1AC
1AC
Plan
The United States should legalize nearly all marihuana in the United States.
DTOs Adv: 1AC [2:15]
Drug violence is causing massive instability in Mexico
Carlos Rodriguez 11-9 Opinion editor at The Brownsville Herald “Don’t fail” Posted on Nov 9, 2014
http://www.brownsvilleherald.com/opinion/editorials/article_67ab01ec-695a-11e4-a9d7-13a648a3f589.html
if Mexico can’t find some way to control the scourge of drugrelated crime and violence, it risks deteriorating into a failed state .¶ Based on recent events, that failure
might seem closer than ever .¶ People on both sides of the border are still demanding answers after the
mid-October kidnapping and murder of a young Progreso woman, her brothers and boyfriend in the town of Control,
Tamaulipas, between Matamoros and Reynosa.¶ Witness say the siblings, who had gone to Mexico to visit their father, were
kidnapped by members of a special police force created by Matamoros Mayor Leticia Salazar.¶ That crime came on the
heels of a similar action in which 43 students at a teaching college in Iguala, in Guerrero state, were
rounded up shortly after a some city buses were commandeered during a student protest. Apparently, they were
kidnapped by local police and military personnel.¶ Searches for the students, who are presumed dead, have been futile.
Observers in recent years have warned that
Searchers found a mass grave, but the bodies aren’t the students’. ¶ Iguala’s former mayor and his wife, who had gone into hiding
shortly after the students’ sequester, have been arrested in connection to the disappearance. ¶ This is the kind of stuff
we’ve heard mostly in despotic African dictatorships. To hear it could be happening right across
the Rio Grande, in a country that has all the natural resources to be a global economic power, is
both alarming and disappointing.¶ Granted, cartels often scare witnesses , and the news media , into
silence. So the fact that so many people are saying they saw the recent massacres, and point the finger at police units, is
suspect. However, the fact that such accusations are widely believed, and believable, speaks volumes
about the administration of President Enrique Peña Nieto, who was elected largely on a promise to put an end to the violence that
has virtually destroyed the country.¶ Peña Nieto now has to endure widespread heckling and shouts of “Assassin!” at his public
appearances. Unless things change, the president, who’s barely completing the first trimester of his term, could be in for a long four
crime under control is crucial for Mexico’s future, as it surely would increase
foreign investment and improve the economy, which would give the country’s workers options
that are better than becoming mules for the cartels.
years.¶ Bringing
Federal legalization of marijuana is a game-changer for stopping violence in
Mexico—takes a huge chunk out of cartel profits and frees up police resources
Hesson 14 -- immigration editor, covers immigration and drug policy from Washington D.C.
[Ted, "Will Mexican Cartels Survive Marijuana Legalization?" Fusion, fusion.net/justice/story/mexican-cartels-survive-marijuanalegalization-450519, accessed 6-2-14]
1. Mexico is the top marijuana exporter to the U.S. A 2008 study by the RAND Corporation estimated that Mexican
marijuana accounted for somewhere between 40 and 67 percent of the drug in the U.S. The cartel grip on the U.S. market may not
last for long. Pot can now be grown for recreational use in Colorado and Washington, and for medical use in 20 states. For the first
time, American consumers can choose a legal product over the black market counterpart. Beau Kilmer, the co-director of
the RAND Drug Policy Research Center, says that a few states legalizing marijuana won’t eliminate
the flow of the drug from down south, but a change in policy from the federal government would
be a game changer. “Our research also suggests that legalizing commercial marijuana production at the
national level could drive out most of the marijuana imported from Mexico,” he wrote in a 2013 op-ed. 2.
Marijuana makes up more than $1 billion of cartel income Pot isn’t the main source of income for cartels. They
make most of their cash from drugs like cocaine and heroin. But marijuana accounts for 15 to 26 percent of the
cartel haul, according to RAND’s 2008 data. That translates to an estimated $1.1 billion to $2 billion of
gross income. The drop in sales certainly wouldn’t end the existence of drug traffickers — they bring in an estimated $6 billion
to $8 billion annually — but losing a fifth of one’s income would hurt any business. On top of that, Kilmer
says that marijuana likely makes up a higher percentage of the cartel take today than it did back in
2008. So taking away pot would sting even more . 3. Authorities could focus on other drugs
Marijuana made up 94 percent of the drugs seized by Border Patrol in the 2012 fiscal year, judging by
weight. If pot becomes legal in the U.S. and cartels are pushed out of the market, that would allow
law-enforcement agencies to dedicate more resources to combat the trafficking of drugs like
heroin and cocaine.
Most comprehensive studies prove violence will be significantly reduced in the
long-run, and short-term lashout will be limited
Beau Kilmer et al 10, Jonathan P. Caulkins, Brittany M. Bond, Peter H. Reuter (Kilmer--Codirector, RAND Drug Policy
Research Center; Senior Policy Researcher, RAND; Professor, Pardee RAND Graduate School, Ph.D. in public policy, Harvard
University; M.P.P., University of California, Berkeley; B.A. in international relations, Michigan State University, Caulkins--Stever
Professor of Operations Research and Public Policy at Carnegie Mellon University, Bond--research economist in the Office of the
Chief Economist of the US Department of Commerce's Economics and Statistics Administration, Reuter--Professor in the School of
Public Policy and the Department of Criminology at the University of Maryland. “Reducing Drug Trafficking Revenues and Violence
in Mexico Would Legalizing Marijuana in California Help?” RAND occasional paper (peer reviewed),
http://www.rand.org/content/dam/rand/pubs/occasional_papers/2010/RAND_OP325.pdf
However, there
is at least one countervailing factor that might reduce violence in the short run. Given
that the signal of market decline will be strong and unambiguous, experienced participants might
accept the fact that their earnings and the market as a whole are in decline. This could lead to a
reduced effort on their part to fight for control of routes or officials, since those areas of control
are now less valuable. Of course, that does presume strategic thinking in a population that appears to have a propensity for
expressive and instrumental violence. The natural projection in the long run is more optimistic . Fewer young
males will enter the drug trade, and the incentives for violence will decline as the economic
returns to leader- ship of a DTO fall. 10 However, the long run is indeterminably measured: probably years, and
perhaps many years.
Alternative activities can’t make up for profits—post-prohibition effect on the
mafia proves
Robelo 13 -- Drug Policy Alliance research coordinator
[Daniel, "Demand Reduction or Redirection? Channeling Illicit Drug Demand towards a Regulated Supply to Diminish Violence in
Latin America," Oregon Law Review, 91 Or. L. Rev. 1227, 2013, l/n]
It is also impossible to foresee how regulation would affect levels of violence. Some analysts believe a short-term increase in
violence is possible (as competition over a smaller market could intensify), but that violence in the longer term will decline. n106
Some analysts point out that organized crime may further diversify into other activities, such as extortion and
kidnapping, though these have been shown to be considerably less profitable than drug trafficking.
As one scholar [*1249] notes, given the profitability of the drug trade, "it would take roughly 50,000 kidnappings to equal 10% of
cocaine revenues from the U.S. n107 While the American mafia certainly diversified into other criminal endeavors
after the Repeal of alcohol Prohibition, homicide rates nevertheless declined dramatically. n108
Combining marijuana regulation with medical regulatory models for heroin, cocaine and methamphetamine could strike a major blow
to the corrosive economic power of violent trafficking organizations, diminishing their ability to perpetrate murder, hire recruits,
purchase weapons, corrupt officials, operate with impunity, and terrorize societies. Moreover, these approaches promise concrete
results - potentially significant reductions in DTO revenues - unlike all other strategies that Mexico or the United States have tried to
date. n109 Criminal organizations would still rely on other activities for their income, but they would
be left weaker and less of a threat to security. Furthermore, the U nited S tates and Latin American governments
would save resources currently wasted on prohibition enforcement and generate new revenues in
taxes - resources which could be applied more effectively towards confronting violence and other
crimes that directly threaten public safety. n110
Even modest losses means cartels can’t corrupt the police and judiciary
Usborne 14 [David, "How Central Is Marijuana In The Drug War? Ctd," The Dish, quoted by Andrew Sullivan, 1-11-14,
dish.andrewsullivan.com/2014/01/11/how-central-is-marijuana-in-the-drug-war-ctd/, accessed 6-9-14]
A 2012 research paper by the Mexican Competitiveness Institute in Mexico called ‘If Our Neighbours Legalise’, said that the
legalisation of marijuana in Colorado, Washington and California would depress cartel profits by as much as 30 per cent. A 2010
Rand Corp study of what would happen if just California legalised suggests a more modest fall-out. Using consumption in the US as
the most useful measure, its authors posit that marijuana accounts for perhaps 25 per cent of the cartels’
revenues. The cartels would survive losing that, but still. “ That’s enough to hurt , enough to cause massive
unemployment in the illicit drugs sector,” says [fellow at the Mexico Institute at the Wilson Center
David] Shirk. Less money for cartels means weaker cartels and less capacity to corrupt the judiciary
and the police in Mexico with crumpled bills in brown envelopes. Crimes like extortion and kidnappings are
also more easily tackled.
Plan creates a reverse gateway effect that reduces demand for harder drugs
Herrington, 12 Luke, Editor-At-Large for E-IR and Assistant Reviews Editor for Special Operations Journal. He is a graduate
student in the Department of Political Science at the University of Kansas where he previously earned an MA in Global and
International Studies, “Marijuana Legalization: Panacea in the War on Drugs or Stoners Blowing Smoke?,” http://www.eir.info/2012/08/24/marijuana-lagalization-panacea-in-the-war-on-drugs-or-stoners-blowing-smoke/, Vitz
Legalization Will Hurt the Cartels A chorus of Latin American leaders think legalization will undermine the cartels, and they advocate
it as a new strategy in the war on drugs. In March, Otto Perez Molina, the president of Guatemala, announced his interest in
legalizing drugs in an effort to fight the cartels, including the Zetas, who were allegedly behind a May 2011 attack that left 27
dismembered workers on a farm in northern Guatemala. Molina, however, is not the only leader to suggest that drug legalization
could help stem the rising tide of drug-related violence in Latin America. In fact, former Mexican President Vicente Fox also supports
the legalization of marijuana, [7] as do César Gaviria, Ernesto Zedillo, Fernando Henrique Cardoso, and Ricardo Lagos, former
presidents of Colombia, Mexico, Brazil, and Chile respectively. [8] The government of Uruguay is also agitating for legalization.
marijuana legalization and regulation may be used to help fight cocaine
use and abuse . The government also says it would sell the drug directly, tracking buyers in the process
There, officials announced that
and limiting the black market’s ability to usurp this new supply. [9] Grillo agrees. He suggests that mass-burnings of marijuana in
Mexico, for instance, a hallmark in source control, do more to illustrate exactly how hulking the narco-economic edifice of the cartel’s
drug industry really is, than it does to elucidate how Mexico constantly hammers their organizations. It also demonstrates that U.S.
demand for product will continue to encourage the flow of marijuana and, by extension, other drugs over the border. Citing a
narrowly defeated attempt by California voters to legalize marijuana, and petitioners in Colorado promoting a referendum to do the
same, Grillo highlights the fact that campaigns for legalization view the Mexican Drug War “as a reason to change U.S. drug laws.”
Moreover, these campaigners argue that “American ganja smokers are giving billions of dollars to psychotic Mexican drug cartels,
[…] and legalization is the only way to stop the war.” [10] Grillo concedes that the cartels have morphed into diversified, 21st century
firms with entrenched profit sources well beyond the scope of the marijuana industry. Nevertheless, he concludes, legalization as a
strategy in the war on drugs could still do more in the effort to undermine cartel profits than the U.S. Drug Enforcement Agency
(DEA) and the Mexican army ever have. Legalization “might not kill the Mexican cartels,” he says, however it certainly could inflict a
deep wound upon their organizations. Armstrong accuses the U.S. of failure in its war on drugs, and asserts that the violence in
Mexico is only one consequence. Despite the tightening of post-9/11 border regulations, tons of cocaine and marijuana continue to
pass into the U.S. and billions of dollars in illicit money and weapons are passing into Mexico. Traditional policies hardly curb this
two-way flow of illicit traffic, in essence, because secondary and tertiary criminal lieutenants are prepared to fill the void when their
leaders are arrested or killed. Indeed, General Charles H. Jacoby, Jr., the leader of U.S. Northern Command (NORTHCOM),
testified before the U.S. Senate, stating that the “decapitation strategy” may succeed in killing key drug figures, but “it ‘has not had
an appreciable effect’ in thwarting the drug trade.” [11] The Mexican government has even started rethinking its approach. Instead of
focusing on the interdiction of drugs bound for U.S. markets, Mexican authorities are starting to focus more on their citizens’ safety.
Obama Administration officials, for their part, have chastised Latin American leaders for debating the legalization strategy, whilst
also stressing the importance of shared responsibility to the Mexican government. In spite of this, the U.S. has done little on its end
to stem the actual demand for illicit drugs. Armstrong believes U.S. policymakers must launch a serious dialogue here [in America]
on legalizing, or at least decriminalizing, the drugs. It’s not a perfect solution, but it’s better than no solution at all. […] The United
States needs a strategy to win the war or to settle it. [12] Indeed, if shared responsibility means anything, it means that the U.S.
must do its part not to enable the continuation of the drug wars. That means that in addition to the possible legalization or
decriminalization of marijuana (and other drugs for that matter), the U.S. must slow the flood of weapons and cash, the cartels’
raison d’etre. [13] Most importantly, legalization could undermine Latin American cartels by removing from marijuana, the so-called
“gateway effect.” As has happened in other countries, such as Portugal, where decriminalization has been experimented with on a
large scale, isolating marijuana from the black market makes it more difficult for drug dealers to push
“ harder” narcotics on individuals using marijuana. More will be said on this subject below, but for now, suffice it
to say that this has the potential to undermine the cartels—perhaps the foundations of the black market itself—across the board,
from the ground up. [14]
They won’t compete in the legal market
Carpenter 11 – Ted Galen Carpenter, Senior Fellow at the Cato Institute, “Undermining Mexico’s Dangerous Drug Cartels”, Cato
Policy Analysis, 11-15, http://object.cato.org/sites/cato.org/files/pubs/pdf/PA688.pdf
Legalizing pot would strike a blow against Mexican traffickers. It
would be difficult for them to compete with American
producers in the American market, given the difference in transportation distances and other
factors . There would be little incentive for consumers to buy their product from unsavory
Mexican criminal syndicates when legitimate domestic firms could offer the drug at a competitive
price—and advertise how they are honest enterprises. Indeed, for many Americans, they could
just grow their own supply—a cost advantage that the cartels could not hope to match.
Mexico instability undermines U.S. leadership and risks global arms races
Robert Haddick, contractor at U.S. Special Operations Command, managing editor of Small Wars Journal, "This Week at War: If
Mexico Is at War, Does America Have to Win It?" FOREIGN POLICY, 9--10--10,
www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2010/09/10/this_week_at_war_if_mexico_is_at_war_does_america_have_to_win_it, accessed 5-213.
Most significantly, a
strengthening Mexican insurgency would very likely affect America's role in the rest
of the world . An increasingly chaotic American side of the border, marked by bloody cartel wars,
corrupted government and media, and a breakdown in security, would likely cause many in the U nited
S tates to question the importance of military and foreign policy ventures elsewhere in the world.
Should the southern border become a U.S. president's primary national security concern, nervous
allies and opportunistic adversaries elsewhere in the world would no doubt adjust to a distracted
and inward-looking America, with potentially disruptive arms races the result. Secretary Clinton has
looked south and now sees an insurgency. Let's hope that the United States can apply what it has recently learned about
insurgencies to stop this one from getting out of control.
Heg decline causes nuclear war
Metz 13 – Dr. Steven Metz, Director of Research at the Strategic Studies Institute, Ph.D. from the Johns Hopkins University, and
an MA and BA from the University of South Carolina, “A Receding Presence: The Military Implications of American Retrenchment”,
World Politics Review, 10-22, http://www.worldpoliticsreview.com/articles/13312/a-receding-presence-the-military-implications-ofamerican-retrenchment
So much for the regions of modest concern. The
M iddle E ast/ N orth A frica region, by contrast, is a part of the world where
American retrenchment or narrowing U.S. military capabilities could have extensive adverse effects . While the
region has a number of nations with significant military capability, it does not have a functioning method for preserving order without outside
As U.S. power recedes, it could turn out that American involvement was in fact a deterrent
against Iran taking a more adventurous regional posture, for instance. With the United States gone, Tehran could
become more aggressive, propelling the Middle East toward division into hostile Shiite and Sunni blocs and
encouraging the spread of nuclear weapons . With fewer ties between regional armed forces and the United States, there
also could be a new round of military coups. States of the region could increase pressure on Israel, possibly
leading to pre-emptive military strikes by the Israelis, with a risk of another major war . One of the al-Qaida affiliates
involvement.
might seize control of a state or exercise outright control of at least part of a collapsed state. Or China might see American withdrawal as an
opportunity to play a greater role in the region, particularly in the Persian Gulf. The United States has a number of security objectives in the Middle East
and North Africa: protecting world access to the region's petroleum, limiting humanitarian disasters, preventing the proliferation of weapons of mass
destruction, limiting the operating space for al-Qaida and its affiliates, sustaining America's commitment to long-standing partners and assuring Israel's
security. Arguments that the U.S. can disengage from the region and recoup savings in defense expenditures assume that petroleum exports would
continue even in the event of domination of the region by a hostile power like Iran or a competitor like China, state collapse or even the seizure of
power by extremists. Whoever exercises power in the region would need to sell oil. And the United States is moving toward petroleum self-sufficiency
or, at least, away from dependence on Middle Eastern oil. But even if the United States could get along with diminished petroleum exports from the
disengagement
from the Middle East and North Africa would entail significant risks for the U nited S tates. It would be a roll
Middle East, many other nations couldn't. The economic damage would cascade, inevitably affecting the United States. Clearly
of the strategic dice. South and Central Asia are a bit different, since large-scale U.S. involvement there is a relatively recent phenomenon. This means
South and Central Asia
two vibrant, competitive and nuclear-armed powers—India and China—as well as one of
the world's most fragile nuclear states, Pakistan. Writers like Robert Kaplan argue that South Asia's importance will continue
that the regional security architecture there is less dependent on the United States than that of some other regions.
also includes
to grow, its future shaped by the competition between China and India. This makes America's security partnership with India crucial. The key issue is
whether India can continue to modernize its military to balance China while addressing its immense domestic problems with infrastructure, education,
income inequality and ethnic and religious tensions. If it cannot, the United States might have to decide between ceding domination of the region to
Central Asia is different. After a decade of U.S. military
a cauldron of extremism and terrorism. America's future role there is in doubt, as it looks like
the United States will not be able to sustain a working security partnership with Afghanistan and Pakistan in the future. At some point one
or both of these states could collapse, with extremist movements gaining control. There is little chance of another
large-scale U.S. military intervention to forestall state collapse, but Washington might feel compelled to act to secure
Pakistan's nuclear weapons if Islamabad loses control of them . The key decision for Washington might someday be
China or spending what it takes to sustain an American military presence in the region.
operations, the region remains
whether to tolerate extremist-dominated areas or states as long as they do not enable transnational terrorism. Could the United States allow a Taliban
state in parts of Afghanistan and Pakistan, for instance, if it did not provide training areas and other support to al-Qaida? Most likely, the U.S. approach
would be to launch raids and long-distance attacks on discernible al-Qaida targets and hope that such a method best balanced costs and risks. The
Asia-Pacific region will remain the most important one to the United States even in a time of receding American power. The United States retains deep
economic interests in and massive trade with Asia, and has been a central player in the region's security system for more than a century. While
instability or conflict there is less likely than in the Middle East and North Africa, if it happened it would be much more dangerous because of the
economic and military power of the states likely to be involved. U.S. strategy in the Asia-Pacific has been described as a hub-and-spokes strategy "with
the United States as the hub, bilateral alliances as the spokes and multilateral institutions largely at the margins." In particular, the bilateral "spokes"
are U.S. security ties with key allies Australia, Japan and South Korea and, in a way, Taiwan. The United States also has many other beneficial
America's major security
objectives in the Asia-Pacific in recent years have been to discourage Chinese provocation or destabilization as China
rises in political, economic and military power, and to prevent the world's most bizarre and unpredictable nuclear power—North
Korea—from unleashing Armageddon through some sort of miscalculation . Because the U.S. plays a
more central role in the Asia-Pacific security framework than in any other regional security
arrangement, this is the region where disengagement or a recession of American power would have the most farreaching effect. Without an American counterweight, China might become increasingly
aggressive and provocative . This could lead the other leading powers of the region close to China—particularly Japan,
South Korea and Taiwan—to abandon their historical antagonism toward one another and move toward some sort of de
facto or even formal alliance. If China pushed them too hard, all three have the technological capability to develop
and deploy nuclear weapons quickly. The middle powers of the region, particularly those embroiled in disputes with China over the
security relationships in the region, including with Singapore, Thailand, Malaysia and the Philippines.
resources of the South China Sea, would have to decide between acceding to Beijing's demands or aligning themselves with the Japan-South KoreaTaiwan bloc. Clearly North Korea will remain the most incendiary element of the Asia-Pacific system even if the United States opts to downgrade its
involvement in regional security. The parasitic Kim dynasty cannot survive forever. The question is whether it lashes out in its death throes, potentially
with nuclear weapons, or implodes into internal conflict. Either action would require a significant multinational effort, whether to invade then reconstruct
and stabilize the nation, or for humanitarian relief and peacekeeping following a civil war. Even if the United States were less involved in the region, it
security threats are plausible
and dangerous: protracted internal conflicts that cause humanitarian disasters and provide operating space for extremists (the
Syria model); the further proliferation of nuclear weapons; the seizure of a state or part of a state by extremists that then use the
territory they control to support transnational terrorism; and the old specter of major war between nations. U.S. political
leaders and security experts once believed that maintaining a full range of military capabilities, including the ability to
undertake large-scale, protracted land operations, was an important deterrent to potential opponents.
would probably participate in such an effort, but might not lead it. Across all these regions, four types of
But the problem with deterrence is that it's impossible to prove. Did the U.S. military deter the Soviet seizure of Western Europe, or did Moscow never
intend to do that irrespective of what the United States did? Unfortunately, the only way to definitively demonstrate the value of deterrence is to allow
U.S. power to recede and see if bad things happen. Until recently, the United States was not inclined to take such a risk. But now there is increasing
political support for accepting greater risk by moving toward a cheaper military without a full range of capabilities. Many Americans are willing to throw
the strategic dice. The
recession of American power will influence the evolution of the various regional
security systems, of which history suggests there are three types: hegemonic security systems in which a dominant state assures stability;
balance of power systems where rivals compete but do not dominate; and cooperative systems in which multiple states inside and sometimes outside
a region maintain security and limit or contain conflict. Sub-Saharan Africa is a weak cooperative system organized around the African Union. Even if
there is diminished U.S. involvement, the sub-Saharan African security system is likely to remain as it is. Latin America might have once been a
hegemonic system, at least in the Caribbean Basin, but today it is moving toward becoming a cooperative system with a diminished U.S. role. The
M iddle E ast/ N orth A frica region, South and Central Asia and the Asia-Pacific will probably
move toward becoming balance of power systems with less U.S. involvement. Balances of power can prevent major wars with
adept diplomacy and when the costs of conflict are high, as in Europe during the Cold War, for instance. But catastrophic conflicts can
happen if the balance collapses, as in Europe in the summer of 1914. Power balances work best when one key
same is true of Europe. The
state is able to shift sides to preserve the balance, but there is no candidate to play this role in the emerging power balances in these three regions.
