enforcement and adjudicative mechanisms. As
a result, if a nation no longer agreed with the provisions in a treaty, it would have an incentive to
exercise its right of withdrawal even if it could not also exit from substantively similar CIL.¶ The
foregoing suggests that there is little reason to be concerned that a Default View would lead to excessive withdrawal. In fact, it is
possible that, even under that approach, there might actually be insufficient withdrawal. Drawing from scholarship on contract
theory, there are reasons to believe that nations will adhere to rules well beyond the point at which
they have become inefficient, even if nations had the ability to withdraw from them . Among the
theoretical reasons to expect stickiness in the CIL context are what are referred to as “network externalities,” “learning externalities,”
and “negative signals.” Network externalities can arise, for example, when members of a group use a common product, such as a
common contract term.'89 If all members of the group commit to using the same contract term, there are efficiency gains in that the
individual parties do not need to spend time negotiating new provisions; everyone can assume that everyone else understands what
the basic contract rules will be. A similar dynamic might operate with, for example, rules of diplomatic immunity. If nations can
assume that the same rules of diplomatic immunity apply, no matter where, then there will be no need to negotiate specific rules
every time a diplomatic mission is established in a new country. This benefit of standardization of rules comes with a cost, however,
in that individual nations may be slow to shift to new rules even when the old rules have become suboptimal for the system. ¶
Adding to the network effects, there may also be learning externalities, which arc the benefits that come from using
the same rules over a long period of time.190 The longer a rule or a contract provision is used, the better understood
it will be. In the CIL context, the primary' actors are government bureaucrats. One might expea that the government
bureaucrats responsible for international relations, once they develop expertise in operating with a certain set of
rules, will be reluaant to change.'9' Network and learning externalities will often operate in conjunction with each other
to erect barriers to change.'92 One can imagine, for example, lawyers in the various ministries of defense who are
specialists in the rules of war under some combination of CIL and the Geneva Conventions. Many of the existing
rules governing war are likely outdated, in that they were designed for different types of armed conflict than the types
of conflicts we see today.'9* Nevertheless, some combination of network and learning externalities probably produces
barriers to change.194¶ Finally, concerns about sending negative signals may add to stickiness. In settings where
reputations are important, and the parties have incomplete information about each other’s
intentions, parties will be concerned about sending the wrong signals to their counterparties. 195
Altering a standard contract term, for example, presents the risk that it will raise the suspicions of counterpanics that something is
amiss. The same dynamic may apply in the CIL context. Fearing a negative inference by others, nations may be unwilling to deviate
from long-established rules of interaction, even when those rules arc recognized as inefficient.196 ¶ The foregoing theoretical
conjectures are supported by empirical evidence from the field of sovereign debt contracts. The standard provisions in these
contracts arc distillations of norms of debtor-creditor behavior that have evolved over long periods of time (akin to customary norms)
and (unlike under the Mandatory View for CIL) are also defaults in that nations are free to alter them.197 Multiple studies show that
states, despite the option to alter provisions, adhere to inefficient contract provisions long after these provisions arc recognized to
have become inefficient.198 The evidence further suggests that among the reasons for this stickiness arc network effects and
concerns about negative signals.199 A caveat here is that the foregoing evidence draws on the behavior of officials in ministries of
finance rather than ministries of foreign affairs, and it is the latter who arc primarily involved in CIL matters. It is unlikely, however,
that officials in the ministries of foreign affairs will be less concerned about reputation and negative signals than their counterparts in
the ministries of finance.200 Again, one would expect this stickiness problem to be exacerbated by the
Mandatory View, which (unlike in the sovereign debt context) disallows unilateral opt-out.¶ Related to the
concern about stickiness is the concern that a disallowance of unilateral opt-out will cause
nations to act opportunistically and demand concessions before agreeing to any alterations of CIL
(even efficient ones). In other contexts, this is referred to as a “holdout” problem.201 As noted, the precise fraction or number of