Hence the
balances in these regions will be dangerously unstable .
Studies show heg solves war
Sempa, assistant US Attorney, 11
(Francis, Assistant U.S. Attorney for the Middle District of Pennsylvania, an adjunct professor of political science at Wilkes
University, contributing editor to American Diplomacy, October 2011, “Review of ‘Dangerous Times? The International Politics of
Great Power Peace By Christopher J. Fettweis,’” Joint Force Quarterly, Issue 63, p. 150,
http://www.thefreelibrary.com/Dangerous+Times%3f+The+International+Politics+of+Great+Power+Peace-a0275489833, DOA: 1031-14, ara)
Forget Clausewitz, Sun Tzu, and Machiavelli. Put aside Mackinder, Mahan, and Spykman. Close the military academies and war colleges. Shut our
overseas bases. Bring
our troops home. Make dramatic cuts in the defense budget. The end of major
war, and perhaps the end of war itself, is near, according to Tulane assistant professor Christopher Fettweis in his recent book,
Dangerous Times? The International Politics of Great Power Peace. Fettweis is not the first intellectual, nor will he be the last, to proclaim the onset of
perpetual peace. He is squarely in the tradition of Immanuel Kant, Herbert Spencer, and Norman Angell, to name just three. Indeed, in the book’s
introduction, Fettweis attempts to rehabilitate Angell’s reputation for prophecy, which suffered a devastating blow when the Great War falsified his claim
in The Great Illusion that economic interdependence had rendered great power war obsolete. Angell, Fettweis writes, was the first “prominent
constructivist thinker of the twentieth century,” and was not wrong—just ahead of his time (p. 5). Fettweis bases his theory or vision of the
obsolescence of major war on the supposed linear progress of human nature, a major tenet of 20th-century liberalism that is rooted in the rationalist
theories of the Enlightenment. “History,” according to Fettweis, “seems to be unfolding as a line extending into the future—a halting, incomplete,
inconsistent line perhaps, one with frequent temporary reversals, but a line nonetheless.” The world is growing “more liberal and more reliant upon
reason, logic, and science” (p. 217). We
have heard this all before. Human nature can be perfected. Statesmen and leaders will
be guided by reason and science. Such thinking influenced the visionaries of the French Revolution and produced 25 years of war among
the great powers of Europe. Similar ideas influenced President Woodrow Wilson and his intellectual supporters who endeavored at Versailles to
transform the horrors of World War I into a peace that would make that conflict “the war to end all wars.” What followed were disarmament
conferences, an international agreement to outlaw war, the rise of expansionist powers, appeasement by the democracies, and the most destructive
war in human history. Ideas,
which Fettweis claims will bring about the proliferation of peace , transformed
Russia, Germany, and Japan into expansionist, totalitarian powers . Those same ideas led to the Gulag, the
Holocaust, and the Rape of Nanking. So much for human progress. Fettweis knows all of this, but claims that since the end of the
Cold War, the leaders and peoples of the major powers, except the United States, have accepted the idea that
major war is unthinkable. His proof is that there has been no major war among the great powers
for 20 years— a historical period that coincides with the American “unipolar” moment . This is very thin
empirical evidence upon which to base a predictive theory of international relations. Fettweis criticizes
the realist and neorealist schools of thought, claiming that their adherents focus too narrowly on the past behavior of states in the international system.
In his view, realists place too great an emphasis on power. Ideas and norms instead of power, he claims, provide structure to the international system.
Classical geopolitical theorists such as Halford Mackinder, Alfred Thayer Mahan, Nicholas Spykman, and Colin Gray are dismissed by Fettweis in less
than two pages, despite the fact that their analyses of great power politics and conflict have long been considered sound and frequently prescient.
Realists and classical geopoliticians have more than 2,000 years of empirical evidence to support their
theories of how states and empires behave and how the international system works. Ideas are
important, but power is the governing force in international politics, and geography is the most permanent factor in
the analysis of power. Fettweis makes much of the fact that the countries of Western and Central Europe, which waged war
against each other repeatedly for nearly 400 years, are at peace, and claims that there is little likelihood that they will ever again wage war
against each other. Even if the latter assertion turns out to be true, that does not mean that the end of major war is in sight .
Throughout history, some peoples and empires that previously waged war for one reason or another became pacific without producing worldwide
perpetual peace: the Mongols, Saracens, Ottomans, Dutch, Venetians, and the Spanish Empire come immediately to mind. A Europe at peace does
Fettweis believes the United States
needs to adjust its grand strategy from vigorous internationalism to strategic restraint. His specific
not translate to an Asia, Africa, and Middle East at peace. In a world in which major wars are obsolete,
recommendations include the removal of all U.S. military forces from Europe; an end to our bilateral security guarantees to Japan and South Korea; an
end to our alliance with Israel; an indifference to the balance of power on the Eurasian landmass; a law enforcement approach to terrorism; a drastic
Fettweis is proposing is effectively
an end to what Walter Russell Mead calls “the maritime world order” that was established by Great Britain and maintained first by the
British Empire and then by the United States. It is a world order that has defeated repeated challenges by potential
hegemonic powers and resulted in an unprecedented spread of prosperity and freedom. But all of
that, we are assured, is in the past. China poses no threat . The United States can safely withdraw from
Eurasia. The power vacuum will remain unfilled. Fettweis needs a dose of humility . Sir Halford Mackinder, the greatest of all
cut in military spending; a much smaller Navy; and the abolition of regional combatant commands. What
geopoliticians, was referring to visionaries and liberal idealists like Fettweis when he cautioned, “He would be a sanguine man . . . who would trust the
future peace of the world to a change in the mentality of any nation.” Most profoundly, General Douglas MacArthur, who knew a little bit more about
war and international conflict than Fettweis, reminded the cadets at West Point in 1962 that “only the dead have seen the end of war.”
Global Prohibition: 1AC [3:30]
Federal legalization sends a global signal in favor of ending drug prohibition—
causes a shift in other countries towards harm reduction strategies
Joshua D. Wild, “The Uncomfortable Truth about the United States’ Role in the Failure of the Global War on Drugs and How It is
Going to Fix It,” SUFFOLK TRANSNATIONAL LAW REVIEW v. 36, Summer 2013, p. 437-446
The War on Drugs' demise started when the bellicose analogy was created. n77 The correct classification of the global drug
problem was and still is as a set of interlinked health and social challenges to be managed, not a war
to be won. n78 The U.S. has worked strenuously for the past fifty years to ensure that all countries
adopt its rigid, prohibitionist approach to drug policy, essentially repressing the potential for
alternative policy development and experimentation. n79 This was an expensive mistake that the U.S.
unfortunately cannot take back. n80 The current emergence from the economic recession of 2008-2009 has set the stage for a
generational, political and cultural shift, placing the U.S. in a unique moment in its history; the necessary sociopolitical context to
revoke its prohibitionist ideals and replace them with more modern policies grounded in health, science and humanity. n81 The
U.S. can remedy its mistake by using its considerable diplomatic influence and international
presence to foster reform in other countries. n82 One way to do this is by capitalizing [*438] on this unique moment
in its existence and experimenting with models of legal regulation, specifically with marijuana because nearly half
of U.S. citizens favor legalization of it. n83 This will help redeem our image internationally and help repair
foreign relations because the monumental scope of the international marijuana market is largely created by the exorbitant
U.S. demand for the drug which partially stems from the illegality of the market. n84 B. Step 1: Recognize the Ineffectiveness of The
Global War on Drugs and Consider Alternatives An objective way to gauge the effectiveness of a drug policy is to examine how the
policy manages the most toxic drugs and the problems associated with them. n85 With that in mind , at the global level,
having one in five intravenous drug users have HIV and one in every two users having Hepatitis C
is clearly an epidemic and not the result of effective drug control policies. n86 The threat of arrest and
punishment as a deterrent from people using drugs is sound in theory, but in practice this hypothesis is tenuous. n87 Countries
that have enacted harsh, punitive laws have higher levels of drug use and related problems than
countries with more tolerant approaches. n88 Additionally, the countries that have experimented with
forms of legal regulation outside of punitive approaches have not seen rises in drug use and
dependence [*439] rates. n89 Therefore, one sensible first step in placing this issue back into a manageable position is for
national governments to encourage other governments to experiment with models of legal regulation of
drugs which fit their context. n90 This will in turn, undermine the criminal market, enhance national security, and allow other
countries to learn from their application. n91 1. Easier to Say Than Do - A Suggestion for Overcoming Difficulties Associated With
Legal Regulation For this movement to be successful and effectively manage the epidemic at hand there must be a broad
consensus around the world that the current drug control policies are morally harmful. n92 This consensus however is precluded by
the stigma and fear associated with more toxic drugs such as heroin. n93 This note does not propose that heroin and other toxic
drugs should be legalized but instead suggests that society and drug policies tend to consolidate and classify all illicit drugs as
equally dangerous. n94 This in turn restrains any progressive debate about experimenting with the regulation of different drugs
under different standards. n95 [*440] Regardless of these false dichotomies, which often restrain progressive debate, it is difficult
not to give credence to the idea of marijuana being socially acceptable when it has been by far the most widely produced and
consumed illicit drug. n96 There is between 125 and 203 million users worldwide and no indication of that number declining. n97
With this many users, it is reasonable to conclude that if the international community could reach a consensus about the moral
noxiousness of any drug control policy, the repression of marijuana would likely be it. n98 Marijuana, arguably socially
acceptable, represents a simple mechanism to enter into the experimentation process with the
legal regulation of drugs. n99 Without advocating for the UN to adopt new commissions or encouraging drastic moves such
as the decriminalization of all illicit substances, the global decriminalization of marijuana would be a relatively minor adjustment
compared to the monumental impact. n100 If national governments were to decriminalize marijuana, the scope of this movement
would essentially eradicate the public health problem of marijuana abuse and the associated criminality because of its illegal status.
n101 Public health problems can be remedied because it will afford governments the ability to regulate the market and control the
quality and price of the drug, essentially removing toxic impurities and setting a price that will diminish an illegal market. n102 This
will in turn diminish the criminal market [*441] by eradicating the need for users to commit crimes to procure marijuana and removing
the economic incentive for other countries to get involved in the drug's market. n103 Without arguing that this is the panacea for the
global war on drugs, proponents of legalization can aptly point to the archaic drug control policies in place and this macro approach
as an effective way to tackle the problem now. n104 C. Step 2: Real Reform - the U.S. Needs to Stand at the Forefront
of Drug Policy Reformation The U.S. wields considerable influence over the rest of the world, so it
is no surprise that its call for the development and maintenance of prohibitive, punitive drug
policies resulted in a majority of the international community following. n105 Conversely, if the U.S.
leads the call for the development and maintenance of more tolerant drug policies grounded in
health, humanity and science, a majority of the international community will also follow. n106 Cultural
shifts do not take place overnight, and the idea of complete U.S. drug policy reformation is too aggressive and stark in contrast to
succeed against modern bureaucracy and political alliances. n107 On the other hand, a more moderate, piecemeal approach could
effectively act as a catalyst for this transformation while simultaneously serving as a case study for opponents of legal regulation.
n108 [*442] If the U.S. is serious about addressing the ineffectiveness of the War on Drugs, then the
federal government must remove marijuana from its list of criminally banned substances. n109 The
tone of the Obama administration is a significant step in this direction. n110 President Obama has explicitly acknowledged the need
to treat drugs as more of a public health problem, as well as the validity of debate on alternatives, but he does not favor drug
legalization. n111 This progressive rhetoric is a significant step in the right direction, but until there is
some real reform confronting the issue, reducing punitive measures and supporting other countries to develop drug
policies that suit their context, there is still an abdication of policy responsibility. n112 1. Starting Small - Potential
Positive Effects of Regulation and Taxation of Marijuana in the U.S. If marijuana was legal in the U.S., it would function similarly to
the market of legal substances such as liquor, coffee and tobacco. n113 Individual and corporate participants in the market would
pay taxes, increasing revenues and saving the government from the exorbitant cost of trying to enforce prohibition laws. n114
Consumers' human rights would be promoted through self-determination, autonomy and access to more accurate information about
the product they are consuming. n115 Additionally, case studies and research suggest that the decriminalization or legalization
[*443] of marijuana reduces the drugs' consumption and does not necessarily result in a more favorable attitude towards it. n116
The legal regulation of marijuana would relieve the current displaced burden the drug places on law enforcement, domestically and
internationally. n117 In the U.S., law enforcement could refocus their efforts away from reducing the marijuana market per se and
instead towards reducing harm to individuals, communities and national security. n118 Abroad, U.S. international
relations would improve because of the reduced levels of corruption and violence at home and
afar. n119 The precarious position repressive policies place on foreign governments when they have to destroy
the livelihoods of agricultural workers would be reduced. n120 Additionally, legalization and regulation
would provide assistance to governments in regaining some degree of control over the regions
dominated by drug dealers and terrorist groups because those groups would lose a major source
of funding for their organizations. n121 2. Health Concerns? - Marijuana in Comparison to Other Similar Legal
Substances The federal government, acknowledging the risks inherent in alcohol and tobacco, argues that adding a third substance
to that mix cannot be beneficial. n122 Adding anything to a class of [*444] dangerous substances is likely never going to be
beneficial; however marijuana would be incorrectly classified if it was equated with those two substances. n123 Marijuana is far less
toxic and addictive than alcohol and tobacco. n124 Long term use of marijuana is far less damaging than long term alcohol or
tobacco use. n125 Alcohol use contributes to aggressive and reckless behavior, acts of violence and serious injuries while
marijuana actually reduces likelihood of aggressive behavior or violence during intoxication and is seldom associated with
emergency room visits. n126 As with most things in life, there can be no guarantee that the legalization or decriminalization of
marijuana would lead the U.S. to a better socio-economical position in the future. n127 Two things however, are certain: that the
legalization of marijuana in the U.S. would dramatically reduce most of the costs associated with the current drug policies,
domestically and internationally, and [*445] if the U.S. is serious about its objective of considering the costs
of drug control measures, then it is vital and rational for the legalization option is considered. n128
D. Why the Time is Ripe for U.S. Drug Policy Reformation The political atmosphere at the end of
World War I and II was leverage for the U.S., emerging as the dominant political, economic and military
power. n129 This leverage allowed it to shape a prohibitive drug control regime that until now has
remained in perpetuity. n130 Today, we stand in a unique moment inside of U.S. history. n131 The
generational, political and cultural shifts that accompanied the U.S. emergence from the "Great
Recession" resulted in a sociopolitical climate that may be what is necessary for real reform. n132
Politically, marijuana has become a hot issue; economically, the marijuana industry is bolstering a faltering economy and socially,
marijuana is poised to transform the way we live and view medicine. n133 The public disdain for the widespread problems
prohibition caused in the early 20th century resulted in the end of alcohol prohibition during the Great Depression. n134 If history
does actually repeat itself than the Great recession may have been much more telling than expected. n135 V. Conclusion The U.S.
and its prohibitionist ideals exacerbated the failure of both the international and its own domestic drug policies. n136 As a result,
the U.S. should accept accountability for its mistakes by reforming its drug policies in a way that
will help [*446] place the global drug market back into a manageable position . n137 Marijuana is an
actionable, evidence based mechanism for constructive legal and policy reform that through a domino effect
can transform the global drug prohibition regime . n138 The generational, political and cultural shifts that
accompanied the U.S. emergence from the "Great Recession" have resulted in a sociopolitical climate ready for real reform. n139
The U.S. will capitalize on this unique moment by removing marijuana from the list of federally banned substances,
setting the stage for future international and domestic drug policies that are actually effective. n140
China needs to shift to a harm reduction model to avoid economic and social
instability—acting now is key
Verity Robins, “China’s Flawed Drugs Policy,” Foreign Policy Centre, 6—22—11, http://fpc.org.uk/articles/514, accessed 12-2014.
China has woken up to its drug problem, but it is failing woefully in trying to tackle it. Nestled between two major heroin-producing
regions, the Golden Triangle (Burma, Thailand, Laos, Vietnam) and the Golden Crescent (Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iran), China has
long been a transit path for drugs headed toward the rest of the world. Along an ever-expanding network of routes that lead to
China's international seaports, domestic heroin use is soaring. No longer just a transit country, it now has a sizable user population
of its own. The
rise in domestic heroin addiction has had disastrous social consequences, with an
increase in Chinese drug cultivation and organised criminal activity, as well as a rise in intravenous
drug use and a spiralling HIV/AIDS epidemic. China's role as a drugs conduit has increased considerably over the
past two decades. Throughout the 20th century, opium and later heroin, from the Golden Triangle, was smuggled to Thailand's
seaports and then on to satiate drug markets throughout the world. More effective law enforcement and a stricter drug policy in
Thailand in the late 1980s and early 90s reduced the state as an effective trafficking route. Concurrently, Burmese drug lord Khun
Sa, the prime heroin producer and distributer along the Thai-Burmese border, surrendered to the Burmese authorities. With the
collapse of Khun Sa's army, Burma's foremost heroin trafficking route into Thailand was disrupted. Consequently, China's role as a
narcotics conduit became even more crucial. Well over half the heroin produced in the Golden Triangle now travels through China,
wending its way through southern provinces Yunnan, Guangxi and Guangdong towards Hong Kong. This shift in regional drug trade
routes coincided with rapid economic development in China's southwest. More robust roads allow for faster and easier
transportation of illicit drugs, while an increased fiscal and technological ability to refine heroin locally has driven down its market
value and increased local consumption. By 1989, the HIV virus was detected amongst injecting drug users in China's most southwesterly province Yunnan. Needle sharing drove the epidemic, and HIV/AIDS rapidly spread to drug users in neighbouring
provinces and along trafficking routes. At the turn of the century, HIV infections had been reported in all 31 provinces, autonomous
regions and municipalities, with drug users accounting for 60-70 per cent of reported cases. While the Chinese government was
slow to engage substantively with a generalised AIDS epidemic in the country, a new administration taking office in 2003 under
President Hu Jintao accelerated the commitment to and implementation of evidence-based HIV policies. Having woken up to the
seriousness of its HIV/AIDS epidemic, the Chinese government sought increasingly progressive means to combat the crisis, calling
on a range of outside actors to implement new and innovative pilot projects. During the 2000s, the government seemingly revoked
its zero-tolerance attitude towards drug users, introducing needle exchange programmes and controlled methadone maintenance
treatments in the most affected areas. While the Chinese government continues to take a pragmatic
approach to its HIV/AIDS crisis, the good work of these projects is offset by the 2008 Narcotics Law
that vastly emphasises law enforcement over medical treatment in the government's response to drug use.
This law calls for the rehabilitation of illicit drug users and for their treatment as patients rather than as criminals, yet the law also
allows for the incarceration - without trial or judicial oversight – of individuals suspected by police of drug use for up to six years in
drug detention centres. To allow for this, the 2008 Narcotics Law considerably enhances police power to randomly search people for
possession of drugs, and to subject them to urine tests for drug use without reasonable suspicion of crime. The law also
empowers the police, rather than medical professionals, to make judgements on the nature of the suspected users' addiction,
and to subsequently assign alleged drug users to detention centres. According to Human Rights Watch, whilst in
detention centres suspected drug users receive no medical care, no support for quitting drugs, and no skills training for re-entering
society upon release. In the name of treatment, suspected drug users are confined under "horrific conditions, subject to cruel,
inhuman and degrading treatment, and forced to engage in unpaid labour". Not only is this law ineffective in tackling
China's growing drug problem and rehabilitating its users, but incarceration of suspected addicts
in detention centres represents a serious breach of the basic human rights guaranteed by both China's
domestic and international legal commitments. Furthermore, the law is a counter productive policy for combating
HIV/AIDS in China. The threat of forcible detention only discourages users from seeking
professional help to tackle their addictions, and from utilising needle exchange programmes for fear of incarceration. The
result is to encourage "underground" illicit drug use that leads to needle sharing and hence the
spread of HIV/AIDS. Effective tackling of illicit drug use requires developing voluntary, outpatient
treatment based upon effective, proven approaches to drug addiction. Specific reform of the law should reverse the
expanded police powers to detain suspected users without trial, and implement specific procedural mechanisms to protect the
health and human rights of drug users in a standardised and appropriate way. The Chinese government has sought to work with
outside actors in combating its HIV/AIDS epidemic, particularly in its most affected province Yunnan. The UK Department for
International Development (DfID) has been engaged in HIV/AIDS prevention throughout southwest China since the launch of the
China-UK HIV/AIDS Prevention and Care Programme in 2001. DfID's Multilateral Aid Review, published in March this year, cut all
future development aid to China. The discontinuation of DfID projects in southwest China will weaken efforts to prevent HIV/AIDS
and rehabilitate drug users in the region. It also lessens pressure on China to combat these issues in a reasonable and felicitous
way. The international donor community present in China must implement policies that reflect
realities on the ground by ensuring that the health care and treatment of drug users is at the core
of their HIV/AIDS policies. They should also use their position of influence to nudge Beijing to
rectify the flaws in the 2008 Narcotics Law with its negative implications for the human rights of suspected drug users, and
for combating the spread of HIV/AIDS. If the country's skyrocketing number of i ntra v enous drug users
and the resultant HIV/AIDS epidemic are left to fester , it could result in severe health
consequences, economic loss and social devastation . China still has time to act, but it should do
so now before it is too late.
AIDs spread causes extinction
Chaturaka Rodrigo, University Medical Unity, National Hospital of Sri Lanka and Senaka Rajapakse, Department of Clinical
Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, University of Colombo, “Current Status of HIV/AIDS in South Asia,’ JOURNAL OF GLOBAL
INFECTIOUS DISEASES, v. 1 n. 2, July-December 2009, pp. 93-101.
Infection with human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) and subsequent development of acquired immunodeficiency syndrome
(AIDS) poses a significant challenge to modern medicine and humanity. According to the United Nations joint
program on HIV/AIDS (UNAIDS), currently there are 33.2 million adults and children living with HIV/AIDS. The highest number of
patients is reported from sub-Saharan Africa.[1] Outside Africa, Asia
remains a potential breeding ground for an
epidemic. Given the massive population density, an epidemic in India and China will have a huge impact on
the global economy and human survival similar to that of sub-Saharan Africa.[2] It is estimated that in 2007 there
were 4.9 million people with HIV/AIDS in Asia, with 440,000 new infections.[2] Although heterosexual intercourse is considered the
main risk behavior for spread of HIV in Africa, in Asia it is intravenous drug use (IVDU).[3] However, in South Asia, transmission via
sexual contact is predominant.[4] All countries in the South Asian region are still considered to have a low prevalence of HIV, though
numbers are increasing in Pakistan and Nepal.[5] There are many risk factors in the region favoring an
epidemic of HIV, such as illiteracy, poor economic status, poor sanitary and health facilities,
social taboos on discussion of sex and malnutrition. The high prevalence of tuberculosis in the region will play a
significant role in reducing life expectancy should HIV/AIDS rates rise.[6]
Instability causes diversionary wars in the South China Sea
Cole 14 Taipei-based journalist and contributor to The Diplomat who focuses on military issues in Northeast Asia and in the
Taiwan Strait. He previously served as an intelligence officer at the Canadian Security Intelligence Service, Where Would Beijing
Use External Distractions?, J Michael, http://thediplomat.com/2014/07/where-would-beijing-use-external-distractions/
Throughout history, embattled governments have often resorted to external distractions to tap
into a restive population’s nationalist sentiment and thereby release, or redirect, pressures that otherwise could
have been turned against those in power. Authoritarian regimes in particular, which deny their citizens the right to
punish the authorities through retributive democracy — that is, elections — have used this device to ensure their
survival during periods of domestic upheaval or financial crisis. Would the Chinese Communist Party (CCP), whose legitimacy is so
contingent on social stability and economic growth, go down the same path if it felt that its hold on power were threatened by domestic instability? Building on the premise that
the many contradictions that are inherent to the extraordinarily complex Chinese experiment, and rampant corruption that undermines stability, will eventually catch up with the
CCP, we can legitimately ask how, and where, Beijing could manufacture external crises with opponents against whom nationalist fervor, a major characteristic of contemporary
China, can be channeled. In past decades, the CCP has on several occasions tapped into public outrage to distract a disgruntled population, often by encouraging (and when
necessary containing) protests against external opponents, namely Japan and the United States. While serving as a convenient outlet, domestic protests, even when they
turned violent (e.g., attacks on Japanese manufacturers), were about as far as the CCP would allow. This self-imposed restraint, which was prevalent during the 1980s, 1990s
and 2000s, was a function both of China’s focus on building its economy (contingent on stable relations with its neighbors) and perceived military weakness. Since then, China
has established itself as the world’s second-largest economy and now deploys, thanks to more than a decade of double-digit defense budget growth, a first-rate modern military.