nations whose approval needs to be obtained before an extant CIL rule can be altered is unclear. That lack of clarity makes
it difficult to describe the precise nature of the holdout problem under the current Mandatory
View. To be able to evaluate the potential holdout problem, therefore, we have to make a series of
assumptions about how the current system works. ¶ We assume that if a nation were to act in a fashion contrary to
existing CIL and if few other nations objected, a new CIL rule might gradually emerge, but that objections from even a minority of
nations likely would prevent this from happening.202 In voting terms, acquiescence (or nonobjection) is treated in the CIL process
as the equivalent of a vote of approval for the change. With that qualification, however, there is, in effect, a supermajority approval
requirement. Such a requirement creates a potential holdout problem because a small group of nations can threaten to object
vocally to, and thereby derail, attempts by other nations to deviate from existing CIL rules.¶ In small, homogenous groups, where the
interests of members arc relatively uniform and where the members interact repeatedly, social and reputational pressures can serve
to alleviate holdout problems.103 That means that these small groups can often afford to require a high degree of consensus before
decisions are made. As groups get larger and more diverse, however, internal pressures become more diffuse, asymmetries of
information increase, and the threat of informal sanctions becomes less potent. Those factors increase the risk of holdouts.204¶
Applying this analysis to the modern international system, which is large, heterogeneous,
characterized by significant asymmetries of information, and has widely varying threats of
sanctions, suggests that the system is vulnerable to holdouts. This is particularly so in contexts involving
nations that have limited interactions with one another. Under such conditions, nations may be tempted to collude with others to
block alterations to CIL so as to extract concessions from the nations seeking change. This could happen even if the change at
issue would be value-enhancing for the group as a whole.¶ Such holdout problems are likely to dampen
cooperation in international lawmaking. Conversely, if there were a right of withdrawal, a nation
that found a CIL rule to be problematic could announce its reasons for withdrawal and propose a
new rule. If there were other nations that also derived benefits from the change, and relatively few
who suffered costs, this could be an occasion for a cooperative move toward a treaty. Along these
lines, allowing withdrawal could also enhance collaboration in innovation and experimentation in
lawmaking. Under the Mandatory View, when there arc suggestions of a new rule, some nations might be concerned that the
rules will turn out to have unforeseen negative consequences. If so, these nations with concerns will work hard to
prevent new CIL from forming out of a fear that, once it forms, it will be binding and hard to
change. By contrast, if a right of future withdrawal is permitted, it provides nations with a form of
insurance, in that they can experiment with how the rule works for them and then withdraw if its
negative effects outweigh the benefits .105
1ar
Water scarcity solves war
By Aaron T. Wolf et al 6, Annika Kramer, Alexander Carius, and Geoffrey D. Dabelko. Aaron T. Wolf is Associate Professor of
Geography in the Department of Geosciences at Oregon State University and Director of the Transboundary Freshwater Dispute
Database. Annika Kramer is Research Fellow and Alexander Carius is Director of Adelphi Research in Berlin. Geoffrey D. Dabelko
is the Director of the Environmental Change and Security Project at the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars in
Washington, D.C. “Water Can Be a Pathway to Peace, Not War” July.
apocalyptic warnings fly in the face of history: no nations have gone to war specifically over
water resources for thousands of years . International water disputes— even among fierce
enemies—are resolved peacefully, even as conflicts erupt over other issues. In fact, instances of
cooperation between riparian nations outnumbered conflicts by more than two to one between
1945 and 1999. Why? Because water is so important, nations cannot afford to fight over it. Instead,
water fuels greater interdependence . By coming together to jointly manage their shared water
resources, countries can build trust and prevent conflict . Water can be a negotiating tool, too: it
can offer a communication lifeline connecting countries in the midst of crisis . Thus, by crying “water
These
wars,” doomsayers ignore a promising way to help prevent war: cooperative water resources management. Of course, people
compete—sometimes violently—for water. Within a nation, users— farmers, hydroelectric dams, recreational users,
environmentalists—are often at odds, and the probability of a mutually acceptable solution falls as the number of stakeholders rises.
Water is never the single—and hardly ever the major—cause of conflict . But it can exacerbate existing tensions.