Those impressive achievements have, however, fueled Chinese
nationalism, which has increasingly approached
the dangerous zone of hubris . For many, China is now a rightful regional hegemon demanding respect, which if denied
can — and should — be met with threats, if not the application of force. While it might be tempting to attribute China’s recent
assertiveness in the South and East China Seas to the emergence of Xi Jinping, Xi alone cannot make all the decisions; nationalism
is a component that cannot be dissociated from this new phase in Chinese expressions of its power. As then-Chinese foreign
minister Yang Jiechi is said to have told his counterparts at a tense regional forum in Hanoi in 2010, “There is one basic difference
among us. China is a big state and you are smaller countries.” This newfound assertiveness within its backyard
thus makes it more feasible that, in times of serious trouble at home, the Chinese leadership
could seek to deflect potentially destabilizing anger by exploiting some external distraction .
Doing so is always a calculated risk, and sometimes the gambit fails, as Slobodan Milosevic learned the hard way when he tapped
into the furies of nationalism to appease mounting public discontent with his bungled economic policies. For an external distraction
to achieve its objective (that is, taking attention away from domestic issues by redirecting anger at an outside actor), it must not
result in failure or military defeat. In other words, except for the most extreme circumstances, such as the imminent collapse of a
regime, the decision to externalize a domestic crisis is a rational one: adventurism must be certain to achieve success, which in turn
will translate into political gains for the embattled regime. Risk-taking is therefore proportional to the seriousness of the destabilizing
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
forces within. Rule No. 1 for External Distractions:
greater. With this in mind, we can then ask which external distraction scenarios would Beijing be the most likely to turn to should
domestic disturbances compel it to do so. That is not to say that anything like this will happen anytime soon. It is nevertheless not
unreasonable to imagine such a possibility. The intensifying crackdown on critics of the CCP, the detention of lawyers, journalists
and activists, unrest in Xinjiang, random acts of terrorism, accrued censorship — all point to growing instability. What follows is a
very succinct (and by no means exhaustive) list of disputes, in descending order of likelihood, which Beijing could use for external
distraction. 1. South China Sea The
S outh C hina S ea, an area where China is embroiled in several
territorial disputes with smaller claimants, is ripe for exploitation as an external distraction .
Nationalist sentiment, along with the sense that the entire body of water is part of China’s
indivisible territory and therefore a “ core interest ,” are sufficient enough to foster a will to fight
should some “incident,” timed to counter unrest back home, force China to react. Barring a U.S. intervention,
which for the time being seems unlikely, the People’s Liberation Army (PLA) has both the numerical and qualitative advantage
against any would be opponent or combination thereof. The Philippines and Vietnam, two countries which have skirmished with
China in recent years, are the likeliest candidates for external distractions, as the costs of a brief conflict would be low and the
likelihood of military success fairly high. For a quick popularity boost and low-risk distraction, these opponents would best serve
Beijing’s interests.
That goes nuclear
Goldstein 13 (Avery Goldstein, Professor of Global Politics and International Relations, Director of the Center for the Study
of Contemporary China, University of Pennsylvania, “China’s Real and Present Danger”, Foreign Affairs, Sep/Oct 2013,
http://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/139651/avery-goldstein/chinas-real-and-present-danger) gender edited
Uncertainty about what could lead either Beijing or Washington to risk war makes a crisis far
more likely, since neither side knows when, where, or just how hard it can push without the other
side pushing back. This situation bears some resemblance to that of the early Cold War, when it took a number of serious
crises for the two sides to feel each other out and learn the rules of the road. But today’s environment might be even
more dangerous.¶ The balance of nuclear and conventional military power between China and the
United States, for example, is much more lopsided than the one that existed between the Soviet Union and the
United States. Should Beijing and Washington find themselves in a conflict, the huge U.S. advantage in conventional
forces would increase the temptation for Washington to threaten to or actually use force.
Recognizing the temptation facing Washington, Beijing might in turn feel pressure to use its conventional
forces before they are destroyed. Although China could not reverse the military imbalance, it
might believe that quickly imposing high costs on the United States would be the best way to get
it to back off.¶ The fact that both sides have nuclear arsenals would help keep the situation in check, because both sides would
want to avoid actions that would invite nuclear retaliation. Indeed, if only nuclear considerations mattered, U.S.-Chinese crises
would be very stable and not worth worrying about too much. But the
two sides’ conventional forces complicate
matters and undermine the stability provided by nuclear deterrence. During a crisis, either side
might believe that using its conventional forces would confer bargaining leverage, manipulating
the other side’s fear of escalation through what the economist Thomas Schelling calls a “competition in risk-taking.” In a
crisis, China or the United States might believe that it valued what was at stake more than the other
and would therefore be willing to tolerate a higher level of risk. But because using conventional
forces would be only the first step in an unpredictable process subject to misperception ,
missteps, and miscalculation , there is no guarantee that brinkmanship [brinkspersonship] would
end before it led to an unanticipated nuclear catastrophe .¶ China, moreover, apparently believes
that nuclear deterrence opens the door to the safe use of conventional force . Since both countries would
fear a potential nuclear exchange, the Chinese seem to think that neither they nor the Americans would allow a military conflict to
escalate too far. Soviet leaders, by contrast, indicated that they would use whatever military means were necessary if war came -which is one reason why war never came. In addition, China’s official “no first use” nuclear policy, which guides the Chinese
military’s preparation and training for conflict, might reinforce Beijing’s confidence that limited war with the
United States would not mean courting nuclear escalation. As a result of its beliefs, Beijing might
be less cautious about taking steps that would risk triggering a crisis. And if a crisis ensued,
China might also be less cautious about firing the first shot .¶ Such beliefs are particularly
worrisome given recent developments in technology that have dramatically improved the
precision and effectiveness of conventional military capabilities. Their lethality might confer a
dramatic advantage to the side that attacks first, something that was generally not true of conventional military
operations in the main European theater of U.S.-Soviet confrontation. Moreover, because the sophisticated computer and satellite
systems that guide contemporary weapons are highly vulnerable to conventional military strikes or cyberattacks, today’s more
precise weapons might be effective only if they are used before an adversary has struck or
adopted countermeasures. If peacetime restraint were to give way to a search for advantage in a crisis, neither China
nor the United States could be confident about the durability of the systems managing its
advanced conventional weapons.¶ Under such circumstances, both Beijing and Washington would have
incentives to initiate an attack. China would feel particularly strong pressure , since its advanced
conventional weapons are more fully dependent on vulnerable computer networks , fixed radar
sites, and satellites. The effectiveness of U.S. advanced forces is less dependent on these most vulnerable systems. The
advantage held by the United States, however, might increase its temptation to strike first, especially
against China’s satellites, since it would be able to cope with Chinese retaliation in kind.
Legalization of marijuana in Morocco is key to stability—they model US policy
Roslington and Pack 13 (James, PhD candidate in North African history at the University of Cambridge, and Jason, 11-4-13,
"Morocco's Growing Cannabis Debate" Foreign Policy)
mideastafrica.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2013/11/04/morocco_s_growing_cannabis_debate
Cognizant of developments in the U nited S tates in Colorado and Washington state, Moroccan social media
has been abuzz this summer with a seemingly unlikely possibility: the legalization of cannabis. Activists and
politicians in Morocco are close to firming up a date later this month for the parliament to host a
seminar on the economic implications of legalization. The powerful Party of Authenticity and Modernity will chair
the daylong seminar. This has led some commentators to speculate that the move may even have the
blessing of the monarchy. Morocco regularly vies with Afghanistan for the title of the world's
biggest producer of cannabis -- its output was recently estimated at nearly 40,000 tons annually -- yet open debate on the
role of the plant in the country's economy remains infrequent. In recent years, despite improvements in
production, both small farmers and big producers have seen their cannabis -related income plummet.
Political moves to legalize cannabis are a recognition that Morocco's drug policy has failed. For
decades, farmers in the Rif region in the north have been tacitly allowed to cultivate the herb as an escape from dire poverty. At the
same time, occasional crackdowns and arbitrary detentions of growers ensured that the central state kept a firm grip on the region.
This policy worked well for decades but is now beginning to unravel as profits fall and unrest rises. During the late 1960s, technical
advances meant that farmers could transform the raw product into resin (aka "hash") for export to the European market. When
inexpensive Moroccan hash began to flow northwards in ever increasing quantities, European counter-cultural movements
differentiated themselves from American pot-smoking hippies by mixing hash with tobacco and rolling it into joints. The new
European hash culture spread rapidly due to its bare bones simplicity -- fancy implements like pipes and bongs were not needed. In
the 1980s, the Moroccan cannabis business boomed as big producers and middlemen made fortunes, pouring their profits into
luxury villas and ostentatious displays of wealth. By the 1990s, northern Morocco had become the hash capital of the world. But the
As part of the international war on drugs, Morocco came under pressure to
crack down on cannabis cultivation. European Union coastguards stepped up their patrols looking for drug shipments
good times couldn't last.
from North Africa. There were even claims that Moroccan drug-money was financing terrorism, especially in response to the Madrid
bombings in 2003. Once stemming the Moroccan drug trade could be rhetorically situated as part of President George W. Bush's
Global War on Terror,
the pressure on Morocco to eradicate the cannabis fields in the north became
unbearable. Yet more crucial than geopolitics or government crackdowns, the all-important European market had begun to
change. Evolving tastes played a part: in a world of designer drugs and legal highs, hash became increasingly uncool and prosaic.
As cheap hash lost its cachet, sophisticated consumers switched to high-priced designer strains of pot. Rather than smelling like tar
and looking like packaged mud, they had pleasing aromas, pretty buds, and catchy names like "purple haze." Even more important
than all these changes in consumer taste profiles, European drug gangs have cut net costs to consumers by growing their own
weed in large-scale farms. For example, it is now estimated that 80 percent of cannabis consumed in the Britain is homegrown. The
decreased European demand for imported cannabis has meant trouble for farmers in Morocco. The risks
and rewards of the trade were always unfairly split, with small farmers more exposed to fluctuations in price and police repression
than wealthy middlemen. Complaints about the lack of state investment and systemic police corruption, combined with the
zeitgeist of the "Arab Spring," led to large-scale protests in Morocco during 2011 and 2012. Although the outbursts
have subsided, simmering discontent still mingles with sporadic local protests -- currently focused on the small town of Targuist in
Falling yields and the government's unpopular eradication program formed a
backdrop to the unrest as the protests spread to the heartland of cannabis country in Ketama in
January. The Moroccan government has recognized that whack-a-mole policing, by itself, can no
longer deal with popular discontent. As part of the Moroccan strategy to insulate itself from the unrest plaguing its
the central Rif.
neighbors, the state appears to have switched tack -- now preferring to employ carrots as well as sticks to tighten its political grip
over the restive north. To buttress these efforts, the supreme political authority in Morocco is clearly exploring the possibility of
legislation to legalize cannabis. Legalization would boost tax revenue and prop up the economy of the region .
As early as May 2009, Fouad Ali el Himma, one of the king's closest confidants, called for a national debate on cannabis and an end
to arbitrary detention of its growers. Potentially influenced by trends in places like California, Himma argued that cannabis should be
rebranded as a traditional Moroccan herbal palliative rather than an illegal drug.
These ideas are now gaining
momentum with expressions of interest from virtually all the major Moroccan political parties . Even the Islamist
Party of Justice and Development has cautiously welcomed the draft proposals -- presumably because the party is mindful that it
now occupies a minority presence in the cabinet and could benefit from going with the flow.
Instability in Morocco causes phosphorus shortages which threaten global food
production
Sydney Morning Herald 11 (Quoting Stuart White and Dana Cordell, professors from the Institute for Sustainable Futures,
2-2-11, "Unstable Middle East threatens phosphate" Sydney Morning Herald) news.smh.com.au/breaking-news-business/unstablemiddle-east-threatens-phosphate-20110202-1ad7m.html
Instability in the Middle East and North Africa could disrupt supplies of phosphate rock and threaten
global food security, say two Australian academics. Phosphorus is an important component of
fertiliser. A high proportion of phosphate rock reserves are in the Middle East and Africa. Professor Stuart White and Dr
Dana Cordell from the Institute for Sustainable Futures at the University of Technology, Sydney, are among researchers
investigating a possible peak in phosphate rock production before the end of the century. Advertisement Speaking in the United
States at the Sustainable Phosphorus Summit at Arizona State University, they said regional instability was an extra
component in the potential gap between supply and demand in global phosphorus resources.
" Morocco alone controls the vast majority of the world's remaining high-quality phosphate rock,"
Prof White said in a statement. " Even a temporary disruption to the supply of phosphate on the
world market can have serious ramifications for nations' food security. Prof White said that even
before the peak in phosphorus production, there is a prospect of significant rises in prices and a consequent
impact upon farmers and global crop yields.
Food scarcity causes wars that go nuclear
Future Directions International (FDI), Australian research institute, “International Conflict Triggers and Potential Conflict Points
Resulting from Food and Water Insecurity,” WORKSHOP REPORT, Global Food and Water Crisis Research Programme, 5—25—
12, p. 8-9.
There is a growing appreciation that the conflicts in the next century
will most likely be fought over a lack of
resources. Yet, in a sense, this is not new. Researchers point to the French and Russian revolutions as
conflicts induced by a lack of food. More recently, Germany’s World War Two efforts are said to have been
inspired, at least in part, by its perceived need to gain access to more food. Yet the general sense among those that
attended FDI’s recent workshops, was that the scale of the problem in the future could be significantly greater as
a result of population pressures, changing weather, urbanisation, migration, loss of arable land and other farm inputs, and increased
affluence in the developing world. In his book, Small Farmers Secure Food, Lindsay Falvey, a participant in FDI’s March 2012
workshop on the issue of food and conflict, clearly expresses the problem and why countries across the globe are starting to take
note. . He writes (p.36), “…if people are hungry, especially in cities, the state is not stable – riots, violence, breakdown of law and
order and migration result.” “Hunger feeds anarchy.” This view is also shared by Julian Cribb, who in his book, The Coming Famine,
writes that if “large regions of the world run short of food, land or water in the decades that lie ahead, then
wholesale, bloody wars are liable to follow .” He continues: “An increasingly credible scenario for
World War 3 is not so much a confrontation of super powers and their allies, as a festering, self-perpetuating chain
of resource conflicts.” He also says: “The wars of the 21st Century are less likely to be global conflicts with sharply defined
sides and huge armies, than a scrappy mass of failed states, rebellions, civil strife, insurgencies, terrorism and genocides, sparked
by bloody competition over dwindling resources.” As another workshop participant put it, people do not go to war to kill; they go to
war over resources, either to protect or to gain the resources for themselves. Another observed that hunger results in passivity not
conflict. Conflict is over resources, not because people are going hungry. A study by the [IPRI] International Peace Research
indicates that where food security is an issue, it is more likely to result in some form of conflict.
Darfur, Rwanda, Eritrea and the Balkans experienced such wars. Governments, especially in developed
countries, are increasingly aware of this phenomenon. The UK Ministry of Defence, the CIA, the [CSIS] US Center for
Strategic and International Studies and the Oslo Peace Research Institute [OPRI], all identify famine as a potential
trigger for conflicts and possibly even nuclear war.
Institute
Environment: 1AC [3:15 – Mir]
Unregulated marijuana cultivation has a massive environmental impact—federal
legalization is key to enable regulatory oversight
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 blackmarket 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 regionwide 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
lack of regulation sets marijuana’s
impacts apart from those that stem from legal farming or logging, yet the 76-year-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
Friends of the Eel River, which runs through the heart of the marijuana belt. That
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 longacting 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
Attempts in neighboring Mendocino County to issue permits
to outdoor growers meeting environmental and public-safety standards were foiled when federal
attorneys slapped county officials with similar warning—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.’ ”
sanctioned an activity that is categorically forbidden under US law.
Illicit marijuana cultivation has put salmon on the brink of extinction in California
and the Pacific Northwest
Bland 14 (Alastair, reporter, 1-13-14, "California's Pot Farms Could Leave Salmon Runs Truly Smoked" National Public Radio)
www.npr.org/blogs/thesalt/2014/01/08/260788863/californias-pot-farms-could-leave-salmon-runs-truly-smoked
For many users and advocates of marijuana, the boom in the West Coast growing industry may be all good and groovy. But in
California, critics say the recent explosion of the marijuana industry along the state's North Coast — a
region called the "emerald triangle" — could
put a permanent buzz kill on struggling salmon populations.
The problem? According to critics, marijuana plantations guzzle enormous amounts of water while also
spilling pesticides, fertilizers and stream-clogging sediments into waterways, including the Eel
and the Klamath rivers, that have historically produced large numbers of Chinook salmon and
related species. "The whole North Coast is being affected by these pot growers," says Dave Bitts, a
Humboldt County commercial fisherman and the president of the Pacific Coast Federation of Fishermen's
Associations. "I have nothing against people growing dope," he says, "but if you do, we want you to grow your crop in a way
that doesn't screw up fish habitat. There is no salmon-bearing watershed at this point that we can afford to
sacrifice." Growers of marijuana often withdraw water directly from small streams and use up to 6
gallons per day per plant during the summer growing season, says Scott Bauer, a fisheries
biologist with the California Department of Fish and Wildlife. "When you have 20,000 or 30,000
plants in a watershed, that is a lot of water," Bauer says. But marijuana growers are undeservedly taking the
blame for a problem that is caused by all residents of the North Coast, argues Kristin Nevedal, a founding chairperson with the
Emerald Growers Association. "It's just so easy to point a finger at cannabis growers because it's a federally prohibited substance,"
she tells The Salt. "The truth is, if you flush a toilet in the hills, you're a part of the problem." According to Bauer, 24
tributaries of the Eel River — in which once-enormous spawning runs of Chinook salmon have
nearly vanished — went completely dry in the summer of 2013. Each, Bauer says, was being used
to irrigate pot farms. As a result, Bauer expects to see poor returns of Chinook and Coho salmon,
as well as steelhead, in several years. While 2013 saw record-low precipitation in California, drought, Bauer says, is
only part of the problem, and he still blames marijuana farmers. Taking water from a stream isn't necessarily illegal, though it does
usually require applying with the state for permission. Many farmers go this route, Bauer says. But of the estimated 4,000 pot
growers in Humboldt County alone, "maybe a couple have applied for" water use permits, Bauer says. Marijuana plantations
along the North Coast are proliferating . Bauer, who has closely studied Google Earth images of
the area, estimates that acreage under pot cultivation doubled from 2009 to 2012. Stormer Feiler, a
scientist with California's North Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board, confirms the same:
"It's like the gold rush," he says. California's Chinook salmon fishery was canceled or shortened
three years in a row beginning in 2008. This occurred following record-low spawning returns in
the Sacramento River, one of the largest salmon-producing watersheds on the West Coast. The
crash was blamed partly on agricultural overuse of the river's water. Since then, the Golden Gate Salmon
Association, a group based in San Francisco, has been advocating for more fish-friendly use of
the river's water —especially limits on how much water can be pumped into farmland. Now, marijuana farms have
emerged as an issue of increasing concern, says the association's executive director, John McManus. "It's not
just the water they're taking out of the streams but the chemicals and nutrients they're putting into
the water," McManus says. Fertilizers that drain into rivers can cause floating carpets of algae to
grow in the water. When these mats begin to decay, the breakdown process steals oxygen from
the water, suffocating fish. Bauer has discovered pools full of dead adult Chinook salmon — fish
full of eggs, he says, that had not yet spawned. As many as a half-million Chinook salmon once
spawned in the Eel River each year. By the 1950s, the fish were almost gone. Since then, the
population has slightly rebounded, and several thousand Chinook now return to the Eel annually.
Scott Greacen, the executive director of Friends of the Eel River, warns that, unless pot growers
are more closely regulated , some of California's North Coast salmon runs could be looking at
extinction.
No alt causes—marijuana is the number one threat to salmon
Harkinson 14 (Josh, reporter, March/April 2014, "The Landscape-Scarring, Energy-Sucking, Wildlife-Killing Reality of Pot
Farming" Mother Jones) www.motherjones.com/environment/2014/03/marijuana-weed-pot-farming-environmental-impacts
Among the downsides of the green rush is the strain it puts on water resources in a droughtplagued region. Scott Bauer, a biologist with the state Department of Fish and Wildlife, calculates
that irrigation for cannabis farms has sucked up all of the water that would ordinarily keep local
salmon streams running through the dry season. Marijuana cultivation , he believes, "is a big reason
why" at least 24 salmon and steelhead streams stopped flowing last summer. "I would consider it
probably the No. 1 threat" to salmon in the area , he told me. "We are spending millions of dollars on
restoring streams. We are investing all this money in removing roads and trying to contain
sediment and fixing fish path barriers, but without water there's no fish."
Salmon are a keystone species—preserving their habitat is key to avoid
ecosystem collapse
DOW 05 (Defenders of Wildlife, wildlife conservation organization, “Pacific Salmon“)
http://www.agriculturedefensecoalition.org/sites/default/files/pdfs/9F_2005_Pacific_Salmon_Decline_2005.pdf
Pacific salmon are keystone species , which means they are essential components of their
ecosystem. Their absence would result in devastating effects to other plants and wildlife species,
just as the removal of a keystone from a masonry arch results in its collapse. Therefore, the impacts
of the current decline of salmon on the ecology of the Pacific Northwest are staggering . As fewer
fish return each year to spawn, there is less food for the animals that depend on them. More than
22 different animals feed on salmon throughout the fish's life cycle. Such animals include grizzly
bears, orcas and various insects. Salmon ensure the long-term health of ecosystems because
when they die, after spawning in the headwaters of watersheds, their decomposing bodies return
precious nutrients to the environment. Without salmon, fewer nutrients supplied to complex
ecosystems such as the Snake River in Washington means that the biodiversity of that region suffers.