History is littered with examples of violent water conflicts: just as Californian farmers bombed pipelines moving water from Owens
Valley to Los Angeles in the early 1900s, Chinese farmers in Shandong clashed with police in 2000 to protest government plans to
divert irrigation water to cities and industries. But these conflicts usually break out within nations. International rivers are a different
story. The world’s 263 international river basins cover 45.3 percent of Earth’s land surface, host about 40 percent of the world’s
population, and account for approximately 60 percent of global river flow. And the number is growing, largely due to the
“internationalization” of basins through political changes like the breakup of the Soviet Union, as well as improved mapping
technology. Strikingly, territory in 145 nations falls within international basins, and 33 countries are located almost entirely within
these basins. As many as 17 countries share one river basin, the Danube. Contrary to received wisdom, evidence shows this
interdependence does not lead to war. Researchers at Oregon State University compiled a dataset of every reported interaction
(conflictive or cooperative) between two or more nations that was driven by water in the last half century They found that the rate of
cooperation overwhelms the incidence of acute conflict. In the last 50 years, only 37 disputes involved violence,
and 30 of those occurred between Israel and one of its neighbors. Outside of the Middle East, researchers
found only 5 violent events while 157 treaties were negotiated and signed. The total number of water-related events between
nations also favors cooperation: the 1,228 cooperative events dwarf the 507 conflict-related events. Despite
the fiery rhetoric of politicians—aimed more often at their own constituencies than at the enemy—most actions taken
over water are mild. Of all the events, 62 percent are verbal, and more than two-thirds of these were not official statements.
water is a greater pathway to peace than conflict in the world’s international river basins .
International cooperation around water has a long and successful history; some of the world’s
most vociferous enemies have negotiated water agreements. The institutions they have created
are resilient, even when relations are strained. The Mekong Committee, for example, established by
Cambodia, Laos, Thailand, and Vietnam in 1957, exchanged data and information on the river basin
throughout the Vietnam War. Israel and Jordan held secret “picnic table” talks to manage the
Jordan River starting in 1953, even though they were officially at war from 1948 until the 1994 treaty. The
Indus River Commission survived two major wars between India and Pakistan. And all 10 Nile
Basin riparian countries are currently involved in senior government–level negotiations to
develop the basin cooperatively, despite the verbal battles conducted in the media. Riparians will endure such tough,
protracted negotiations to ensure access to this essential resource and its economic and social benefits. Southern African
countries signed a number of river basin agreements while the region was embroiled in a series of
wars in the 1970s and 1980s, including the “people’s war” in South Africa and civil wars in Mozambique
and Angola. These complex negotiations produced rare moments of peaceful cooperation . Now that
most of the wars and the apartheid era have ended, water management forms one of the
foundations for cooperation in the region , producing one of the first protocols signed within the
Southern African Development Community (SADC). Today, more than ever, it is time to stop propagating threats of
Simply put,
“water wars” and aggressively pursue a water peacemaking strategy. Why? • “Water wars” warnings force the military and other
security groups to take over negotiations and push out development partners, like aid agencies and international financial
institutions. • Water management offers an avenue for peaceful dialogue between nations, even
when
combatants are fighting over other issues. • Water management builds bridges between nations , some
with little experience negotiating with each other, such as the countries of the former Soviet
Union. • Water cooperation forges people-to-people or expert-to-expert connections , as demonstrated
by the transboundary water and sanitation projects Friends of the Earth Middle East conducts in
Israel, Jordan, and Palestine. • A water peacemaking strategy can create shared regional identities
and institutionalize cooperation on issues larger than water , as exemplified by the formation of
SADC in post-apartheid southern Africa. Good governance—the lack of corruption— is the basic foundation for the
success of any agreement. Obviously, money is also a big challenge. But good governance and money are not enough. Several
policy initiatives could help peacemakers use water to build peace: 1. Identify and utilize more experienced facilitators who are
perceived as truly neutral. The World Bank’s success facilitating the Nile Basin Initiative suggests they have skills worth replicating
in other basins. 2. Be willing to support a long process that might not produce quick or easily measurable results. Sweden’s 20-year
commitment to Africa’s Great Lakes region is a model to emulate. Typical project cycles— often governed by shifting government
administrations or political trends—are not long enough. 3. Ensure that the riparians themselves drive the process. Riparian nations
require funders and facilitators who do not dominate the process and claim all the glory. Strengthening less powerful riparians’
negotiating skills can help prevent disputes, as can strengthening the capacity of excluded, marginalized, or weaker groups to
articulate their interests. 4. Strengthen water resource management. Capacity building—to generate and analyze data, develop
sustainable water management plans, use conflict resolution techniques, or encourage stakeholder participation—should target
water management institutions, local nongovernmental organizations, water users’ associations, and religious groups. 5. Balance
the benefits of closed-door, high-level negotiations with the benefits of including all stakeholders— NGOs, farmers, indigenous