Ecosystem collapse causes extinction—there’s an invisible threshold and it is
irreversible
Diner 94 (Major David N., Judge Advocate General's Corps – United States Army, “The Army and The Endangered Species Act:
Who's Endangering Whom?” Military Law Review, Winter, 143 Mil. L. Rev. 161, Lexis)
The prime reason is the world's survival. Like all animal life, humans live off of other species. At some
point, the number of species could decline to the point at which the ecosystem fails, and then
humans also would become extinct. No one knows how many [*171] species the world needs to
support human life, and to find out – by allowing certain species to become extinct -- would not be
sound policy. In addition to food, species offer many direct and indirect benefits to mankind . 68
2.Ecological Value. -- Ecological value is the value that species have in maintaining the environment. Pest, 69 erosion, and flood
control are prime benefits certain species provide to man. Plants and animals also provide additional ecological
services-- pollution control, 70 oxygen production, sewage treatment, and biodegradation.71
3.Scientific and Utilitarian Value. -- Scientific value is the use of species for research into the physical processes of the world. 72
Without plants and animals, a large portion of basic scientific research would be impossible. Utilitarian value is the direct utility
humans draw from plants and animals. 73 Only a fraction of the [*172] earth's species have been examined, and mankind may
someday desperately need the species that it is exterminating today. To accept that the snail darter, harelip sucker, or Dismal
Swamp southeastern shrew 74 could save mankind may be difficult for some. Many, if not most, species are useless to man in a
direct utilitarian sense. Nonetheless, they may be critical in an indirect role, because their extirpations could affect a directly useful
species negatively. In a closely interconnected ecosystem, the loss of a species affects other species dependent on it. 75 Moreover,
as the number of species decline, the effect of each new extinction on the remaining species increases dramatically. 76 4.Biological
Diversity. -- The main premise of species preservation is that diversity is better than simplicity. 77As the current mass
extinction has progressed, the world's biological diversity generally has decreased. This trend occurs within
ecosystems by reducing the number of species, and within species by reducing the number of individuals. Both trends carry serious
future implications. 78 [*173] Biologically diverse ecosystems are characterized by a large number of specialist species,
filling narrow ecological niches. These ecosystems inherently are more stable than less diverse systems. "The more
complex the ecosystem, the more successfully it can resist a stress. . . . [l]ike a net, in which each knot is
connected to others by several strands, such a fabric can resist collapse better than a simple, unbranched circle of threads -- which
if cut anywhere breaks down as a whole." 79 By causing widespread extinctions, humans have artificially
simplified many ecosystems. As biologic simplicity increases, so does the risk of ecosystem
failure. The spreading Sahara Desert in Africa, and the dustbowl conditions of the 1930s in the United States are relatively mild
examples of what might be expected if this trend continues. Theoretically, each new animal or plant extinction, with
all its dimly perceived and intertwined affects, could cause total ecosystem collapse and human
extinction . Each new extinction increases the risk of disaster. Like a mechanic removing, one by one, the
rivets from an aircraft's wings, n80 mankind may be edging closer to the abyss.
Legalizing marijuana is key to remove political barriers to the collection of energy
data which is key to solve warming
Elkind 14 (Ethan, Climate Policy Associate with a joint appointment at UC Berkeley School of Law and UCLA School of
Law/taught at UCLA Law School’s Frank Wells Environmental Law Clinic, February 10th 2014, “How Legalizing Marijuana Could
Help Fight Climate Change”, http://legal-planet.org/2014/02/10/how-legalizing-marijuana-could-help-fight-climate-change/, AB)
Now that the two states that just legalized marijuana sent their football teams to the Superbowl this year, it’s clear that the stars
are aligning for legalizing marijuana nationwide. Sure, legalizing marijuana makes fiscal, moral, and
practical sense, but what about the benefits to the environment? Well, it turns out that even the fight against
climate change could potentially be enhanced by making cannabis — and the grow operations that
produce it — legal. It starts with the grow sites. Regular Legal Planet readers may recall co-blogger Rick Frank writing about
the local hazards and pollution caused by illegal grow operations on public lands. But there’s another, potentially broader
environmental issue at stake with legalizing and mainstreaming grow operations: enabling the
improved collection of energy data to help target energy conservation and efficiency programs.
Energy data are critical to the fight against climate change and other harmful forms of air
pollution. Policy makers, especially here in California (as represented by Ken Alex, Legal Planet guest blogger and senior
advisor to Governor Jerry Brown), would like to get a better sense of where the most energy is being used.
If they could access energy data by neighborhoods, industry, and time of use , among other categories,
policy makers could target the most inefficient customers with incentives and rates to become
more efficient. Reducing this electricity usage would have major benefits in terms of reducing air
pollution (including greenhouse gas emissions) from power plants and saving ratepayers money
from the avoided construction of new plants. Not to mention that the customers themselves would benefit
from paying for less electricity. So what is standing in the way of giving policy makers access to the vital data?
Privacy concerns. Even though the energy data are anonymized and aggregated, a vocal segment of ratepayers
doesn’t like even the remote possibility that the government could use these data to know when you’re home, when you leave for
work, or how your business operates. Overall, most people have little to hide when it comes to electricity
usage. But indoor marijuana growers sure do, and they are quietly constituting a major force in
opposition to greater disclosure of energy data. And they have reason for concern. In documented cases, police
have issued subpoenas for electricity data to bust pot growers. This is not a small industry either: a 2012 study by Evan Mills of the
Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory (the Lab was not involved in his work) indicated that these grow operations could
be responsible for up to 2% of nationwide household electricity usage, at a total cost of $6 billion
(in fact, the growers themselves may be our first target for implementing improved efficiency measures, given their potentially
wasteful, unregulated ways). So it’s not a stretch to think that legalizing marijuana nationwide, and allowing
commercial grow operations to proceed in a regulated fashion, could have the additional benefit
of defusing some of the major privacy objections to releasing environmentally beneficial energy
data. Of course, the privacy objections aren’t just limited to marijuana growers, and even with legalization, some residential
growers may still want or need to remain anonymous. But sensible marijuana policies could make a major
difference in alleviating privacy concerns, unlocking the data that can lead to sound and strategic
energy efficiency programs.
Transparency in emissions data is key to solve warming
Fagotto and Graham 13 (Elena, Ph.D. at Erasmus University Rotterdam and senior researcher at Harvard University and
Mary is a research fellow at both KSG and the Georgetown University Law Center“, http://issues.org/23-4/fagotto-2/ , Full
Disclosure: Using Transparency to Fight Climate Change”, November 27th, AB)
An essential first step in any effective climate change policy is to require major contributors to
fully disclose their greenhouse gas emissions. Congressional leaders are finally working
seriously on long term-approaches to counter climate change. But all the major proposals leave a critical
policy gap because they would not take effect for at least five years. Meanwhile, U.S. greenhouse gas emissions continue
to increase, and company executives continue to make decisions that lock in the emissions of future power
plants, factories, and cars. Congress could fill that policy gap now by requiring greater transparency . In
the immediate future, legislating product labeling and factory reporting of greenhouse gas emissions would make
markets work better. Such disclosure would expose inefficiencies and allow investors, business
partners, employees, community residents, and consumers to compare cars, air conditioners, lawn
mowers, and manufacturing plants. As people factored that information into everyday choices,
company executives would have new incentives to cut emissions sooner rather than later. Greater
transparency would also help jump start whatever cap-and-trade or other regulatory approach emerges from the
current congressional debate. A carefully constructed transparency system is therefore an essential element of
U.S. climate change strategy. Such a system would fill a legislative void and provide immediate
benefits as Congress continues its debate. Congress is debating long-term approaches to climate change. Barbara
Boxer (D-CA), chair of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, and John Dingell (D-MI), chair of the House Energy
and Commerce Committee, are holding wide-ranging hearings, and Speaker Nancy Pelosi (DCA) has created a select committee to
coordinate climate change action in the House. Three major bills propose variations on a cap-and-trade approach to cutting
greenhouse gas emissions. All combine industry emission limits or “caps” with government-created markets for trading emission
permits. The bills differ mainly in the progressive severity of caps and in how they are set. The most ambitious proposal, introduced
by Boxer and Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT), proposes caps that would reduce emissions to 80% below 1990 levels by 2050. Ironically,
though, even if the 110th Congress approves some variation on a cap-and-trade approach, the new law will not
create any immediate incentives for manufacturers, power providers, factory farms, and other
major contributors to reduce emissions. If President Bush signed such legislation in 2008, his action would only signal
the beginning of another debate over the rules that would govern the system. That debate is likely to be long and
acrimonious because the fine print of the regulations will determine which companies are the real winners
or losers from government action. Regulations will govern the mechanics of trading emission
permits, the allocation of “caps” among industries and companies, and the timing of compliance —
all costly and contentious issues for energy-intensive businesses. Such delay may be inevitable but its costs will be
high. Even conservative projections conclude that U.S. greenhouse gas emissions will continue to
increase rapidly during the next decade and will produce increasingly serious consequences. The
administration’s latest climate action report, circulated in draft, projects that a 19% increase in emissions
between 2000 and 2020 will contribute to persistent drought, coastal flooding, and water shortages in many parts of the country and
around the world. That increase could be as high as 30% under a business-as-usual scenario. The U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) reports that carbon dioxide emissions, the most common greenhouse gas, increased by 20% from 1990 to 2005, and
emissions of three more potent fluorinated gases, hydrofluorocarbons, perfluorocompounds, and sulfur hexafluoride, weighted for
their relative contribution to climate change, increased by 82.5%. The
U nited S tates still holds the dubious
distinction of being the world’s largest producer of greenhouse gases. Each large contributor to increasing
U.S. greenhouse gas emissions has a unique story. Carbon dioxide emissions from generating electricity, responsible for 41% of
total U.S. emissions from fossil fuel combustion in 2005, continue to increase faster than energy use because dramatic increases in
the price of natural gas have led some power providers to increase their reliance on coal. The most recent estimates of the federal
Energy Information Administration project that such emissions will increase 1.2% a year from 2005 to 2030. (The burning of
petroleum and natural gas results in 25% and 45% less carbon emissions per unit respectively than does the burning of coal.)
Power companies are investing now in facilities that will shape the next half-century of electricity generation—and the next halfcentury of greenhouse gas emissions. Many of the more than 100 new coal-fired power plants on the drawing boards will have
useful lives of 50 years or more. Carbon emissions from the incineration of municipal solid waste, not even including paper and yard
trimmings, increased 91% from 1990 to 2005 as more plastics, synthetic rubber, and other wastes from petroleum products were
burned. Carbon emissions from cement manufacture increased 38% as construction activity increased to meet the demands of the
growing U.S. economy. Carbon emissions from the burning of gasoline, diesel fuel, and jet fuel to power cars, trucks, planes, and
other forms of transportation increased 32% during the same period because of increased travel and “the stagnation of fuel
efficiency across the U.S. vehicle fleet,” according to the EPA. Executives will need powerful incentives to alter
current plans in order to make significant reductions in greenhouse gas emissions any time soon.
Most are understandably reluctant to place their companies at a competitive disadvantage by
making bold and often costly emission-cutting moves unilaterally. In fact, the prolonged congressional debate may
make executives more reluctant to act early since their companies may reap large emission-cutting credits once regulations take
effect. So far, neither the administration nor Congress has come up with any way to reduce greenhouse gas emissions in the next
critical years. A carefully constructed transparency system would mobilize the power of public
opinion, inform choice, and help markets work better now. Requiring disclosure for each proposed and
existing major factory and power plant as well as for each new car, truck, furnace, refrigerator, and other energy-intensive product
would expose their relative carbon efficiencies as well as their total contributions to such
emissions. Once disclosed, emissions data could be used by mayors and governors to design and carry out
emission-reduction plans; by local zoning and permitting authorities to place conditions on the
construction or alteration of plants; by investors to more accurately predict material risks; by
consumers to choose among cars, air conditioners, and heating systems; and by employees to decide where they want
to work. Environmental groups, industry associations, and local and national media could use the
information to help to pinpoint the most inefficient factories and cars.
Warming is real, human caused, and causes extinction—acting now is key to
avoid catastrophic collapse
Dr. David McCoy et al., MD, Centre for International Health and Development, University College London, “Climate Change and
Human Survival,” BRITISH MEDICAL JOURNAL v. 348, 4—2—14, doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmj.g2510, accessed 8-31-14.
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has just published its report on the impacts of global warming. Building on
its recent update of the physical science of global warming [1], the
IPCC’s new report should leave the world in no
doubt about the scale and immediacy of the threat to human survival , health, and well-being. The IPCC
has already concluded that it is “ virtually certain that human influence has warmed the global climate
system” and that it is “ extremely likely that more than half of the observed increase in global average
surface temperature from 1951 to 2010” is anthropogenic [1]. Its new report outlines the future threats of
further global warming: increased scarcity of food and fresh water; extreme weather events; rise in sea
level; loss of biodiversity; areas becoming uninhabitable; and mass human migration, conflict and
violence. Leaked drafts talk of hundreds of millions displaced in a little over 80 years. This month, the American Association for
the Advancement of Science (AAAS) added its voice: “the well being of people of all nations [is] at risk.” [2] Such
comments reaffirm the conclusions of the Lancet/UCL Commission: that climate change is “the greatest threat to
human health of the 21st century.” [3] The changes seen so far—massive arctic ice loss and extreme weather events, for
example—have resulted from an estimated average temperature rise of 0.89°C since 1901. Further changes will depend
on how much we continue to heat the planet. The release of just another 275 gigatonnes of carbon dioxide would
probably commit us to a temperature rise of at least 2°C—an amount that could be emitted in less than eight years. [4]
“ Business as usual ” will increase carbon dioxide concentrations from the current level of 400 parts per
million (ppm), which is a 40% increase from 280 ppm 150 years ago, to 936 ppm by 2100, with a 50:50 chance that this will deliver
global mean temperature rises of more than 4°C. It is now widely understood that such a rise is “incompatible with an organised
global community.” [5]. The
IPCC warns of “ tipping points ” in the Earth’s system, which, if crossed, could lead
to a catastrophic collapse of interlinked human and natural systems. The AAAS concludes that there is
now a “real chance of abrupt, unpredictable and potentially irreversible changes with highly
damaging impacts on people around the globe.” [2] And this week a report from the World Meteorological Office (WMO)
confirmed that extreme weather events are accelerating. WMO secretary general Michel Jarraud said, “There is no standstill in
global warming . . . The laws of physics are non-negotiable.” [6]
Back to cartels:
Data shows heg is good
Beede 11 [BENJAMIN R. BEEDE Rutgers, The State University of New JerseyFettweis, Christopher J. 2008. Losing Hurts
Twice as Bad: The Four States to Moving Beyond Iraq. New York, NY: W.W. Norton & Company. 270 pages. ISBN-13: 9780393067613, $25.95 hardcover, p. internet]
Fettweis’ book might easily be dismissed as an intriguing analysis, but one that has been superseded by the advent of the Obama Administration, and
Fettweis made a number of
assumptions that have now been invalidated , moreover, including a continuation of prosperity. Despite its flaws, however, the
the changes in direction that the Obama team has advocated and that it may implement.
book is a provocative contribution to the literature that criticizes the forcefulness of the U.S. foreign and military policy. Fettweis states that his objective
is to analyze the “likely consequences of disaster in Iraq” (16), but he really has two purposes. One is to explain to people in the United States how
they can adjust to the loss of the Iraq war. The second is to persuade readers that the United States can safely reduce its activity in international
affairs. Although the author’s discussion of Iraq must be addressed, this review emphasizes Fettweis’ contention that the United States can safely be
less assertive in world affairs because the world is not as dangerous a place as often claimed, and his closely related point that the public needs to
develop a more discriminating approach to assessing threats from abroad, thereby enabling it to hold its government to higher levels of competency
and accountability. Fettweis’ book title comes from a remark by sports figure Sparky Anderson that “losing hurts twice as bad as winning feels good”
(13). He believes that this observation is valid, and he comes back to those words repeatedly. To support his contention concerning the significance of
Anderson’s statement, Fettweis borrows from the literature of psychology to explain how people experience losses, ranging from having relatives or
friends taken from them by death to having their favorite sports teams lose games. In competitive situations, the harmful psychological effects of losing
are said to be intensified significantly when one adversary or opponent was “supposed” to win because of its strength. The number of instances where
large countries have lost to guerrilla movements demonstrates that perceptions of the military advantages that the seemingly stronger side enjoys may
well be outweighed by other factors, however (see Arreguin-Toft 2005; Record 2007). Fettweis recommends a rapid withdrawal
of the U.S. forces from Iraq. He believes that the Iraq war has “been the worst kind of defeat for the United States: an unnecessary one, in a war that
should never have been fought” (16, emphasis in the original). Not only was the war a huge error, Iraq is in such bad OCTOBER BOOK REVIEWS |
865 shape that the United States cannot do much to assist its reconstruction. A long-term occupation might eliminate many problems in Iraq, but he
doubts the United States will stay long enough to affect major changes in that country. Little harm will come from the withdrawal, despite predictions by
many that there would be civil war in Iraq and a security breakdown in the entire region. Fettweis is not a specialist in Middle Eastern affairs, and his
interest is in the effects the Iraq war is having and will have on the United States, not so much in the Iraq situation. Thus, his book is not comparable to
studies like that by O’Leary (2009). There
are at least two schools of thought about the Iraq war, but Fettweis
ignores this division
of opinion. One school, which includes Fettweis, criticizes the Bush Administration for having rashly invaded Iraq and
for having failed to plan and execute the operation properly. Fettweis writes that “[w]e were led into the Iraq morass not by evil people lying on behalf of
oil companies but by poor strategists with a shallow, naive understanding of international politics” (29). Another school of interpretation views the Iraq
(and Afghanistan) commitments simply as steps in a campaign undertaken to give the United States a lasting hegemony in the world. From the Bush
Administration’s perspective, Iraq might even be considered a success. The executive branch demonstrated once again that it can wage war with few
checks on its actions, and gave the United States a greater presence in the Middle East. The
Obama
Administration
has altered Bush’s
course to some extent, but so far, there has not been a radical shift. Indeed, there has been and remains the possibility of a greater commitment
in the region, especially into Pakistan. Iraq and the United States have agreed to the removal of coalition forces by 2011, but the continued violence in
Iraq and the construction of substantial military bases suggest that a U.S. military presence might continue past 2011. In February 2009, Secretary of
Defense Gates reiterated the Obama Administration’s commitment to 2011, but in late May 2009, the army chief of staff, George Casey, declared that
his service branch, at least, is planning for U.S. forces to remain in Iraq for another decade. In any event, there is little prospect for a full
disengagement from southwest Asia any time soon. Given one of the purposes of his book, it is hardly surprising that Fettweis focuses almost entirely
on Iraq. He ignores Afghanistan, except for repeatedly citing the Soviet persistence in trying to hold that country as an example of a great power
making the error of invading a small country in the face of deep nationalism in the latter. He might have been well advised to view the entire area of
southwestern Asia. Ahmed Rashid (2008) has described the U.S. involvement in the region that has extended well beyond Iraq and Afghanistan, and
that suffers from the same kinds of misjudgments made in Iraq and Afghanistan, especially an overreliance on military measures and a reluctance to
commit substantial resources to economic development. Fettweis uses Iraq to argue for a strategy of restraint based on his
sanguine view that “we [the United States and, indeed, the entire world] are living in a golden age” (31, emphasis in the original), and that “[g]reat
power conflict today is all but unthinkable; therefore, calculations surrounding the dangers posed by a united Eurasia should change, since the threats
it once posed no longer exist” (208). With the end of the Cold War, the ability of the enemies of the United States to harm this country is quite limited.
Hostile acts can be perpetrated, but such attacks cannot overthrow the United States (31). This strategy is hardly new. Years ago, it was summarized
in these words, “Instead of preserving obsolete Cold War alliances and embarking on an expensive and dangerous campaign for global stability, the
United States should view the collapse of Soviet power as an opportunity to adopt a less interventionist policy” (Carpenter 1992, 167). Despite
the optimistic picture painted by some national security theorists, the world does contain some
dangerous elements . David E. Sanger (2009), for example, presents a chilling picture of nuclear weapons in
very possibly unsteady hands. Much is said in the book concerning national “credibility,” that is, the ability of a country to maintain its
prestige and its reputation for decisive action based on its past performance. Fettweis argues that many governmental leaders, academic
commentators, and journalists have been obsessed with this element of national power and have wanted the United States to deal with virtually any
political crisis that occurs (161-75). Fettweis
states that “[f]or some reason, U.S. policymakers seem to be
especially prone to overestimate the threats they face” (116). There is no explanation of why this
should be the case , nor is there any comparison with the propensity of leaders in other countries
to make similar inaccurate projections. Numerous instances can be cited where governmental leaders and commentators have
argued heatedly for “action” on the ground that “inaction” will damage the reputation of the United States. Early in the Carter Administration, for
example, National Security Advisor Zbigniew Brzezinski dedicated himself for some time to instigating the dispatch of navy task force to the Horn of
Africa during a period of tension between Ethiopia and Somalia. After failing to persuade the secretaries of state and defense that such action was
necessary, Brzezinski waged a covert effort through the media to bring a decision in favor of his policy (Gardner 2008, 40-2). Two case histories cited
in the book as examples of a disastrous insistence on maintaining credibility are the Spanish and British efforts to hold the Netherlands and the British
colonies that became the United States, respectively. More recent instances that could have been cited are the controversies in the United States
concerning the “loss” of China in the late 1940s and the establishment of a communist regime in Cuba in the late 1950s. Sensitivity concerning Cuba
led in part to the intervention in the Dominican Republic in 1965, and other episodes where the United States committed itself to fighting insurgencies
in Latin America. OCTOBER BOOK REVIEWS | 867 Concerns about the political impact of the “loss” of Vietnam played a significant role in decisions
to support the Republic of Vietnam. These episodes are largely omitted, though. Fear is a potent political weapon, and foreign threats, whether real or
imaginary, are highly useful within the domestic political arena. Claims of a “missile gap” helped John F. Kennedy win the presidency, for example. The
armed services and the various intelligence agencies are rewarded because of fears of foreign threats. Although the armed forces may be cautious
about entering a given conflict or making other violent moves, they are unlikely to stress the peaceful nature of the world if they want to retain their
budgets and their prestige. Another element in strategy formulation in the United States has been its experience with long-term threats. White (1997)
asserts that the long conflict with the Soviet Union fundamentally structured the discussion and resolution of public policy issues in the United States,
and greatly strengthened the presidency at the expense of Congress and the political parties. Although his book was written before 9/11, his
observation that political activists and the public have become accustomed to protracted battles with foreign enemies makes it easy to understand why
they could readily accept a “long war” against terrorism. Somewhat along the same line, Sherry (1995) maintains that this country has been under
emergency conditions from the Great Depression onward, perhaps even before, permeating the United States with “militarism” in its broadest sense.
Going back even further, some writers have argued that United States’ assertiveness may be traced to the late nineteenth and especially the early
twentieth century. Lears (2009) points critically to Theodore Roosevelt as a key player in this development, and Ninkovich (1999) offers a more
favorable view of the “crisis internationalism” of Woodrow Wilson. Fettweis touches on this history, but he underestimates
the extent
to which the United States has been conditioned to react vigorously to a range of foreign policy
issues, and overestimates the differences in foreign and military policy brought about by changes
from one administration to another. Given this conditioning, changing the mind-sets of both elites and the public may be an
extremely difficult task. To a degree, Fettweis’ arguments resemble those of the “American empire”
theorists, such as Bacevich (2008), Johnson (2006), and Gardner and Young (2005). Critics of the “American empire”
believe that the United States produces much of the unrest and the tension in the world through its unilateral actions
and its emphasis on military power. Fettweis does not go that far, but his advocacy of “strategic restraint” is certainly
compatible with such views. He agrees that the United States’ involvements—especially military commitments—abroad may unsettle
conditions in countries as much as they may stabilize them, but his purpose is primarily to reassure the people of the United States that less assertive
activity by their country will not result in world chaos. Thus he does not have much to say about the motivations of elite figures 868 | POLITICS &
POLICY / October 2011 who advocate an active foreign policy. His argument seems to be that the United States is vastly overextended in its
commitments as a result of a number of individual mistakes stemming from an overconcern with credibility rather than a flawed strategy. Despite his
disclaimers, Fettweis’ words sometimes resemble the arguments of pre-World War II isolationists. Indeed,
throughout the book, the word “internationalists,” which properly describes those concerned with international cooperation, is used to refer to those who
should be termed “interventionists,” whether their motivations are power political, economic, or humanitarian, or a mixture of the three. Fettweis
believes that there was little that the United States could have done to prevent the outbreak of
World War II in Europe, moreover. On the contrary, firmer U.S. support of France and Great Britain
might have encouraged those countries to force Germany to evacuate the newly reoccupied
Rhineland and to render it much more cautious in its later actions. After he successfully implemented his plan to
put troops into the Rhineland in 1936, Hitler told his confidants that a French demand for a withdrawal would have been successful owing to Germany’s
military weakness. Fettweis
even praises the United States because it “had the wisdom to remain neutral
for more than two years” and thus “escaped the worst of the suffering” (206). This is surely wrong. An earlier
involvement in the war would doubtless have reduced U.S. casualties and other costs because invasions of
Europe would have been unnecessary if the French and British had held at least part of the continent, and because Germany might not have
developed a cushion of occupied territories to protect it from land attacks and from air assaults for a time. Whether a public educated by books like this
one would be able to make suitable threat assessments, and thereby be better able to exercise control over governmental actions abroad is another
question. Fettweis’
work may be quite persuasive because he expresses his views clearly and avoids
highly charged language. However, if elites agree about dangers from abroad, then popular opinion may have little effect on policy
making and policy implementation. Fettweis’ thinking is significantly flawed by his assumption that “politics
is, and always will be, the enemy of strategy,” and reiterates his point (26, 157). Fettweis adds that “it would be naive to suggest
that it is possible to keep politics completely separate from strategy, nor would it be fully desirable to do so in a democracy” (26-7), but “for the sake of
this book, we will attempt to clarify the national interest by keeping the two realms separate, to the extent possible” (27). Determining national strategy
is necessarily a highly political act, and it cannot be established without considering the demands of major internal stakeholders. What he terms
“politics” may often be differing opinions based on different data or interpretations of the same data. Political survival is critical for a political leader, and
such leaders can understandably be hesitant in exercising restraint if they believe their opponents will attack them, perhaps decisively, for being “soft”
on the enemies of the day. Fettweis is fond of the term “realist” to OCTOBER BOOK REVIEWS | 869 refer to some defense and foreign policy
analysts, but describing someone as a “realist” may simply mean that the person agrees with the views of the individual applying that description. In
Appropriate policy decisions
are likely to be made on the basis of accurate intelligence and careful assessments rather than
adherence to a general outlook.
certain instances, “realism” can mean being restrained, and, in other instances, being highly assertive.
Back to Prohibition
**The prohibitionist model remains the global norm for drug policy—this prevents
effective implementation of harm reduction strategies
Brian Ford, “From Mountains to Molehills: A Comparative Analysis of Drug Policy,” ANNUAL SURVEY OF INTERNATIONAL &
COMPARATIVE LAW v. 19, Spring 2013, p. 199-201.
This paper examines the debate surrounding the trend of global movements away from prohibition and towards a harms reduction
the prohibitionist model that is, by and large, the global status
quo of how countries deal with drugs. Under the prohibitionist approach, governments criminally
ban the production, trafficking, sale, possession, and use of drugs in an effort to directly combat
the harms associated with drugs. Section I of this paper presents the prohibitionist approach as the international status
approach to drug policy. This paper reviews
quo and [*201] examines the effects and failures of that approach. Section II examines a variety of harms reduction approaches
that attempt to address harms to drug users and society at large through treatment, tolerance, and the recognition of human rights.
However, the
potential successes of harms reduction models are still constrained by the reality of
prohibitionist legal regimes whose stricter criminalization of drugs often contradict and frustrate
the policies and legislative efforts of harms reduction proponents. Because the harms reduction
approaches are restrained by a prohibitionist legal regime that criminalizes their policies,
legalization becomes a necessary step to achieving the goals of harms reduction approaches.
Therefore, section III of this paper presents an alternative to legal systems that ban drugs in order to remove this clash between
prohibitionist and harms reduction policies. Section III lays out three arguments for the legalization of drugs on a global scale. This
paper concludes that a legalization-based approach is the best drug policy. It advocates that governing bodies all
over the world adopt an intelligent, legalized approach to the problem of drugs in society as a more effective approach to
combating the harms of drug addiction and the crimes of the drug trade while upholding human
rights, global equity, and rule of law.
2AC
Mexico Adv
Legalization saves police budgets
Bratzer 09 (David, police officer in British Columbia, Canada, and he also manages the blog for Law Enforcement Against
Prohibition, 11-30-09, "Save our Police Budgets: Legalize and Tax Marijuana" Cops Say Legalize)
copssaylegalize.blogspot.com/2009/11/save-our-police-budgets-legalize-and.html
Save our Police Budgets: Legalize and Tax Marijuana Michael Klimm raised a number of excellent points in his
letter published in the August issue of Blue Line. Although he argued against legalizing and regulating drugs, several of his
statements were compatible with drug policy reform. First, he acknowledged the status quo is not working. Second, he stated that
the damage caused by tobacco - a dangerous but legal substance - has been reduced through education. Third, he asserted the
best way to tackle organized crime is to remove the profit motive from the black market. Finally, he emphasized that the legalization
and regulation of drugs has not yet been tried anywhere in the world. With these key points in mind, perhaps it is time for a new
approach? Marijuana policy would be a good place to begin as 53 percent of the population supported legalization in a 2008 Angus
Reid poll. Approximately 44 percent of Canadians have used cannabis at some point in their lives according to the Canadian
Addiction Survey. Despite heavy enforcement, it remains the largest illegal drug market in the country with over two million citizens
using cannabis on a recreational basis. A legal and regulated cannabis market would therefore eliminate the majority of all domestic
drug trafficking in Canada. Marijuana is not a benign substance, but it is substantially safer than alcohol. Assaults against peace
officers, sexual assaults and incidents of domestic violence are frequently traced back to liquor consumption but rarely to cannabis
consumption. Many of us know friends or colleagues whose personal and professional lives were ruined through alcohol abuse.
Upstanding citizens have committed terrible crimes while drunk, and yet Canadians remain legally bound to abstain from using
marijuana. It is time to present the public with a safer, legal alternative to alcohol. Unfortunately, the Canadian Association of Chiefs
of Police / Canadian Police Association joint resolution on drug abuse in 2002 insisted on the status quo. Now, seven years later,
federal, provincial and municipal governments are broke. Police organizations are facing budget
cuts, although leaders in law enforcement can still increase the long term financial health of their
respective agencies by supporting an end to marijuana prohibition. It is the least painful concession to make,
especially compared to wage rollbacks, hiring freezes and training cutbacks. Critics might point to the Netherlands and offer
anecdotal reports of a failed drug policy, but the facts show otherwise. The country adopted de facto decriminalization in 1976.
Adults can buy personal amounts of marijuana in licensed outlets known as cannabis coffee shops. Alcohol is banned in the coffee
shops and advertising is prohibited. Overall the system works well, although one problem is that the actual production and
distribution of marijuana remains illegal. Organized crime is still involved in that part of the industry which is why it is important for
Canada to legalize the entire supply chain. The Netherlands has a cumulative lifetime incidence of cannabis use that is half that of
the United States (19.4% versus 42.4%). Its cumulative incidence of cocaine use is one eighth that of the United States (1.9%
versus 16.2%) according to data from the World Mental Health Surveys as compiled by the World Health Organization. The United
States uses a tough justice approach with drug offenders, and yet per capita drug use rates, overdose deaths and HIV infections are
significantly lower in the Netherlands. Why is this? It appears the Netherlands’ tolerant attitude toward drugs has reduced the
forbidden fruit effect. There is nothing rebellious about smoking marijuana in Amsterdam. In addition, they have separated the
cannabis market from other drugs. Cashiers in the coffee shops don't lace marijuana with crystal meth or give away free samples of
cocaine. In contrast, Canadians face a multitude of dangers when purchasing marijuana on our city streets. At the end of the day, it
is easy to look into our past and determine which social policies were just and effective. For example, contraception was legalized
forty years ago with the Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1968-1969. Prior to the Act it was illegal to advertise or sell condoms or other
forms of birth control. The Pill was only prescribed to women who needed help regulating their menstrual cycle. In other words, it
could only be used for medicinal purposes. (Does this kind of language sound familiar?) Today, few officers could imagine using
criminal law to prevent the sale of birth control pills, in spite of their harmful side effects. It is more difficult to look forty years into the
future and consider how our children and our grandchildren will judge our actions as law enforcement officers. Institutional inertia is
not a good enough reason to maintain a prohibition on marijuana or any other drug. Regulating cannabis would provide
a safer alternative to alcohol, eliminate most domestic drug trafficking, generate tax revenue, free up police
resources and reduce abuse by young people. What are we waiting for?
Treaties DA: 2AC
Open breach key to spurring broader reform of the entire regime
Steve Rolles, senior drug policy analyst, Transform, responding to “The State Department’s Move to a More Flexible Diplomatic
Policy on Drugs Is a Rational Approach to a Difficult Question,” John Collins, PhD Candidate, London School of Economics, 12—
14, http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/usappblog/2014/12/01/the-u-s-new-more-flexible-diplomatic-doctrine-on-drugs-is-a-rational-approach-to-adifficult-question/, accessed 1-3-15.
Thanks for this John. I agree with a lot of your analysis but differ on a few fundamentals. I dont see how prohibition can be regarded as an ‘antiquated
provision’ of the treaties. Aside from regulating medical uses, prohibition wasand remains their core function; they are essentially prohibitionist legal
instruments. To me the idea that doing something so fundamentally contrary to prohibition as legalisation could ever be allowed within any ‘flexible
interpretation’ is not a sustainable argument for the US or anyone else. Its actually as absurd as saying torture is allow under a flexible interpretation of
the convention against torture. Decriminalisation, arguably yes. Legalisation – definitely not. On that basis I also disagree that there is any reasonable
case to make that the US are somehow not breaching the treaties. They clearly are – by any reading of the law, and as claimed by the treaty bodies of
the UNODC, and INCB. The reality of breach has to be the starting point in the debate moving forward Its certainly welcome that the US are talking
about the problems with the treaties and showing willingness to accept the reality of experiments with regulation models that challenge the
prohibitionist international framework. But the US can’t have their cake and eat it on this issue – you can’t breach a core treaty framework and try and
maintain its integrity at the same time. The US breach (and the Uruguay breach) are the clearest challenge yet to the fundamentally punitive
prohibitionist nature of the drug treaties – the US needs to acknowledge this and lead the debate on treaty reform instead of hiding from it with spurious
legal arguments about flexibility. Trapped between the impossible challenges of enforcing federal law in the reform states, or pushing a new treaty
system through congress – they have apparently opted for a legal fudge to try and keep the discussion on treaty refrom off the tabel for as long as
possible – at least for the UNGASS. They should own and justify the breach instead of denying it. For once, its a case
they can reasonably make – this is a US treaty breach that has occurred for very good reasons, namely that the old prohibitionist system is
dysfunctional and redundant – and new approaches are needed to protect the health and welfare of citizens. The drug treaties are not written in stone;
as you say, with all laws they contain mechanisms for their reform and modernisation when needed. That need has clearly arrived The challenge to the
drug treaty framework that the US and other breaches represents can
and should act as a catalyst for meaningful
debate and reform of an outdated and broken system. Modernisation of the international system to make it fit for purpose is
something the US should embrace, not shy away from or try and finesse its way around with
untenable and messy legal interpretations If the US are serious about pursuing the wider health, human rights and development
goals of the UN, or specifically the drug treaty goals of preserving the ‘health and welfare of mankind’ they need to acknowledge that the a
prohibitionists treaty framework is no longer fit for purpose – if it ever was. Nothing
could demonstrate this more clearly than
their own overt breach of its core prohibitionist tenets. Ironically, the current US position does not
preserve the ‘integrity’ of the treaties atall. Failure to reform them will simply render them increasingly marginalised and
redundant’. The way to preserve their integrity is to reform them so they achieve the UN’s wider goals. Unlike the US, the
reform movement can have our cake and eat it on this one – we can encourage principled breaches to improve local policy
outcomes, and we can encourage an active multilateral debate and reform process at the same time. The
two do not need to be sequential and are not mutually exclusive – quite the opposite. Countries no
longer need the permission o the US to explore legalisation – that time has passed, and as such the Brownfield doctrine is symbolically
significant but largely irrelevant to geopolitical reality. My sense is we shouldn’t buy into it as some huge concession – its
actually a political excuse and delaying tactic that we should simply exploit to accelerate a treaty
reform process by highlighting how broken and absurd the system is now shown to be.
Non-Enforce CP: 2AC
Perm do both
Failure to legalize means no industry scale-up, lack of immunity for government
workers, and rollback
Kamin 14 (Sam, Professor and Director, Constitutional Rights and Remedies Program, University of Denver, Sturm College of
Law; J.D., Ph.D., University of California, Berkeley, Fall 2014, "ESSAY & SPEECH: COOPERATIVE FEDERALISM AND STATE
MARIJUANA REGULATION" University of Colorado Law Review, 85 U. Colo. L. Rev. 1105, Lexis)
But the second Cole memo did not - and no similar memorandum could - remove the ancillary consequences of
marijuana remaining a Schedule I narcotic under the CSA. As marijuana-law reform moves from a focus on medical use to an
increasing emphasis on adult or recreational use, it confronts the consequences of marijuana's continuing federal
prohibition. This Part sets forth some of the principal problems caused by marijuana's continued prohibition before turning to a
solution in the next Part. A. Consequences for the Industry 1. Contracting Because marijuana remains illegal at the
federal level, much of the predictability that comes from enforceable contracts is unavailable to
marijuana practitioners. In 2012, for example, an Arizona state court refused to enforce a loan
agreement between two Arizona residents and a Colorado marijuana dispensary on the basis that
the contract was void as against public policy. n33 Although this ruling had the effect of [*1114] providing a windfall
to the illegally-operating dispensary, the court felt itself without recourse; so long as the trafficking of marijuana
remains illegal under federal law, contracts designed to facilitate that conduct remain void. This result
reminds us why the enforceability of contracts is important not just to the parties but to society
more generally. When those who have loaned $ 500,000 (the amount in issue in the Arizona case) to a cash
business find themselves without recourse to the courts, they might be tempted to engage in what
the law euphemistically refers to as "self-help." Everyone is better off when contracts are enforced by
courts rather than by individuals with an ax to grind. 2. Banking Marijuana businesses are also
currently denied one of the most basic of business needs : access to banking services. As has been
widely reported, n34 threats of money-laundering prosecution from the federal government n35 have
made banks gun-shy about lending to marijuana businesses. Currently, in Colorado, no bank will do business
with marijuana businesses. n36 There are many negative consequences of withholding banking services from marijuana
businesses. Principally, the lack of banking services keeps marijuana businesses operating in the
shadows of society. As cash businesses, they are targets for violent crime. Faced with this ever-present
threat, marijuana business operators are left with [*1115] a Hobson's choice: they can either remain cash businesses and accept the
risk and stigma that comes with that, or they can attempt to bank surreptitiously, through the use of their personal accounts or
holding companies designed to purge the taint of marijuana transactions. These latter options, of course, open practitioners to the
same threat of money-laundering charges that led to the unavailability of banking services in the first place. The governors of
Colorado and Washington appealed to the federal government for assistance with this problem, n37 and in February of 2014
the Department of Justice and the Department of Treasury's Financial Crimes Enforcement
Network released memos purporting to permit banks to do business with those in the marijuana
industry. n38 However, the banking memos, like the second Cole memo which preceded it, stopped short of
removing the specter of future enforcement actions. n39 One leading bank official was
immediately quoted as saying, " We're still not going to bank them ." n40 3. Legal Services The
legal minefield described in the previous Section calls out for experienced legal counsel to help marijuana
practitioners negotiate the complicated, ever-changing web of marijuana rules and regulations.
Marijuana's continuing illegality makes the provision of these legal services particularly fraught,
however. As long as marijuana remains a prohibited substance - and as long as the CSA continues
to criminalize those who aid and abet marijuana distribution or [*1116] join in a conspiracy to distribute it lawyers who assist their marijuana clients in setting up or running marijuana businesses
necessarily put themselves at risk. Although the second Cole memo declares that states
decriminalizing marijuana would generally be permitted to enforce marijuana laws themselves, the
specter of federal prosecution of marijuana lawyers for aiding and abetting the illegal conduct of their clients
continues to loom. Model Rule of Professional Conduct 1.2(d) n41 and its state analogs prohibit attorneys from knowingly
facilitating criminal conduct. A literal reading of that rule would preclude a lawyer from providing any assistance - e.g., drafting
contracts, negotiating leases - to clients whom the attorney knows are engaged in on-going violations of the CSA. In fact, there is a
split of authority among those states that have considered whether providing legal services to the marijuana industry violates a
lawyer's obligations under the rules of professional responsibility. n42 Colorado, having previously found such conduct to violate its
state ethics rules, n43 later amended those [*1117] rules to explicitly permit lawyers to serve marijuana industry clients. n44 As I
have argued elsewhere, I believe that other, countervailing policy considerations argue against such a literal reading of Rule 1.2(d)
and its state-law equivalents. n45 Because states that are legalizing marijuana - either for medical patients or for adult users - are
creating a complex regulatory apparatus, fairness requires the assistance of lawyers in navigating that system. Without the
assistance of competent counsel, a state regulatory regime becomes a trap for the unwary.
Furthermore, denying competent legal counsel to those engaged in the marijuana industry can have
profound distributive effects. Powerful actors will be able either to secure legal assistance or to
proceed without it; those without the same means will necessarily be disadvantaged and subject
to considerable risk. Nonetheless, marijuana's continuing federal illegality means that attorneys may
be unwilling to serve those who are in critical need of legal services. B . Consequences for Marijuana Users
While negative externalities discussed above primarily affect marijuana practitioners, the consequences are no less profound for
those simply wishing to consume marijuana in compliance with their state's laws. These consequences are real and will persist so
long as marijuana remains prohibited by the CSA; promises from the federal government to let the states [*1118] take the lead in
marijuana enforcement simply do not undo the consequences of federal prohibition. 1. Employment Currently, one of the biggest
impediments to the legalization of marijuana in the states is the fact that those who test positive for marijuana can lose their
employment even if their conduct is entirely consistent with state law. In Colorado, both state n46 and federal courts n47 have held
that Colorado's "lawful off-duty conduct" statute does not govern the consumption of marijuana. Because the possession of
marijuana remains illegal under federal law, these courts have reasoned that consuming marijuana is not "lawful" conduct, even if it
does not violate state law. Furthermore, the Colorado courts have concluded that an individual fired for testing positive for marijuana
is ineligible for unemployment benefits under the same reasoning, even if that individual is a marijuana patient acting in compliance
with state law. n48 2. Probation/Parole Similarly, state courts have used marijuana's continuing illegality at the
federal level to deny otherwise qualified criminal defendants probation or parole. n49 Because it is
generally a standard condition of supervised release - either following a term of imprisonment or in lieu of one - that
the defendant agree to commit no new offenses during the period of [*1119] release, n50 courts have
held that a defendant's positive test for marijuana permits his re-arrest. Unless or until legislatures in
marijuana states make explicit provision for marijuana use consistent with state law, n51 the federal prohibition will
continue to cast a shadow over the availability of supervised release for those using marijuana
either medically or recreationally. 3. Public Services Generally A number of other public benefits,
from public housing to student loans to government employment , are conditioned on the
recipient's abstinence from illegal-drug use. For example, the federal program that helps fund local
public housing agencies (PHAs) forbids those agencies from admitting into public housing
facilities families that include members who use marijuana. n52 While PHAs have the discretion not
to evict residents who use medical marijuana, n53 that discretion does not extend to admitting
marijuana users into public housing even where their use is compliant with state law. A single
medical marijuana patient, in other words, can make an entire [*1120] family ineligible to receive public
housing, as long as marijuana remains illegal under federal law. 4. Conclusion This non-exhaustive list of
examples of consequences makes clear that the continued prohibition of marijuana at the federal level leads
to unsettled expectations, not just for those trying to make a living in the marijuana industry but
also for those who would take advantage of state laws permitting marijuana use. Deputy Attorney
General Cole stated that federal policy is to let states achieve federal goals through the taxing and regulation of marijuana rather
than state-level prohibition, but the criminality of marijuana at the federal level makes such experimentation
impossible in practice. The following Part proposes a cooperative federalism approach
to marijuana regulation. If states that wish to opt out of the CSA are permitted to do so, if that law
simply does not apply within those states, then they will truly be able to function as laboratories
of ideas with regard to marijuana regulation and taxation. III. A Solution: Making the Second Cole Memo Law The second Cole
essentially
memo is a cooperative step toward solving the apparent contradiction created when states legalize a drug that the federal
government continues to prohibit. This concluding Part sketches a solution that I hope to expand upon in a later article. n54 I
propose that Congress amend the CSA in a manner that allows states to opt out of its marijuana provisions. The federal government
has already set forth the criteria to be used in determining whether a state is regulating marijuana in a manner consistent with
federal priorities. Under this approach, Congress would authorize the Attorney General, or some other executive official, to certify
that a state is regulating marijuana in a manner consistent with federal priorities. n55 Upon certification, the state's regulations would
[*1121] become the sole regulations governing marijuana within that state. Those state provisions, rather than the CSA, would then
apply to the manufacture, distribution, and use of marijuana. n56 While this approach might closely resemble the
status quo in which states are allowed to experiment with marijuana legalization so long as they keep in mind and help achieve
federal goals, it has one crucial difference. Under the current approach, states are allowed to
experiment with marijuana law reform through an act of prosecutorial grace. Those using, selling,
or manufacturing marijuana under state law are not subject to criminal prosecution simply
because federal prosecutors have chosen not to prosecute them. This decision can be undone by
yet another memo . A newly elected president may chart a new policy course or may invoke the
wiggle-room written into the second Cole memo. Thus, those using or selling marijuana pursuant to state law could be
arrested and prosecuted without any change in federal law. But more than that, the problem with the status quo is that
marijuana possession, manufacture, and distribution remain illegal under the second Cole memo. Even if
the government keeps its promise not to intervene in states that have enacted robust marijuana regulations, the
continuance of federal marijuana prohibition has a profound effect in those states. Only by
making marijuana truly legal in those states, by allowing qualified states to opt out of the CSA,
can the [*1122] states truly be empowered to chart their own policy direction. Legal Topics: For related research and practice
materials, see the following legal topics: Criminal Law & ProcedureCriminal OffensesControlled SubstancesPossessionSimple PossessionElementsEvidenceScientific EvidenceToxicologyTransportation
LawInterstate CommerceFederal Powers FOOTNOTES: n1. See generally Marc R. Poirier, "Whiffs of Federalism" in United States v. Windsor: Power, Localism and Kulturkampf, 85 Colo. L. Rev. 935 (2014). n2.