groups—throughout the process. Preventing severe conflicts requires informing or explicitly consulting all relevant stakeholders
before making management decisions. Without such extensive and regular public participation, stakeholders might reject projects
out of hand. Water management is, by definition, conflict management. For all the 21st century wizardry—dynamic modeling, remote
sensing, geographic information systems, desalination, biotechnology, or demand management—and the new-found concern with
globalization and privatization, the crux of water disputes is still little more than opening a diversion gate or garbage floating
downstream. Obviously, there are no guarantees that the future will look like the past; water and conflict are undergoing slow but
steady changes. An unprecedented number of people lack access to a safe, stable supply of water. Two to five million people die
each year from water-related illness. Water use is shifting to less traditional sources such as deep fossil aquifers and wastewater
reclamation. Conflict, too, is becoming less traditional, driven increasingly by internal or local pressures or, more subtly, by poverty
and instability. These changes suggest that tomorrow’s water disputes may look very different from today’s. No matter what the
future holds, we do not need violent conflict to prove water is a matter of life and death. Water—being international, indispensable,
and emotional—can
serve as a cornerstone for confidence building and a potential entry point for
peace . More research could help identify exactly how water best contributes to cooperation. With this, cooperative water
resources management could be used more effectively to head off conflict and to support
sustainable peace among nations.
Best studies prove
Brandt and Ulfelder ‘11 (*Patrick T. Brandt, Ph.D. in Political Science from Indiana University, is an Assistant Professor of
Political Science in the School of Social Science at the University of Texas at Dallas. **Jay Ulfelder, Ph.D. in political science from
Stanford University, is an American political scientist whose research interests include democratization, civil unrest, and violent
conflict, April, 2011, “Economic Growth and Political Instability,” Social Science Research Network)
These statements anticipating political fallout from the global economic crisis of 2008–2010 reflect a
widely held view that economic growth has rapid and profound effects on countries’ political stability. When economies grow at a
healthy clip, citizens are presumed to be too busy and too content to engage in protest or rebellion, and governments are thought to
be flush with revenues they can use to enhance their own stability by producing public goods or rewarding cronies, depending on
the type of regime they inhabit. When growth slows, however, citizens and cronies alike are presumed to grow frustrated with their
governments, and the leaders at the receiving end of that frustration are thought to lack the financial resources to respond
effectively. The expected result is an increase in the risks of social unrest, civil war, coup attempts, and regime breakdown. Although
it is pervasive, the assumption that countries’ economic growth rates strongly affect their political
stability has not been subjected to a great deal of careful empirical analysis, and evidence from
social science research to date does not unambiguously support it.
mark
Theoretical models of civil wars, coups d’etat, and transitions to and from democracy often specify slow economic
growth as an important cause or catalyst of those events, but empirical studies on the effects of economic
growth on these phenomena have produced mixed results. Meanwhile, the effects of economic
growth on the occurrence or incidence of social unrest seem to have hardly been studied in recent years , as
empirical analysis of contentious collective action has concentrated on political opportunity structures and dynamics of protest and
repression. This paper helps fill that gap by rigorously re-examining the effects of short-term
variations in economic growth on the occurrence of several forms of political instability in
countries worldwide over the past few decades. In this paper, we do not seek to develop and test new theories of
political instability. Instead, we aim to subject a hypothesis common to many prior theories of political instability to more careful
empirical scrutiny. The goal is to provide a detailed empirical characterization of the relationship between economic growth and
political instability in a broad sense. In effect, we describe the conventional wisdom as seen in the data. We do so with statistical
models that use smoothing splines and multiple lags to allow for nonlinear and dynamic effects from economic growth on political
stability. We also do so with an instrumented measure of growth that explicitly accounts for endogeneity in the relationship between
ours is the first statistical study of this relationship
to simultaneously address the possibility of nonlinearity and problems of endogeneity . As such, we believe this
paper offers what is probably the most rigorous general evaluation of this argument to date . As
political instability and economic growth. To our knowledge,
the results show, some of our findings are surprising. Consistent with conventional assumptions, we find that social unrest and civil
violence are more likely to occur and democratic regimes are more susceptible to coup attempts around periods of slow economic
growth. At the same time, our analysis shows no significant relationship between variation in growth and the risk of civil-war onset,
and results from our analysis of regime changes contradict the widely accepted claim that economic crises cause transitions from
autocracy to democracy. While we would hardly pretend to have the last word on any of these relationships, our findings do suggest
that the
relationship between economic growth and political stability is neither as uniform nor as
strong as the conventional wisdom (s) presume (s). We think these findings also help explain why
the global recession of 2008–2010 has failed thus far to produce the wave of coups and regime failures
that some observers had anticipated, in spite of the expected and apparent uptick in social unrest associated with the crisis.