See generally Ming H. Chen, Immigration and Cooperative Federalism: Toward a Doctrinal Framework, 85 Colo. L. Rev. 1087 (2014). n3. The closest parallel is to America's brief experiment with alcohol
prohibition, but that analogy is inexact. Only if the states had actively opposed the Eighteenth Amendment, legalizing alcohol in the face of the federal prohibition, would the situation directly mirror the current state
of marijuana regulation. n4. I have written longer versions of this history elsewhere. See, e.g., Sam Kamin, Medical Marijuana in Colorado and the Future of Marijuana Regulation in the United States, 43
McGeorge L. Rev. 147 (2012); Sam Kamin & Eli Wald, Medical Marijuana Lawyers: Outlaws or Crusaders?, 91 Or. L. Rev. 869 (2013). n5. Marijuana Tax Act, Pub. L. No. 75-238, 50 Stat. 551 (1937). n6.
Comprehensive Drug Abuse Prevention and Control Act of 1970, Pub. L. No. 91-513, 84 Stat. 1236 (codified as amended at 21 U.S.C. §§801-889 (2006)). n7. See id. § 812(b). n8. See id. § 841 (setting forth
imprisonment of up to a life term for the cultivation of more than 1,000 marijuana plants). n9. Gonzales v. Raich, 545 U.S. 1, 6 (2005). n10. See, e.g., 153 Cong. Rec. H8484 (daily ed. July 25, 2007) (the HincheyRohrbacher Amendment) (stating that "none of the funds made available in this Act to the Department of Justice may be used ... to prevent such States from implementing their own State laws that authorize the
use, distribution, or cultivation of medical marijuana."). n11. See, e.g., Legal Issues, State Laws, Medical Marijuana, NORML, http://norml.org/legal/medical-marijuana-2 (last visited Apr. 17, 2014) (listing states).
n12. These provisions are often referred to as "recreational" or "adult use." I use these terms interchangeably throughout. n13. See Colo. Const. amend. 64; Washington Initiative 502, No. 63-502, Reg. Sess.
(Nov. 6, 2012). A similar proposal in Oregon was rejected. n14. See, e.g., Printz v. United States, 521 U.S. 898, 933 (1997) (holding that local law enforcement officials cannot be required to participate in a
federal regulatory regime); New York v. United States, 505 U.S. 144, 177 (1992) (holding that the federal government cannot "commandeer" state governments into the service of federal regulatory purposes by
requiring the states to legislate in a particular area). n15. The CSA also permits the seizure of all assets being used in the violation of the Act. See, e.g., 21 U.S.C. § 881 (a)(7) (stating that the following property is
subject to forfeiture: "All real property, including any right, title, and interest (including any leasehold interest) in the whole of any lot or tract of land and any appurtenances or improvements, which is used, or
intended to be used, in any manner or part, to commit, or to facilitate the commission of, a violation of this subchapter punishable by more than one year's imprisonment"). n16. The CSA expressly disclaims field
preemption - that is, Congress did not intend to occupy the field of marijuana regulation as it has other areas, such as patent law. By contrast, the CSA states that federal law preempts inconsistent state-court
enactments, but only to the extent that the two laws are so incompatible that compliance with both would be impossible. See 21 U.S.C. § 903 (2013) ("No provision of this subchapter shall be construed as
indicating an intent on the part of the Congress to occupy the field in which that provision operates, including criminal penalties, to the exclusion of any State law on the same subject matter which would otherwise
be within the authority of the State, unless there is a positive conflict between that provision of this subchapter and that State law so that the two cannot consistently stand together."). Elsewhere, I argue that
neither state decriminalization nor regulation runs afoul of the CSA. See, e.g., Erwin Chermerinsky et al., Cooperative Federalism and Marijuana Regulation, 62 UCLA L. Rev. (forthcoming 2015). n17. The
prosecution of significant traffickers of illegal drugs, including marijuana, and the disruption of illegal drug manufacturing and trafficking networks continues to be a core priority in the Department of Justice's efforts
against narcotics and dangerous drugs. The Department's investigative and prosecutorial resources should be directed towards these objectives. n18. As a general matter, pursuit of these priorities should not
focus federal resources in on individuals whose actions are in clear and unambiguous compliance with existing state laws providing for the medical use of marijuana. n19. Finally, nothing herein precludes
investigation or prosecution where there is a reasonable basis to believe that compliance with state law is being invoked as a pretext for the production or distribution of marijuana for purposes not authorized by
state law. Nor does this guidance preclude investigation or prosecution, even when there is clear and unambiguous compliance with existing state law, in particular circumstances where investigation or
prosecution otherwise serves important federal interests. n20. Sam Kamin, Marijuana at the Crossroads: Keynote Address, in 89 Denv. U. L. Rev. 977, 981 (2012) (charting the growth). n21. See, e.g., Matt Volz,
Montana's Medical Marijuana Industry Goes Down, Business Insider, May 12, 2013, http://www.businessinsider.com/montana-medical-marijuana-federal-crackdown-2013-5. n22. See, e.g., Normitsu Onishi, Cities
Balk as Federal Law on Marijuana Is Enforced, N.Y. Times, June 30, 2012, http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/01/us/ hundreds-of-california-medical-marijuana-shops-close.html?_r=0. n23. See, e.g., John Ingold,
Colorado Medical Pot Dispensaries to Get Letters from Feds Saying They're Too Close to Schools, Denver Post, Jan. 13, 2012, http://www.denverpost.com/ci_19733017. n24. Memorandum from James M. Cole,
Deputy Attorney General, Guidance Regarding the Ogden Memo in Jurisdictions Seeking to Authorize Marijuana for Medical Use, June 29, 2011, at 2, available at http://www.justice.gov/oip/docs/dag-guidance2011-for-medical-marijuana-use.pdf ("The Ogden Memorandum was never intended to shield such activities from federal enforcement action and prosecution, even where those activities purport to comply with
state law. Persons who are in the business of cultivating, selling or distributing marijuana, and those who knowingly facilitate such activities, are in violation of the Controlled Substances Act, regardless of state
law."). n25. See, e.g., John Hoeffel, Holder Vows Fight Over Prop. 19, L.A. Times, Oct. 16, 2010, http://articles.latimes.com/2010/oct/16/local/la-me-marijuana-holder-20101016. n26. I believe that President
Obama's presence on the ballot in 2012, but not in 2010, was a large factor in federal silence during the later election cycle. The President could not risk alienating young voters in 2012 by coming out against
marijuana legalization and was thus forced to remain silent as Washington, Oregon, and Colorado voted on legalization. n27. Arizona v. United States, 132 S. Ct. 2492, 2492 (2012). n28. See James M. Cole,
U.S. Dep't of Justice, Office of the Attorney Gen., Guidance Regarding Marijuana Enforcement, Aug. 29, 2013, available at http://www.justice.gov/iso/opa/resources/3052013829132756857467.pdf [hereinafter
Cole Memo II]. n29. Id. at 2. n30. Id. at 3. n31. See id. at 3 ("Previous guidance drew a distinction between the seriously ill and their caregivers, on the one hand, and large-scale, for-profit commercial enterprises,
on the other, and advised that the latter continued to be appropriate targets for federal enforcement and prosecution ... . As explained above, however, both the existence of a strong and effective state regulatory
system, and an operation's compliance with such a system, may allay the threat that an operation's size poses to federal enforcement interests. Accordingly, in exercising prosecutorial discretion, prosecutors
should not consider the size or commercial nature of a marijuana operation alone as a proxy for assessing whether marijuana trafficking implicates the Department's enforcement priorities listed above."). n32. The
recent federal-state crackdown on selected marijuana dispensaries and grow operations in Colorado is not evidence to the contrary. See Jeremy P. Meyer, et al., Fed Raids on Colorado Marijuana Businesses
Seek Ties to Colombian Drug Cartels, Denver Post, Nov. 22, 2013, http://www.denverpost.com/breakingnews/ci_24580571/fed-raids-colorado-marijuana-businesses-seek-ties-colombian. The federal government
has indicated that these raids were brought against those believed to be out of compliance with state law. See Ana Campoy & Andrew Grossman, Crime-Link Concerns Triggered Raids of Marijuana Businesses,
Wall St. J., Nov. 30, 2013, http://online.wsj.com.ezp2.lib.umn.edu/news/articles/SB10001424052702303332904579228200231126242/. n33. Hammer v. Today's Health Care II, CV2011-051350 (Apr. 17, 2012)
("The explicitly stated purpose of these loan agreements was to finance the sale and distribution of marijuana. This was in clear violation of the laws of the United States. As such, this contract is void and
unenforceable."). n34. See, e.g., Ashley Southall, Answers Sought for When Marijuana Laws Collide, N.Y. Times, Sept. 13, 2013, http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/11/us/answers-sought-for-when-marijuana-lawscollide.html. n35. See Memorandum from James M. Cole, U.S. Dep't of Justice, Off. of the Att'y Gen., Guidance Regarding the Ogden Memo in Jurisdictions Seeking to Authorize Marijuana for Medical Use 2
(June 29, 2011), available at http://www.justice.gov/oip/docs/dag-guidance-2011-for-medical-marijuana-use.pdf ("State laws or local ordinances are not a defense to civil or criminal enforcement of federal law with
respect to such conduct, including enforcement of the CSA. Those who engage in transactions involving the proceeds of such activity may also be in violation of federal money laundering statutes and other
federal financial laws."). n36. See, e.g., John Ingold, Last Bank Shuts Doors on Colorado Pot Dispensaries, Denver Post, Oct. 1, 2010, http://www.denverpost.com/ci_19016660. n37. Letter from John W.
Hickenlooper, Governor of Colo. & Jay Inslee, Governor of Wash., to Jacob Lew, Sec'y of the Treasury, et al. (Oct. 2, 2013), available at http://alturl.com/a6rmy. n38. See, e.g., Evan Perez, Banks Cleared to
Accept Marijuana Business, CNN (Feb. 17, 2014), http://www.cnn.com/2014/02/14/politics/u-s-marijuana-banks/index.html. n39. Id. ("The guidance falls short of the explicit legal authorization that banking industry
officials had pushed the government to provide."); David Migoya & Allison Sherry, Banks Given the Go-Ahead on Working with Marijuana Businesses, Denver Post, Feb. 17, 2014,
http://www.denverpost.com/business/ci_25143792/feds-give-historic-green-light-banks-working-marijuana ("Bankers were less-than-tepid while the marijuana industry reacted enthusiastically to the
announcement, acknowledging the allowance for critical business services, but reiterating how an act of Congress will settle the question."). n40. Id. n41. Model Rules of Prof'l Conduct R. 1.2(d) (2013) ("A lawyer
shall not counsel a client to engage, or assist a client, in conduct that the lawyer knows is criminal or fraudulent, but a lawyer may discuss the legal consequences of any proposed course of conduct with a client
and may counsel or assist a client to make a good faith effort to determine the validity, scope, meaning or application of the law."). n42. See Me. Prof'l Ethics Comm'n, Formal Op. 199 (2010), available at
http://www.maine.gov/tools/whatsnew/index.php?topic=mebar_overseers_ethics_opinions&id=110134&v=article ("Where the line is drawn between permitted and forbidden activities needs to be evaluated on a
case by case basis. Bar Counsel has asked for a general opinion regarding the kind of analysis which must be undertaken. We cannot determine which specific actions would run afoul of the ethical rules. We
can, however, state that participation in this endeavor by an attorney involves a significant degree of risk which needs to be carefully evaluated."); State Bar of Ariz., Formal Op. 11-01 (2011), available at
http://www.azbar.org/Ethics/EthicsOpinions/ViewEthicsOpinion?id=710 ("A lawyer may ethically counsel or assist a client in legal matters expressly permissible under the Arizona Medical Marijuana Act ("Act"),
despite the fact that such conduct potentially may violate applicable federal law. "); see also Colo. Ethics Comm., Formal Op. 125 (2013), available at http://www.cobar.org/tcl/tcl_articles.cfm?articleid=8370
("Colorado is one of a handful of states conducting an experiment in democracy: the gradual decriminalizing of marijuana. The Committee notes that, as a consequence of Colo. RPC 1.2(d) as written, Colorado
risks conducting this experiment either without the help of its lawyers or by putting its lawyers in jeopardy of violating its rules of professional conduct."). n43. State Bar of Colo., Formal Op. 125, The Extent to
Which Lawyers May Represent Clients Regarding Marijuana-Related Activities (adopted Oct. 21, 2013; Addendum dated Oct. 21, 2013), available at
http://www.cobar.org/repository/Ethics/FormalEthicsOpion/FormalEthicsOpinion_125_2013.pdf ("Unless and until there is a change in applicable federal law or in the Colorado Rules of Professional Conduct, a
lawyer cannot advise a client regarding the full panoply of conduct permitted by the marijuana amendments to the Colorado Constitution and implementing statutes and regulations. To the extent that advice were
to cross from advising or representing a client regarding the consequences of a client's past or contemplated conduct under federal and state law to counseling the client to engage, or assisting the client, in
conduct the lawyer knows is criminal under federal law, the lawyer would violate Rule 1.2(d)."). n44. See Colo. Rules of Prof'l Conduct, Rule 1.2, cmt. 14 ("A lawyer may counsel a client regarding the validity,
scope, and meaning of Colorado constitution article XVIll, secs. 14 & 16, and may assist a client in conduct that the lawyer reasonably believes is permitted by these constitutional provisions and the statutes,
regulations, orders, and other state or local provisions implementing them. ln these circumstances, the lawyer shall also advise the client regarding related federal law and policy."). n45. See Sam Kamin & Eli
Wald, Marijuana Lawyers: Outlaws or Crusaders?, 91 Or. L. Rev. 869, 917-18 (2013). n46. Coats v. Dish Network, L.L.C., 303 P.3d 147, 150-51 (Colo. App. 2013). n47. Curry v. MillerCoors, Inc., No. 12-cv02471-JLK, 2013 WL 449430712,6 (D. Colo. Aug. 21, 2013). n48. See Beinor v. Indus. Claims Appeal Office, 262 P.3d 970, 974-75 (Colo. App. 2011) ("We conclude that the medical use of marijuana by an
employee holding a registry card under amendment XVIII, section 14 is not pursuant to a prescription, and therefore does not constitute the use of "medically prescribed controlled substances' within the meaning
of section 8-73-108(5)(e)(IX.5). Accordingly, the presence of medical marijuana in an individual's system during working hours is a ground for a disqualification from unemployment benefits under that section.").
n49. See, e.g., People v. Watkins, 282 P.3d 500, 502-03 (Colo. App. 2012) (finding that a trial judge must make it a condition of probation that a probationer commit no new offenses and that, because the
possession and use of marijuana remain illegal at the federal level, such possession or use constitutes a new offense notwithstanding state law to the contrary). n50. See, e.g., Colo. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 18-1.3204(1) (West 2013) ("The court shall provide as [an] explicit condition[] of every sentence to probation that the defendant not commit another offense during the period for which the sentence remains subject to
revocation."). n51. See, e.g., Cal. Health & Safety Code § 11362.795(a) (West 2004) ("(1) Any criminal defendant who is eligible to use marijuana pursuant to section 11362.5 may request that the court confirm
that he or she is allowed to use medical marijuana while he or she is on probation or released on bail. (2) The court's decision and the reasons for the decision shall be stated on the record and an entry stating
those reasons shall be made in the minutes of the court. (3) During the period of probation or release on bail, if a physician recommends that the probationer or defendant use medical marijuana, the probationer
or defendant may request a modification of the conditions of probation or bail to authorize the use of medical marijuana. (4) The court's consideration of the modification request authorized by this subdivision shall
comply with the requirements of this section."). n52. See, e.g., Memorandum from Helen R. Kanovsky, Office of the Gen. Counsel, U.S. Dep't of Hous. & Urban Dev., to John Trasvina, Assistant Sec'y for Fair
Hous. & Equal Opportunity, U.S. Dep't of Hous. & Urban Dev., et al. (Jan. 20, 2011) ("PHAs and owners must deny admission to those applicant households with individuals who are, at the time of consideration
for admission, using medical marijuana.") (on file with author). n53. See id. ("While PHAs and owners may elect to terminate occupancy based on illegal drug use, they are not required to evict current tenants for
such use."). n54. See Kamin et al., supra note 16. n55. As will be more fully explained in the later article, the proposal that I suggest herein bears a close similarity to existing federal programs. For example, the
Clean Air Act calls on the states to submit to the federal government an air quality implementation plan. See 42 U.S.C. § 7410(a)(1) (2012). If the federal government does not receive or does not approve the plan
submitted by the state, it is authorized to implement its own plan. See id. § 7410(c)(1). Similarly, under the proposal I suggest, the Attorney General or her designee will have the authority to apply the CSA to a
state or accept a state plan for regulating marijuana. n56. In this way, our proposal looks similar to United States Congresswoman Diana DeGette's proposal. See H.R. 964, 113th Cong. (2013). The principal
difference is that Congresswoman DeGette's bill speaks only to preemption, not to the coverage of the CSA; it gives states the power to enact their own regulations, but it does not preclude the enforcement of
federal law within marijuana legalization states. Similarly, Professor Mark
Kleiman has suggested a number of possible law reforms,
including changing federal policy to defer to state lawmaking. See, e.g., Mark A.R. Kleiman, Cooperative Enforcement
Agreements and Policy Waivers: New Options for Federal Accommodation to State-Level Cannabis Legalization, 6 J. Drug
Pol'y Analysis 1 (2013). Our paper will argue that only one of Kleiman's many suggestions - the issuance of
waivers to states who meet set federal criteria - solves the problems identified above. Furthermore,
Kleiman's concern about the establishment of criteria for the issuing of waivers is largely satisfied by the fact that the second Cole
memo has since established a valid set of such criteria.
Minimal solvency deficits are absolute
Kamin, 12 [Sam, Professor of Law and Director of the Constitutional Rights & Remedies Program, University of Denver Sturm
College of Law, , 89 Denv. U.L. Rev. 977, “MARIJUANA AT THE CROSSROADS”, p. lexis]
the biggest problem we have with the status quo is the Sword of Damocles hanging over the
industry : namely that the production and sale of marijuana remain a serious felony offense
under federal law. The volume of marijuana that is grown and sold in Colorado's larger dispensaries is the sort of drug manufacture and distribution that can earn
people something tantamount to a lifetime sentence under federal law. n24 And while it is unlikely that any marijuana dispensary owner
in compliance with state law is going to federal prison any time soon, the fact remains that medical
marijuana is an industry built entirely on conduct that the federal government continues to
prohibit. So on the one hand, things are perfectly sustainable. The industry is regulated, patients can get their medicines, the state gets its tax revenue and counties
But
that object strenuously to the presence of dispensaries can exclude them. Everything is ok except that every sale in every dispensary is a violation of federal law. For those of
you who remember the movie Pulp Fiction, it's as John Travolta said to Samuel L. Jackson when describing the hash bars in Amsterdam, "Well they're legal but they aren't 100
"Not 100 percent legal" is a particularly uncertain base on
which to found a multi-million dollar industry. And it is important to remember in this context that the
percent legal."
vanishingly small risk of being sent to a federal penitentiary is not the only-or even the principalinfluence that continuing federal prohibition has on the nascent marijuana industry. Given that every
marijuana transaction in this industry is a federal crime, it is often hard for those in the industry to convince banks to do
business with them. It is hard to get investors to put their money into a business that could be
seized at any moment by the federal government. It is hard to get a lease when your landlord can
evict you at any time because your business is one that violates federal law. It is hard to form any
contractual relationship when any contract involving the sale of marijuana is almost certainly void
because it constitutes a violation of federal law . n25 Thus, so much of predictability that we sought
to achieve through our regulatory regime is lost because of this strong disagreement between
state and federal policy at this point. Continued [*986] federal prohibition means that no state government
has the power to create legal certainty on its own. Furthermore, patients do not know where they stand either. We heard a
heartbreaking story at the conference from a member of the audience who said that she was trying to convince her mother to get a marijuana patient card to help her ease the
pain of a broken hip. She told us that her mother was in terrible pain but that she was more afraid of going to prison. And the panel, to a person, said please tell your
would-be patients
are chilled by the prospect of federal law enforcement-however
remote it may be. However, patients' concerns, like those of dispensary owners, are not limited to the fear of going to prison. Many are
concerned that they will lose their kids, or their public housing, or other government benefits if they test
positive for marijuana, or if they are found out as marijuana users. And this fear may be much more realistic. Many jobs do prohibit you
from taking a controlled substance, or from violating any state or federal law. The provision of public housing is often
grandmother that no U.S. Attorney in the country wants to put her in prison, and that is almost certainly right. What it highlights, however, is that
are aware of the conflict between state and federal law and
premised on an agreement not to use drugs, or not to have them on the premises. A patient shown to use marijuana or to have it in the home might be less likely to be awarded
custody in a divorce proceeding. So even patients who are not worried about going to prison have concerns that their other settled expectations will be lost if they use marijuana
those providing services to the industry, whether they're doctors, lawyers, bankers or landlords, do not
know where they stand either. For example, lawyers have a professional obligation not to knowingly encourage or knowingly assist in the commission of a
as medicine. Furthermore,
crime. n26 Obviously, this does not prohibit an attorney from informing her client about the interaction between state and federal law and the existence and substance of
Colorado's regulatory regime. Beyond that, though-when we move from informing to advising and assisting-what conduct is permitted and what is prohibited? Can an attorney
incorporate a business whose primary-or sole-business is criminal? Can she write an employment contract for an employee whose every act will be criminal? Can she help a
businessperson do the compliance work that will result in the issuance of a state license to sell marijuana? The current contradictory state of the law obviously makes these
incredibly difficult questions for a lawyer to answer. On the one hand, if Colorado has chosen to regulate and tax this industry, it seems obvious that those regulated by the state
government should be allowed to seek [*987] legal advice in complying with that regulation. On the other, if every sale by every dispensary is a federal crime, it seems hard to
argue that the attorney-by writing a lease, by doing compliance work, by incorporating a business-is not knowingly facilitating criminal conduct. What is more, there is the
possibility, however remote, of criminal prosecution for attorneys who have marijuana entrepreneurs as clients. A lawyer who intends to help and in fact does help her client
engage in criminal conduct can be charged as an accomplice in that conduct; n27 an attorney who joins an agreement to engage in criminal conduct can be charged with
conspiring to commit that conduct. n28 The specter of criminal prosecution is particularly disarming because, while attorneys are regulated at the state level, it is federal
prosecutors who could charge an attorney with conspiring with or aiding and abetting her dispensary owner clients. While it might be far-fetched to imagine the same state that
enacted medical marijuana provisions punishing attorneys for participating in that industry, it is less fantastical to imagine a federal prosecutor-who has sworn to uphold federal
laws including the CSA-going after not only a dispensary, but its bank, its landlord, and its attorney as well. So the fact that marijuana is legal but not 100 percent legal makes
everybody in the industry-patients, practitioners, lawyers, doctors, landlords-uncertain with regard to exactly where they stand.
nature breeds instability.
Uncertainty by its very
So if the status quo can't hold, where can we go from here?