Water scarcity preventing Indo-Pak war
Alam 2 (Questioning the water wars rationale: a case study of the Indus Waters Treaty Geographical Journal, The,
Dec, 2002 by Undala Z. Alam
Despite bellicose statements, even at the highest levels, India and Pakistan persisted in
negotiating over the Indus basin . This suggests that though statements made by key
decisionmakers in public may suggest a move towards war , the statements are used to generate
domestic support for a political position. As seen in the Indus basin, the political rhetoric did not match the
governments' actions which sought to resolve an international water dispute through
cooperation . In winter 2001-2002, against a backdrop of deteriorating Indo-Pakistan
relations, notably the attack on the Indian parliament in December 2001, statements were made in
India that it would unilaterally abrogate the Indus Waters Treaty (Dawn 2001 2002a; The Tribune 2002). Despite
considerable discussion within the Indian and Pakistani press , the Permanent Indus Commission, set up as
part of the Treaty, met for the 37th time in New Delhi on 29 May 2002 for three days (Dawn
2002b; The Hindu 2002; The Indian Express 2002; Paukert 2002). This can be seen as a clear indication of
the countries commitment to the Treaty despite statements by senior decisionmakers and
speculation in the press. The experience from the Indus basin, therefore, throws into question whether public
statements made for a domestic audience are truly indicative of a country's intent to go to war over shared waters.
Conclusion The water wars rationale would suggest that India and Pakistan should have gone
to war over the Indus basin. Despite water scarcity, competitive use, Pakistan's absolute
dependency upon the basin and the wider dispute involving a series of issues including
Kashmir, the two countries cooperated instead . With the good offices of the World Bank,
India and Pakistan negotiated the Indus Waters Treaty over a period of nine years, signing it in
September 1960. The principal explanation for this Indo-Pakistan cooperation is based upon the finances that the
Treaty brought with it in the Indus Basin Development Fund. However, the financial explanation is inadequate, as it
does not explain why the countries cooperated over nine years so that there was a treaty to finance. Nor does it explain
the repeated negotiations for the temporary ad hoc agreements that supplied water to Pakistan during the larger
negotiations for a comprehensive agreement. An alternative explanation is that India and Pakistan cooperated
because it was water rational. In other words, cooperation was needed to safeguard the
countries' long-term access to shared water. This suggests that the issues of water scarcity,
competitive use and a wider conflict do not necessarily lead to war, since war cannot guarantee a
country's water supply in the long term.
Indo-pak most probable, nuke winter
Margolis 9-7 11 Forget Libya or Syria. Worry About Kashmir!
by Eric Margolis Columnist and author Eric
Margolis is a veteran of many conflicts in the Middle East, Margolis recently was featured in a special appearance
on Britain’s Sky News TV as “the man who got it right” in his predictions about the dangerous risks and
entanglements the US would face in Iraq. http://www.lewrockwell.com/margolis/margolis257.html
Does anyone remember Kashmir? Well, we certainly should. If nuclear war ever breaks out, the most
likely place would be in Kashmir. The fabled state of Kashmir lies in majestic isolation amid the towering
mountain ranges of the Himalayas and Karakoram that separate the torrid plains of north India from the steppes and
deserts of Central Asia. Nineteenth Century geopoliticians called Kashmir one of the world’s primary strategic pivots.
My book War at the Top of the World was written to help warn of the manifest dangers coming from this complex, littleknown confrontation which is the world’s longest running border conflict. The state human rights commission of the
Indian-ruled portion of divided Kashmir just reported its investigators had found 2,156 bodies buried in unmarked graves
in 38 different locations. Most were young men. Many bore bullets wounds. Grisly and horrifying as this discovery was,
there was hardly a peep from India’s allies, notably the United States and Britain, who have raised such a hue and cry
over alleged civilian deaths in Libya, Iran and Syria. India shrugged off the report. There may be many more bodies to
be found. Most, or all, were the product of the decades-old uprising by Kashmir’s Muslim majority against often brutal
Indian rule that the outside world has largely ignored. Historic Kashmir, with its distinctive Indo-European and TibetanMongol peoples, has ended up divided between three nations: India, Pakistan, and China. Some nine million Kashmiris
live in the Indian-ruled two thirds of Kashmir; over three million in the Pakistani portion, known as "Azad Kashmir," or in
Pakistan proper, and small numbers in the frigid, 15,000-20,000 ft high Aksai Chin plateau which is controlled by China.
Kashmir’s Tibetan-race people mostly live in Indian-controlled Ladakh, long called "Little Tibet." There, Tibetan culture
has fared far better under Indian rule than in Chinese-ruled Tibet. When Imperial Britain divided India in 1947, the
Hindu maharaja of Kashmir opted to join the new Indian Union. But 77% of his people were Muslim (20% were Hindu,
3% Sikh and Buddhist). Muslim Kashmiris wanted to join newly-created Pakistan. Fighting erupted. India and Pakistan
rushed in troops. The cease-fire line that ended the fighting has become the de facto border between the Indian and
Pakistani ruled parts of Kashmir. India claims all of Kashmir, including Chinese-occupied Aksai Chin. Pakistan also
claims all of Kashmir. In 1948, the United Nations called for a plebiscite in Kashmir to decide this issue. Pakistan
accepted; India refused the UN resolution. India and Pakistan have fought three full-scale wars over Kashmir and
innumerable border clashes, some of which I have witnessed. Last week, three Pakistani soldiers were killed on
Kashmir’s de facto border (called the Line of Control) by Indian fire. Today, hundreds of thousands of
Pakistani and Indian troops confront one another on Kashmir’s cease-fire line, and further
south in the plains of Punjab. They are backed by growing numbers of tactical nuclear
weapons that are on a three-minute hair-trigger alert, making Kashmir the world’s most
dangerous border. Kashmiri Muslims have resisted Indian rule since 1947. In the early 1990’s, massive uprisings
erupted against Indian rule, which was enforced by 500,000 troops and ill-disciplined paramilitary police. Pakistan’s
intelligence service, ISI, began training Kashmir "mujahidin" and sending them across the border to reinforce the
uprising. But Pakistan’s covert support waned after 9/11. Indian authorities blamed the uprising on "cross-border
terrorism." Indian security forces struck back with maximum brutality, leading India’s human rights groups to denounce
the repression. Muslim villages were burned; suspects were tortured; Muslim women were gang-raped by Indian border
police; large numbers of young Muslim men were taken from villages and simply disappeared. Now we know where
they went - filling many of the unmarked graves discovered last month. An estimated 80,000 Kashmiris have so far died
in the uprising, the majority Muslims. Muslims also committed bloody atrocities against Hindus and Sikhs. Now, Indian
rights groups are demanding that India’s high courts investigate the crimes that have been committed in Kashmir, put an
end to them, and punish the guilty parties. Continued selective moral outrage on our part is unacceptable. India’s allies
must encourage Delhi to face this ugly issue and end this blight on India’s democracy and good name. The outside
world has to tell Delhi that if it wants to be a respected world power and have a seat on the UN Security Council, it must
end the killing and torture in Kashmir. Pakistan must be reminded to stop stirring the pot. Resolving the Kashmir
dispute will eliminate the gravest danger faced by mankind: an India-Pakistan nuclear
exchange that could kill an estimated 2 million initially, 100 million thereafter, and spread
clouds of radioactive dust around the globe. Kashmir has poisoned relations between sister
nations Pakistan and India who are hopelessly locked in this sterile conflict. Desperately poor India and
Pakistan waste tens of billions on military spending because of Kashmir. Clever Indian diplomacy has
long kept the Kashmir conflict in the shadows. Time now for the world to get involved. The solution: let all the
borders fade away. Turn Kashmir into an autonomous, demilitarized free trade zone.