Perm do the counterplan—it’s an example of legalization
James Ostrowski 90, Associate Policy Analyst, Cato Institute, “THE MORAL AND PRACTICAL CASE FOR DRUG
LEGALIZATION”, 18 Hofstra L. Rev. 607 1989-1990
This article presents a comprehensive argument for the legaliza- tion of consciousness-altering drugs. In Part I, the methodology of
drug policy analysis is explored, drug prohibition is defined as the initiation of physical force against
persons engaged in non-violent actions and voluntary transactions involving prohibited drugs, and
legalization is defined as the removal of such force to a greater or lesser degree depending upon the
form of legalization adopted in a particular state or nation.1
The counterplan fails—no compliance
Burnett 14 (John, 3-20-14, "Awash In Cash, Drug Cartels Rely On Big Banks To Launder Profits" NPR)
www.npr.org/blogs/parallels/2014/03/20/291934724/awash-in-cash-drug-cartels-rely-on-big-banks-to-launder-profits
The Sinaloa Cartel, headquartered on Mexico's northern Pacific Coast, is constantly exploring new ways to
launder its gargantuan profits. The State Department reports that Mexican trafficking organizations earn between $19
and $29 billion every year from selling marijuana, cocaine, heroin and methamphetamines on the streets of American cities. And
Sinaloa is reportedly the richest, most powerful of them all, according to the Drug Enforcement Administration. The capture last
month of the Mexican druglord Joaquin "Chapo" Guzman has cast a spotlight on the smuggling empire he built. One key to the
Sinaloa Cartel's success has been to use the global banking system to launder all this cash. "It's very important for them to get that
money into the banking system and do so with as little scrutiny as possible," says Jim Hayes, special agent in charge of Homeland
Security Investigations for the New York office of Immigration and Customs Enforcement, or ICE. He was lead agent in the 2012
case that revealed how Sinaloa money men used HSBC, one of the world's largest banks, as their private vault. ICE says in 2007
and 2008, the Sinaloa Cartel and a Colombian cartel wire-transferred $881 million in illegal drug proceeds into U.S. accounts. Huge
Daily Deposits According to a subsequent investigation by the U.S. Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations, cartel
operatives would sometimes deposit hundreds of thousands of dollars in cash in a single day
using boxes designed to fit the exact dimensions of the teller's window at HSBC branches in
Mexico. More In The Borderland Series Many drug cartel members die young, and when they do, their families often spend
lavishly to construct mausoleums that look like small condos. Parallels At The Border, The Drugs Go North And The Cash Goes
South Children play near a border fence at the Escuela Primaria Federal Profesor Ramon Espinoza Villanueva, a primary school in
Palomas, Mexico. Palomas borders Columbus, N.M., its sister village. Borderland: Dispatches From The U.S.-Mexico Boundary
The bank ignored basic anti-money laundering controls , as the investigation found. In 2007 and 2008, the
bank's personnel in Mexico wired $7 billion dollars to corresponding U.S. dollar accounts in New
York. These were more dollars than even larger Mexican banks wired to U.S. accounts. ICE says some of it was drug proceeds.
Dutch Model CP: 2AC
Federal non-enforcement links to UN DA
Sollum 14 “The Helpless Anger of U.N. Drug Warriors” Jacob Sullum - senior editor at Reason
magazine and a nationally syndicated columnist, March 10, 2014,
http://reason.com/archives/2014/03/10/un-drug-warriors-stand-athwart-reform-ye
Although marijuana remains illegal in the Netherlands, in 1976 the Dutch government began tolerating retail sales
of small amounts by so-called coffee shops. Thirty-eight years later, the International Narcotics Control Board
(INCB), a U.N. agency that describes its mission as "monitoring and supporting Governments' compliance with the international
drug control treaties," is still complaining about that policy. In its latest annual report, issued this week, the INCB
notes that the Dutch "tolerance policy" (gedoogbeleid) "allows small amounts of cannabis to be sold and abused."
(INCB officials, like hardline drug warriors everywhere, define all recreational consumption of marijuana as abuse.) According
to the INCB, such tolerance is intolerable: "The Board reiterates its position that such 'coffee shops' are in
contravention of the provisions of the international drug control conventions."
Dutch model doesn’t solve the industry– keeps the illict market and doesn’t end
enforcement of production
Grether 14 “In the Netherlands, 38 years of lessons on 'tolerating' pot” Nicole Grether- staff at Al Jazeera and syndicated
journalist, February 21, 2014, http://america.aljazeera.com/watch/shows/america-tonight/america-tonightblog/2014/2/21/netherlands-cannabislessonscolorado.html
But in a rare interview with the American media, van der Laan admitted that it hasn’t exactly worked out that way. “ We
have what
a backdoor problem,” van der Laan said. The Netherlands is in something of a bind, because the
country adheres to the Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs, a 1961 United Nations convention that bans countries
we call
from growing or transporting large quantities of drugs for sale. “So, this is what we call ‘gedogen’ or tolerated,” said van der Laan
about their official stance towards pot. “And that is because many people think that international laws and regulations forbid us to
find legal ways of organizing this backdoor situation.” So not only is the Netherlands less liberal than Colorado on
possession – Colorado residents can buy more than five times the Dutch five-ounce limit – but it also has a far more
hardline approach to growing. Up to five plants at home is “tolerated,” but cultivation on a professional level can get a
person in serious trouble. Dutch police said it conducts about 5,000 marijuana raids annually throughout the
country. Last month, police discovered some 1,200 plants growing underground at an illegal marijuana farm in Drenthe, in the
northern part of the country. The well-known Amsterdam coffee shop the Dampkring. America Tonight The Dampkring is one of the
most famous coffee shops in the country, featured in the 2004 movie “Ocean’s Twelve.” Here owner Jason den Enting has a
license to sell small amounts of marijuana, but his supply is illegally grown. “They get it on the black
market,” den Enting said about his suppliers. “They talk to the growers, and yeah, all that is illegal.” “We have learned to live with
it,” van der Laan said about the ban. But that doesn’t mean he’s not trying to change it.
Big Weed DA: 2AC [New]
Fears of “Big Weed” are overblown—advertising doesn’t create dependencies
Guither 14 (Pete, assistant dean of the College of Fine Arts for communications and facilities at the University of Illinois, 3-414, "Kleiman, State Laboratories, and Advertising for Addicts" Drug War Rant) www.drugwarrant.com/2014/03/kleiman-statelaboratories-and-advertising-for-addicts/
point, made over and over again by Mark (and picked up by the “Big Marijuana” idiots)
that commercial businesses will make their profits by marketing to problematic users and by marketing to
create problematic users. I really don’t see the evidence to support this. When I marketed theatre,
you know the one group I didn’t spend much money or effort attempting to sway? Theatre-goers.
They were my captive audience – all I had to do is announce what I was doing and they would come. Marketing is
primarily about brand awareness, brand loyalty, and, in some cases, introducing the benefits of a
product to new customers. It’s not about feeding or growing dependencies. That happens
separate from marketing. Sure, if marketing causes an increase in the overall number of users, and you
assume that the same percentage of those new users will become dependent as in the original
class, then marketing could lead to dependency indirectly. But that assumption is flat-out
contradicted by evidence and common sense, since prohibition laws, to the extent that they deter at all, are
more likely to deter casual non-problematic use than problematic use. I know that it’s popular to
claim that marketing is used to cause dependency, but there’s really very little evidence to support
that claim. Let’s take a look at alcohol — one of the areas that the “Big Marijuana” folks are particularly fond of using as a
model for why we should be concerned about commercial advertising of marijuana products. According to the “10th Special
Report to the U.S. Congress on Alcohol and Health, Highlights from Current Research” from the Secretary of H ealth and
H uman S ervices. In general, experimental studies based in laboratory settings provide little
consistent evidence that alcohol advertising influences people’s drinking behaviors or beliefs
about alcohol and its effects (Kohn and Smart 1984; Kohn et al. 1984; Lipsitz 1993; Slater et al. 1997; Sobell et al. 1986). In
But the thing that really gets me is the
addition, econometric studies of market data have produced mixed results, with most showi
ng no significant relationship between advertising and overall consumption levels (Fisher and Cook 1995; Gius 1996; Goel and
Morey 1995; Nelson and Moran 1995). This really does suggest that it’s more about brand advertising than “drink
alcohol to excess” advertising. Those who have a drinking problem don’t need to be told by women in bikinis to drink.
Just as with my theatre patrons, even though the regulars may have provided me with 80% of my ticket sales, the bulk of my
marketing efforts always went after the ones that wouldn’t be coming without me convincing them. With beer, it’s about convincing
you to buy Budweiser instead of Miller. With pot, it’ll first be about informing you that you can buy it and
where, then it’ll be about developing brand loyalty (why you should buy from this store instead of another one, or
this strain instead of another one…) and, if we’re lucky, there will be an additional advertising thrust to convince people to consume
there’s no effective marketing strategy to go after or create
dependencies, even if those decencies end up profiting the business.
pot instead of alcohol (substitution advertising). But
Legalization causes tech growth and sustainable use
Leaf Science 13
[11/17/13, LeafScience, “The Environmental Benefits Of A Legal Marijuana Industry”,
http://www.leafscience.com/2013/11/17/environmental-benefits-legal-marijuana-industry/]
In fact, it is just the opposite for those involved with the underground marijuana industry, who are constantly under threat from state
and federal law enforcement. Recent studies show that the aggressive spread of outdoor grow-ops in Northern California have led
to the destruction of forests, watersheds and local wildlife species. But there seems to be a simple solution. Legalizing
marijuana in Colorado has motivated marijuana growers to start looking at long-term solutions. And
that means investing in technology that can cut land, water and energy costs in a sustainable
manner. One of these technologies is LED lights, which consume less energy and give off less heat than traditional lighting
systems. Denver’s oldest marijuana dispensary, Denver Relief, is already running tests on LED set-ups, with the hope of
implementing the technology on a larger-scale if results are positive. According to photobiologist Neil Yorio, who spent 20 years at
NASA’s Kennedy Space Center studying how to grow plants in controlled environments and currently works at the Florida-based
Lighting Science Group, the company that supplies LED lights to Denver Relief, LED technology could save marijuana grow-ops
50% in overall electrical costs. Nationwide, that could mean $3 billion in annual savings and a reduction in CO2 equal to taking 1.5
million cars off the road. In fact, it could be more. The 2012 study concluded that
level would reduce energy consumption up to 75%. But ther
legalizing marijuana at the federal
e’s a flaw to assuming that no one is using LED lights to grow marijuana right now, which Denver Relief has already proven to be
false. Then again, growers in Colorado represent a special case. Because by legalizing marijuana, the state is now
providing businesses with the opportunity to look into the future and consider how environmentallyfriendly technology could benefit both the legal marijuana industry and the community it serves.
TPA: 2AC
Won’t pass –
Obama not pushing, immigration thumps and GOP blocks
Landler 12-30 (Mark, “Obama’s Trade Chief, Undaunted by Odds, Pushes for Trans-Pacific Partnership,”
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/12/31/business/obamas-trade-chief-undaunted-by-odds-pushes-for-trans-pacificpartnership.html?_r=0, CMR)
to members of Congress, both for and against expanded trade agreements, Mr. Obama’s trade agenda has
been waiting in the wings for so long that the promises of action are beginning to ring hollow .
Efforts in the House and Senate to grant Mr. Obama trade promotion authority — once known as fast-track authority, and viewed as critical to passing
major trade deals — have gone nowhere . Mr. Froman insists the political stars have aligned. Republican control of the Senate has elevated pro-trade
lawmakers to key positions in leadership and committee control, and the international negotiations themselves have progressed. But the deal’s completion is
certainly not guaranteed. Republicans inclined to give the president trade-negotiating authority are still seething at his
executive action deferring deportation of millions of undocumented immigrants. Many conservatives are in no mood to
give Mr. Obama anything, said Senator Rob Portman, Republican of Ohio, and a former United States trade representative in the George W. Bush
Still,
administration.
Democrats
Landler 12-30 (Mark, “Obama’s Trade Chief, Undaunted by Odds, Pushes for Trans-Pacific Partnership,”
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/12/31/business/obamas-trade-chief-undaunted-by-odds-pushes-for-trans-pacificpartnership.html?_r=0, CMR)
Democrats may be the bigger problem. Mr. Froman has met dozens of times with Representative Sander M.
Levin of Michigan, the ranking Democrat on the Ways and Means Committee, which has jurisdiction on
trade. And Mr. Levin said he wants to work with the administration on the T.P.P., down to the finest details. But he said he was not about to
allow Mr. Obama to negotiate the partnership on his own, then present it to Congress for an up-or-down vote with no opportunity to
change it. And Mr. Levin’s stature and seniority command respect in the House Democratic Caucus. “You’re
asking members to give away their leverage on a historic trade agreement when there are major issues outstanding,” Mr. Levin said, suggesting that a vote on trade promotion
Wyden of Oregon, ranking Democrat on the Senate Finance Committee in
said virtually no Democrat who had supported t rade
a uthority in the past would be left in the Senate next year. “It’s going to be a big challenge,” he
authority before the presentation of a completed T.P.P. “would be a donnybrook.” Senator Ron
the coming Congress, is one of the strongest trade advocates in Washington; he
p romotion
said.
Everything thumps [Keystone, Cuba, immigration, Health Care]
REUTERS, “Republicans Look to Challenge on Energy, Cuba, Immigration,” 1—4—15,
http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/01/04/us-usa-congress-agenda-idUSKBN0KD0A120150104
Republicans take full control of the Congress this week with an agenda of trying to force approval of the Keystone
XL oil pipeline and push back on President Barack Obama's sweeping policy shifts on Cuba and immigration. After years
of battles over the budget and other issues, further clashes loom as Republicans who already control the House of Representatives take over
the Senate majority on Tuesday after wins against Obama's Democrats in November's midterm elections. Angry over the president's moves last year to
bypass Congress on issues such as immigration, Republicans have promised to fight him on a range of issues . Obama
has vowed to use his veto pen if Republicans pass legislation he opposes, but he has said he believes he may be able to forge common ground with
them in some areas, including free trade, overhauling the tax code and boosting infrastructure spending. Reaching
deals won't be easy
amid deep mistrust
on both sides. "To suddenly claim you're going to work with members of Congress after years of ignoring them is rather
ludicrous," said Kevin Smith, a spokesman for Republican House of Representatives Speaker John Boehner. Republican Mitch McConnell, who will
become the Senate majority leader, said the American people expect compromise on key issues despite divided government. "They want us to look for
things to agree on and see if we can make some progress for the country," he said in a pre-recorded interview aired on CNN's State of the Union
program on Sunday. But issues facing Congress will likely be
contentious . McConnell has said the first item on his agenda
will be legislation to force approval of TransCanada Corp's Keystone XL pipeline. The pipeline, which has been under review by the Obama
administration for years, would help transport oil from Canada's oil sands to the U.S. Gulf Coast. Many Democrats see the project as a threat to the
environment but supporters say it will create jobs and increase North American energy security. A similar bill on Keystone failed late last year and it is
unlikely that Republicans, even with their new majority, could muster the votes needed to overcome an Obama veto. The new Senate Energy
Committee Chairwoman, Lisa Murkowski, plans a vote on Thursday by her panel on the issue. As the new Congress convenes, Obama will set out on
a three-day road trip on Wednesday to Michigan, Arizona and Tennessee to tout his economic record and highlight his own agenda for 2015.
Republican aides said efforts
to weaken Obama's signature healthcare law were also high on their priorities. Another
early legislative fight will come when Congress considers funding for the D epartment of H omeland S ecurity. A
$1.1 trillion government spending bill passed in mid-December funds government through September, except for the DHS, which is funded only until
Feb. 27. That was an effort by conservative Republicans to block money for implementation of Obama’s executive order that grants temporary relief
from deportation to some undocumented immigrants. Republicans have also discussed using the fight over the homeland security agency as a vehicle
for challenging Obama's landmark move last month to normalize ties with Cuba.
Cromnibus thumps- Obama bucked dems, spills over
Everett, 12-11 -- Politico congressional reporter
[Burgess, and Edward-Issac Dovere, "Liberals: Obama Abandoned Us," Politico, 12-11-14, www.politico.com/story/2014/12/liberalsobama-abandoned-us-113516.html, accessed 1-2-15]
Liberals: Obama abandoned us
The left revolts, saying Obama gave up too easily on spending bill. The White House’s aggressive push to salvage a spending bill
on Capitol Hill left liberal lawmakers feeling burned by President Barack Obama — and raised significant doubts about their
desire to cooperate heading into next year’s Republican takeover of Congress. Democrats will need every vote they can muster
next year as the GOP plans to attack liberal priorities on health care, energy and financial regulation in 2015. But Thursday’s
deadline drama offered no signal of party unity, only fresh reminders of the post-election divisions between a president who’s
looking to govern during his last two years in office and a newly invigorated populist wing of the party, led by Sen. Elizabeth Warren
(D-Mass.). The $1.1 trillion spending bill passed the House late Thursday, with 57 Democrats voting for the bill while 139 voted
against it — with many liberals seething over a provision that rolled back a key financial regulation that is part of the Dodd-Frank
law.
PC is irrelevant—politicians vote based on self-interest
Drum 14 (Kevin, political writer, 8-20-14, "Barack Obama Loathes Congress as Much as You Do" Mother Jones)
www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2014/08/barack-obama-loathes-congress-much-you-do
I'd probably give a little more credit to schmoozing than this. But only a very little. At the margins, there are probably times when
having a good relationship with a committee chair will speed up action or provide a valuable extra vote or two on a bill or a nominee.
And Obama has the perfect vehicle for doing this regularly since he loves to play golf. But for the most part Klein is right . There's
very little evidence that congressional schmoozing has more than a tiny effect on things.
Members of Congress vote the way they want or need to vote, and if they respond to anyone, it's
to party leaders, interest groups, and fellow ideologues. In days gone by, presidents could coerce
votes by working to withhold money from a district, or by agreeing to name a crony as the local
postmaster, but those days are long gone. There's really very little leverage that presidents have
over members of Congress these days, regardless of party.
Obama won’t use PC on the plan
Waldman 12 (Paul, contributing editor for the Prospect and the author of Being Right is Not Enough: What Progressives Must
Learn From Conservative Success, “Why Obama Won't Be the One to End the War on Drugs,” November 27, 2012,
http://prospect.org/article/why-obama-wont-be-one-end-war-drugs)
Why? Because that's what Barack Obama appears to want. One of Andrew Sullivan's readers noted a video from 2007 in which
candidate Obama evaded and hedged in his response to a question about legalization ; the reader said,
"the sense I got was that whatever
Obama's actual position on marijuana is, he's not about to let that be
the issue that he wastes political capital on . That's not going to be the issue that prevents him
from becoming president and fixing everything else that he cares more about." That sounds about right to me:
While Obama may believe that the War has been a failure and it's absurd to lock up hundreds of
thousands of people for possessing, buying, or selling small amounts of marijuana, it just isn't all
that high on his priority list. If making a major policy change is risky, he's not going to bother . On
the other hand, he doesn't want to alienate the 50 percent of the country that now supports legalization, many of whom are his
staunch supporters, so his preferred outcome would be that no one pays much attention to the issue for
the next four years.
Winners win is true right now—Obama believes in playing offense
Avlon 12-19-14 (John, staff writer, "The Liberation of the Lame Duck: Obama Goes Full Bulworth" The
Daily Beast) www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/12/19/the-liberation-of-the-lame-duck-obama-goes-fullbulworth.html
Instead of reacting to Republican proposals, President Obama is forcing Republicans to react to
him. And while this might poison the well even further, a more tepid response would
have likely resulted in stalemate andlost opportunities. One of the gambles this onetime poker
player is making is that Republicans’ rational self-interest might propel them to the
bargaining table on core issues ranging from trade deals to tax reform. One of the most
persistent myths in American politics is the media-fueled concept of the lame duck. While departing
powers have less political capital than incoming presidents, the reality is thatPresident Obama is still leader of the free world for the
next two years. And while the media attention flows toward 2016–in part fueled by the fantasy that the next
man or woman will magically come in and change everything—the noisy cavalcade of contenders will be
competing for the mere chance to have the power that Obama does for the next two years. Much can be
accomplished even without the cooperation of a conservative Congress. Would more kumbaya
moments between parties be better for the country? You bet. But are they likely to occur given the current
polarization of our parties and the persistent attempt to delegitimize this president? Not so much. The
prospect of a happy warrior in the White House might just reinvigorate the stale state of policy
debates in Washington. And while it’s true that President Obama risks alienating reasonable
Republicans and therefore doom any chance of further legislative achievements in his administration, it’s
equally true that the best defense in politics in playing offense.
No trade deals even if TPA passes
Levy 11-4-14 (Phil, “Will the Midterms Thaw America’s Frozen Trade Deals?” Foreign Policy)
http://shadow.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2014/11/04/will_the_midterms_thaw_obamas_frozen_trade_deals
Necessary, but not sufficient. Finally, the prolonged debate over TPA can make it seem as though
that authority is the main barrier to successfully completed deals. In fact, TPA was supposed to
be the easy prerequisite. It is necessary for trade liberalization, but leaves most of the hard
bargaining still to be done. On TPP, there are questions about whether the U nited S tates is willing
to make politically sensitive concessions on autos and sugar in order to win concessions from
the Japanese on agriculture or the Australians on intellectual property rights. There are difficult
issues such as rules governing state-owned enterprises, regulation, and currency (the last a rare topic
that unites the Congress, but that divides the United States from all of its TPP negotiating partners). The TTIP negotiations
are no easier. The administration now has to negotiate with a brand new European Commission,
having
failed to conclude talks under the old one. The agenda consists almost entirely of difficult
issues , such as financial regulation, agriculture, data privacy, and investor-state dispute
settlement. None of this is to belittle the importance of TPA -- without it, nothing serious will happen. But
even if it were passed and signed in January next year, that would leave relatively little time before
a traditional "dead period" in American politics for tackling major trade agreements, the
presidential election season. A Republican capture of the Senate would make progress on the trade agenda more likely,
but I'm still pretty confident Dan Drezner will be buying me dinner at the end of President Obama's term.
Trade doesn’t solve war
Katherine Barbieri 13, Associate Professor of Political Science at the University of South Carolina, Ph.D. in Political Science
from Binghamton University, “Economic Interdependence: A Path to Peace or Source of Interstate Conflict?” Chapter 10 in Conflict,
War, and Peace: An Introduction to Scientific Research, google books
How does interdependence affect war , the most intense form of conflict? Table 2 gives the empirical results . The rarity of wars
makes any analysis of their causes quite difficult, for variations in interdependence will seldom result in the occurrence of war. As in the case of MIDs, the log-likelihood ratio
tests for each model suggest that the inclusion of the various measures of interdependence and the control variables improves our understanding of the factors affecting the
occurrence of war over that obtained from the null model. However, the individual interdependence variables, alone, are not statistically significant. This is not the case with
contiguity and relative capabilities, which are both statistically significant. Again, we see that contiguous dyads are more conflict-prone and that dyads composed of states with
unequal power are more pacific than those with highly equal power. Surprisingly, no evidence is provided to support the commonly held proposition that democratic states are
evidence from the pre-WWII period provides support for those
arguing that economic factors have little, if any, influence on affecting leaders’ decisions to engage in
war, bu
less likely to engage in wars with other democratic states.¶ The
t many of the control variables are also statistically insignificant. These results should be interpreted with caution, since the sample does not contain a sufficient number wars to
allow us to capture great variations across different types of relationships. Many observations of war are excluded from the sample by virtue of not having the corresponding
Conclusions
This study provides little empirical support for the liberal proposition that trade provides a path
to interstate peace. Even after controlling for the influence of contiguity, joint democracy, alliance
ties, and relative capabilities, the evidence suggests that in most instances trade fails to deter
conflict . Instead, extensive economic interdependence increases the likelihood that dyads engage in militarized dispute; however, it
appears to have little influence on the incidence of war . The greatest hope for peace appears to arise from symmetrical trading
explanatory measures. A variable would have to have an extremely strong influence on conflict—as does contiguity—to find significant results. ¶ 7.
relationships. However, the dampening effect of symmetry is offset by the expansion of interstate linkages. That is, extensive economic linkages, be they symmetrical or
asymmetrical, appear to pose the greatest hindrance to peace through trade.
it’s resilient
Rodrik ‘9 Dani Rodrik, Rafiq Hariri Professor of International Political Economy at the John F. Kennedy School of Government,
Harvard University. “The Myth of Rising Protectionism”. 2009. http://relooney.fatcow.com/0_New_5973.pdf
The reality is that the international trade regime has passed its greatest test since the Great
Depression with flying colors. Trade economists who complain about minor instances of
protectionism sound like a child whining about a damaged toy in the wake of an earthquake that
killed thousands. Three things explain this remarkable resilience : ideas, politics , and institutions
. Economists have been extraordinarily successful in conveying their message to policymakers –
even if ordinary people still regard imports with considerable suspicion. Nothing reflects this better than how
“protection” and “protectionists” have become terms of derision . After all, governments are generally
expected to provide protection to its citizens. But if you say that you favor protection from imports , you are
painted into a corner with Reed Smoot and Willis C. Hawley, authors of the infamous 1930 US tariff bill. But
economists’ ideas would not have gone very far without significant changes in the underlying
configuration of political interests in favor of open trade. For every worker and firm affected
adversely by import competition, there is one or more worker and firm expecting to reap the
benefits of access to markets abroad. The latter have become increasingly vocal and powerful,
often represented by large multinational corporations. In his latest book, Paul Blustein recounts how a former
Indian trade minister once asked his American counterpart to bring him a picture of an American farmer: “I have never actually seen
one,” the minister quipped. “I have only seen US conglomerates masquerading as farmers.” But the relative docility of
rank-and-file workers on trade issues must ultimately be attributed to something else altogether: the
safety nets erected by the welfare state. Modern industrial societies now have a wide array of
social protections – unemployment compensation, adjustment assistance, and other labor-market tools, as well as health
insurance and family support – that mitigate demand for cruder forms of protection . The welfare state is the flip
side of the open economy. If the world has not fallen off the protectionist precipice during the crisis, as it
did during the 1930’s, much of the credit must go the social programs that conservatives and market
fundamentalists would like to see scrapped. The battle against trade protection has been won – so far. But, before we relax, let’s
remember that we still have not addressed the central challenge the world economy will face as the crisis eases: the inevitable clash
between China’s need to produce an ever-growing quantity of manufactured goods and America’s need to maintain a smaller
current-account deficit. Unfortunately, there is little to suggest that policymakers are yet ready to confront this genuine threat.
EU Rels 1NC
EU/US relations resilient
Joyner 11—editor of the Atlantic Council. PhD in pol sci (James, Death of Transatlantic Relationship Wildly Exaggerated, 14
June 2011, www.acus.org/new_atlanticist/death-transatlantic-relationship-wildly-exaggerated)
The blistering farewell speech to NATO by U.S. defense secretary Robert Gates warning of a "dim, if not dismal" future for the Alliance drew the Western public's attention to a longstanding debate about
the state of the transatlantic relationship. With prominent commenters voicing concern about much more than just a two-tiered defensive alliance, questioning whether the U.S.-Europe relationship itself is
past its prime, doubts that the Western alliance that has dominated the post-Cold War world are reaching a new high.¶ But those
fears are overblown, and may be
mistaking short-term bumps in the relationship for proof of a long-term decline that isn't there.
Gates' frustration with the fact that only
five of the 28 NATO allies are living up to their commitment to devote 2 percent of GDP to defense, which has hindered their ability to take on even the likes of Muammar Qaddafi's puny force without
the U.S.-Europe partnership may not be living up to its potential, it is not worthless,
and that relationship continues to be one of the strongest and most important in the world . Gate
American assistance is certainly legitimate and worrying.¶ Though
s is an Atlanticist whose speech was, as he put it, "in the spirit of solidarity and friendship, with the understanding that true friends occasionally must speak bluntly with one another for the sake of those
Europeans don't
are hard pressed to divert scarce resources away from social
spending -- especially in the current economic climate -- a dynamic that has weakened NATO but , despite fears to the
contrary, not the greater Transatlantic partnership .¶ It would obviously have been a great relief to the U.S. if European governments had
greater interests and values that bind us together." He wants the Europeans, Germany in particular, to understand what a tragedy it would be if NATO were to go away.¶ Most
see their security as being in jeopardy and political leaders
shouldered more of the burden in Afghanistan. This disparity, which has only increased as the war has dragged on and the European economies suffered, is driving both Gates' warning and broader fears
about the declining relationship. But it was our fight, not theirs; they were there, in most cases against the strong wishes of the people who elected them to office, because we asked. We'd have fought it
exactly the same way in their absence. In that light, every European and Canadian soldier was a bonus.¶ Libya, however, is a different story. The Obama administration clearly had limited interest in
entering that fight - Gates himself warned against it -- and our involvement is due in part to coaxing by our French and British allies. The hope was to take the lead in the early days, providing "unique
assets" at America's disposal, and then turn the fight over to the Europeans. But, as Gates' predecessor noted not long after the ill-fated 2003 invasion of Iraq, you go to war with the army you have, not the
one you wish you had.¶ The diminished capabilities of European militaries, spent by nearly a decade in Afghanistan, should be of no surprise. NATO entered into Libya with no real plan for an end game
beyond hoping the rebels would somehow win or that Qaddafi would somehow fall. That failure, to be fair, is a collective responsibility, not the fault of European militaries alone.¶ But the concern goes
deeper than different defensive priorities. Many Europeans worry that the United States takes the relationship for granted, and that the Obama administration in particular puts a much higher priority on the
Pacific and on the emerging BRICS (Brazil, Russia, India, China, and South Africa) economies. ¶ New York Times columist Roger Cohen recently wrote that this is as it should be: "In so far as the United
States is interested in Europe it is interested in what can be done together in the rest of the world." In Der Spiegel, Roland Nelles and Gregor Peter Schmitz lamented, "we live in a G-20 world instead of one
led by a G-2."¶ It's certainly true that, if it ever existed, the Unipolar Moment that Charles Krauthammer and others saw in the aftermath of the Soviet collapse is over. But that multipolar dynamic actually
makes transatlantic cooperation more, not less, important. A hegemon needs much less help than one of many great powers, even if it remains the biggest.¶ Take the G-20. Seven of the members are
NATO Allies: the US, Canada, France, Germany, Italy, the UK, and Turkey. Toss in the EU, and you have 40 percent of the delegation. If they can form a united front at G-20 summits, they are much more
powerful than if each stands alone. Add in four NATO Partner countries (Russia, Japan, Australia, and South Korea) and you're up to 60 percent of the delegation -- a comfortable majority for the U.S.European partnership and its circle of closest allies.¶ Granted, it's unlikely that we'll achieve consensus among all 12 states on any one issue, let alone most issues. But constantly working together toward
shared goals and values expands a sense of commonality.¶ And, like so many things, projects end. Indeed, that's generally the goal. The transatlantic military alliance that formed to defeat fascism
NATO outlasted the demise of its raison d'être,
the Soviet threat, and went on to fight together --along with many of its former adversaries -- in
Bosnia, Kosovo, Afghanistan, and Libya. Is there seriously any doubt that other challenges will
emerge in the future in which the Americans and its European allies might benefit from
working together?
remained intact after victory; indeed, it expanded to include its former German and Italian adversaries.
A2 “Productivity”
Studies prove no effect on motivation
MacQueen 13 -- Maclean's Vancouver bureau chief
[Ken, "Why it’s time to legalize marijuana," 6-10-13, www.macleans.ca/news/canada/why-its-time-to-legalize-marijuana/, accessed
6-2-14]
Pot as the lesser of two evils: Let’s dispense once and for all with the stereotype of the unmotivated stoner. There are also
unmotivated drunks, cigarette smokers and milk drinkers. Studies have ruled out “the existence of the so-called
amotivational syndrome,” the Senate report noted a decade ago. Generations of pot smokers from the
Boomers onward have somehow held it together, building families and careers. Miraculously, the last three U.S.
presidents managed to lift themselves beyond their admitted marijuana use to seek the highest
office in the land. Once there, they forgot whence they came, and continued the war on drugs.
A2 “Competitiveness”
competitiveness durable and free riding solves
Fallows 10 – correspondent for The Atlantic Monthly, studied economics at Oxford University as a Rhodes Scholar. He
has been an editor of The Washington Monthly and of Texas Monthly, and from 1977 to 1979 he served as President
Jimmy Carter's chief speechwriter. His first book, National Defense, won the American Book Award in 1981; he has
written seven others (James. “How America Can Rise Again”, Jan/Feb edition,
http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/201001/american-decline)
This is new. Only with America’s emergence as a global power after World War II did the
idea of American “decline” routinely involve falling behind someone else. Before that, it meant
falling short of expectations—God’s, the Founders’, posterity’s—or of the previous virtues of America in its lost, great
days. “The new element in the ’50s was the constant comparison with the Soviets,” Michael Kazin told me. Since then,
external falling-behind comparisons have become not just a staple of American self-assessment but
often a crutch. If we are concerned about our schools, it is because children are learning more in Singapore or India;
about the development of clean-tech jobs, because it’s happening faster in China. Having often lived outside the United
States since the 1970s, I have offered my share of falling-behind analyses, including a book-length comparison of
Japanese and American strengths (More Like Us) 20 years ago. But at this point in America’s national life cycle, I think
the exercise is largely a distraction, and that Americans should concentrate on what are, finally, our own internal issues
to resolve or ignore. Naturally there are lessons to draw from other countries’ practices and innovations; the more we
know about the outside world the better, as long as we’re collecting information calmly rather than glancing nervously at
our reflected foreign image. For instance, if you have spent any time in places where tipping is frowned on or rare, like
Japan or Australia, you view the American model of day-long small bribes, rather than one built-in full price, as
something similar to baksheesh, undignified for all concerned. Naturally, too, it’s easier to draw attention to a domestic
problem and build support for a solution if you cast the issue in us-versus-them terms, as a response to an outside
threat. In If We Can Put a Man on the Moon …, their new book about making government programs more effective,
William Eggers and John O’Leary emphasize the military and Cold War imperatives behind America’s space program.
“The race to the moon was a contest between two systems of government,” they wrote, “and the question would be
settled not by debate but by who could best execute on this endeavor.” Falling-behind arguments have proved
convenient and powerful in other countries, too. But whatever their popularity or utility in other places
at other times, falling-behind concerns seem too common in America now. As I have thought about
why overreliance on this device increasingly bothers me, I have realized that it’s because my latest stretch out
of the country has left me less and less interested in whether China or some other
country is “overtaking” America. The question that matters is not whether America is
“falling behind” but instead something like John Winthrop’s original question of whether it is falling
short—or even falling apart. This is not the mainstream American position now, so let me explain. First is the simple
reality that one kind of “decline” is inevitable and therefore not worth worrying about. China
has about four times as many people as America does. Someday its economy will be
larger than ours. Fine! A generation ago, its people produced, on average, about one-sixteenth as much as
Americans did; now they produce about one-sixth. That change is a huge achievement for China—and a plus rather
than a minus for everyone else, because a business-minded China is more benign than a miserable or rebellious one.
When the Chinese produce one-quarter as much as Americans per capita, as will happen barring catastrophe, their
economy will become the world’s largest. This will be good for them but will not mean “falling
behind” for us. We know that for more than a century, the consciousness of decline has
been a blight on British politics, though it has inspired some memorable, melancholy
literature. There is no reason for America to feel depressed about the natural emergence
of China, India, and others as world powers. But second, and more important, America
may have reasons to feel actively optimistic about its prospects in purely relative terms .
The crucial american advantage Let’s start with the more modest claim, that China has ample reason to worry about its
own future. Will the long-dreaded day of reckoning for Chinese development finally arrive because of environmental
disaster? Or via the demographic legacy of the one-child policy, which will leave so many parents and grandparents
dependent on so relatively few young workers? Minxin Pei, who grew up in Shanghai and now works at Claremont
McKenna College, in California, has predicted in China’s Trapped Transition that within the next few years, tension
between an open economy and a closed political system will become unendurable, and an unreformed Communist
bureaucracy will finally drag down economic performance. America will be better off if China does well
than if it flounders. A prospering China will mean a bigger world economy with more
opportunities and probably less turmoil—and a China likely to be more cooperative on
environmental matters. But whatever happens to China, prospects could soon brighten for America. The
American culture’s particular strengths could conceivably be about to assume new importance
and give our economy new pep. International networks will matter more with each passing
year. As the one truly universal nation, the United States continually refreshes its connections with
the rest of the world—through languages, family, education, business—in a way no other nation does,
or will. The countries that are comparably open—Canada, Australia—aren’t nearly as large; those whose economies
are comparably large—Japan, unified Europe, eventually China or India—aren’t nearly as open. The simplest measure
of whether a culture is dominant is whether outsiders want to be part of it. At the height of the British Empire, colonial
subjects from the Raj to Malaya to the Caribbean modeled themselves in part on Englishmen: Nehru and Lee Kuan Yew
went to Cambridge, Gandhi, to University College, London. Ho Chi Minh wrote in French for magazines in Paris. These
days the world is full of businesspeople, bureaucrats, and scientists who have trained in the United States. Today’s
China attracts outsiders too, but in a particular way. Many go for business opportunities; or because of cultural
fascination; or, as my wife and I did, to be on the scene where something truly exciting was under way. The Haidian
area of Beijing, seat of its universities, is dotted with the faces of foreigners who have come to master the language and
learn the system. But true immigrants? People who want their children and grandchildren to grow up within this system?
Although I met many foreigners who hope to stay in China indefinitely, in three years I encountered only two people who
aspired to citizenship in the People’s Republic. From the physical rigors of a badly polluted and still-developing country,
to the constraints on free expression and dissent, to the likely ongoing mediocrity of a university system that
emphasizes volume of output over independence or excellence of research, the realities of China heavily limit the
appeal of becoming Chinese. Because of its scale and internal diversity, China (like India) is a more racially open
society than, say, Japan or Korea. But China has come nowhere near the feats of absorption and
opportunity that make up much of America’s story, and it is very difficult to imagine that
it could do so—well, ever. Everything we know
1AR
Regs solve, cartels worse
Gilbert G. Garcia Law Firm ’14 (The Gilbert G. Garcia Law Firm, Texas Criminal Law Blog, “Marijuana Business Set to
be America's Next Great Industry and a Far Cry from Big Tobacco”,
http://www.texaspossessionofmarijuanalawyer.com/2014/05/marijuana-business-set-to-be-americas-next-great-industry-and-a-farcry-from-big-tobacco.html, May 29, 2014)
There is no question that the major tobacco industries for a time were grossly irresponsible in their promotions and commercial
sales of tobacco products. Tobacco industries misled the public on the harmful effects of tobacco use, marketed the product to
adolescents, and even persuaded physicians into endorsing cigarettes as medicine. A concern of many individuals regarding the
legalization of marijuana is that the marijuana industry will become another incarnation of the tobacco industry, bringing with it more
corporate greed rather than public good. As major investors, such as a former Microsoft manager, plan to pour millions of dollars
into the legal marijuana market, and as investor groups predict marijuana to become America's next great industry, the concern of
the possible emergence of "Big Marijuana" akin to "Big Tobacco" seems well warranted. "Big Marijuana" already exists in
the form of drug cartels. Well-drafted regulations could prevent gross irresponsibility in the legal
marijuana industry. Mexico's biggest agricultural import is marijuana, annually creating billions of dollars of revenue for drug cartels.
Estimates from Mexico's Attorney General's office reveals that the profits from the marijuana exported in the US make up about half
of drug cartels' overall revenues. Not only are drug cartels producing illicit marijuana in Mexico, they are growing marijuana in
national parks inside the U.S., through sophisticated networks designed to avoid the difficulty of smuggling drugs across the border.
Notorious for their brutality and criminal infestations of all elements of Mexican society, as well as rampant encroachments into the
U.S., the state of the marijuana market as it exits under marijuana prohibition only fuels organized crime to grow to powerful sizes.
As a result of marijuana legalization victories in Colorado and Washington state, estimates reveal that drug cartel profits could be
substantially reduced. Even if marijuana legalization nationwide somehow creates greedy profit-seeking
corporations, such corporate-control will nonetheless be a much better alternative to our current
system of cartel-run markets. Marijuana legalization could create a tobacco-type industry for cannabis conglomerates,
however stringent regulations imposed on emerging marijuana markets may control this problem.
For instance, Washington State mandates that only 334 marijuana stores can operate across the state. An individual can only own
up to three retail marijuana licenses. When an individual does hold multiple licenses, he cannot have more than 33% of the licenses
in a county. Retail license holders cannot be licensed to produce marijuana. Regarding advertising and labeling, ads or product
labels cannot be misleading, encourage over-consumption, claim that there are therapeutic benefits, or show children, toys, childlike cartoons, or any such imagery which is meant to encourage child marijuana use. Marijuana stores are not able to advertise
within 1,000 feet of schools, on buses, or on public property, and all advertising shall have health and safety warnings. Such
strong restrictions on the marijuana industry should prevent the dangerous concentration of corporate
power of the kind once wielded by the tobacco industry.
Not k2 heg
Not key to heg
Nuno P. Monteiro is an Assistant Professor of Political Science at Yale University, where he teaches International Relations
theory and security studies. He earned his Ph.D. in Political Science from the University of Chicago in 2009. “ Theory of Unipolar
Politics” (Cambridge University Press) April 2014 p. 14-17
At the same time, the
debate on unipolar durability is almost exclusively focused on differential rates
of economic growth and their determinants. Will China continue to grow faster than the United
States, or will its economic development slow down or even stall? When will China's economy overtake that of the United States?
What can the United States do to boost its own pace of economic growth? ¶ Although these are important
questions in their own right, they are nearly irrelevant for the durability of U.S. military power
preponderance. The reason is simple: military power is not a side product of economic development.
Rather, military power is the result of purposeful state action . Specifically, it is the product of a
decision by a state to invest a fraction of the country's wealth into the production of military
capabilities over time. As such, military power does not necessarily follow from economic growth.¶
Put in the context of a unipolar world in the nuclear age, this means that - independently from recurrent arguments about U.S.
economic decline - the power preponderance of the United States is not set to end . But, again, nowhere in the
literature do we have an argument laying out the conditions under which a unipolar distribution of military power is likely to end - or,
on the contrary, to endure for a long time even in the presence of a shifting distribution of economic power. This book sets out to
provide one such theory, refocusing the debate on unipolar durability from differential rates of economic growth to political decisions
to invest in additional military capabilities.
Econ’s resilient
Daniel W. Drezner 12, Professor, The Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy, Tufts University, October 2012, “The Irony of
Global Economic Governance: The System Worked,” http://www.globaleconomicgovernance.org/wp-content/uploads/IRColloquium-MT12-Week-5_The-Irony-of-Global-Economic-Governance.pdf
Prior to 2008, numerous foreign policy analysts had predicted a looming crisis in global economic
governance. Analysts only reinforced this perception since the financial crisis, declaring that we live in a “G-Zero” world.
This paper takes a closer look at the global response to the financial crisis. It reveals a more optimistic
picture. Despite initial shocks that were actually more severe than the 1929 financial crisis, global
economic governance structures responded quickly and robustly. Whether one measures results by economic
outcomes, policy outputs, or institutional flexibility, global economic governance has displayed surprising
resiliency since 2008. Multilateral economic institutions performed well in crisis situations to
reinforce open economic policies, especially in contrast to the 1930s. While there are areas where governance has
either faltered or failed, on the whole, the system has worked . Misperceptions about global economic governance
persist because the Great Recession has disproportionately affected the core economies – and because the efficiency of past
periods of global economic governance has been badly overestimated. Why the system has worked better than expected remains
an open question. The rest of this paper explores the possible role that the distribution of power, the robustness of international
regimes, and the resilience of economic ideas might have played.
Link
Productivity argument is flawed—workers wouldn’t be high on the job, and there
are no long-term effects
Dighe 14 (Ranjit, Professor of Economics, The State University of New York at Oswego, 1-30-14, "Legalize It -- The Economic
Argument" The Huffington Post, accessed 7-27-14) www.huffingtonpost.com/ranjit-dighe/legalize-marijuana-economicargument_b_4695023.html
As for the effect of marijuana on worker productivity, the first thing to note is that nobody is
advocating smoking marijuana or being high on the job, any more than anyone advocates
drinking or being drunk on the job. People are expected to show up for work sober, and
employers have always had the right to fire people who fail to meet that bas
ic requirement. The issue, then, is whether smoking marijuana in one's free time impairs one's job
performance. Long-term memory loss and "amotivational syndrome" have been alleged, but
decades' worth of studies have debunked both of those claims.
Ptx
Ukr
No Ukraine war
Clark, 14 [Christopher, General Editor at Urban Times, Former Deputy Editor of The Cape Town Globalist, Urban
Timeshttp://urbantimes.co/2014/03/5-reasons-why-the-ukrainian-crisis-is-unlikely-to-lead-to-world-war-iii/]
The Ukrainian Crisis Won't Lead To World War III The US Has Not Even Threatened To Use
Its Military
the possibility of the US deploying its army in Ukraine has not been
threatened as an option
political and economic isolation
of Russia will be favoured
5 Reasons Why
1.
It is telling that over the past couple of days
. Despite Secretary of State John Kerry’s assertion that “all options are on the table”, it appears that an attempted
method of punishing Putin’s indiscretions in Crimea. In a statement to the press, a senior US official indicated that military options were not currently being considered: “Rig ht now, I think we
the
are focused on political, diplomatic and economic options. Frankly our goal is to uphold the territorial integrity and sovereignty of Ukraine, not to have a military escalation … I don’t think we’re focused right now on the notion of som e U.S. military intervention. I don’t
Western Governments Would have Little Success In Selling Military
Intervention
Cameron and Obama will have learnt from their failure to win support for
military strikes on Syria
think that necessarily would be a way to de-escalate the situation.” 2.
Both David
Barack
. Despite Bashar al-Assad crossing Obama’s “red line” by using chemical weapons against his own people, the UK parliament voted against possible military strikes. The US Congress narrowly avoided
voting on what would have been an extremely divisive issue after a deal was brokered w
ith the Russians to pursue a diplomatic solution It is likely that
political support
a potential military intervention in Ukraine would receive
equally
scant
public and
in both countries. 3. Putin Would Not Have Invaded Had He Thought Military Retaliation Was Likely Vladamir Putin has proven time and time again to be a master strategist when it comes to international affairs. Last
year’s foreign policy victories over the US on Snowden and Syria proved this to be the case. If the immediate deployment of NATO troops to protect the Ukraine was likely, the invasion of Crimea would have been a reckless and potentially suicidal act on Moscow’s
part, regardless of its significant interests in the Ukraine. The West’s inability to act against Assad in Syria will have fed into Russian confidence in acting in such a heavy handed manner in the Ukraine. Moreover, US and European impotence during the 2008
invasion of Georgia will have provided further assurances of Moscow’s impunity in carrying out regional relations as it sees fit. Once more, Forbes magazine’s most powerful man has defied the West. Putin has acted strongly and decisively, placing the ball firmly in
the court of Obama and his allies. 4. David Vs. Goliath Without the assurance of western military intervention backing them up, Ukraine’s fledgling government will be very reluctant to act alone against the Russian forces currently occupying the Crimean Peninsula.
Despite the government calling up all army reservists and Ukrainians volunteering for military service in their droves, the size and fire-power of the Ukrainian army is dwarfed by that of its powerful neighbour. Ukrainian forces dispatched to Crimea in the past few
days have already begun to surrender and in some cases switch allegiance to the pro-Russian local authorities. 5.
M
utually
A
ssured
D
estruction The threat of nuclear war will make direct conflict between the US and Russia extremely unlikely
The
military doctrine
will remain a significant deterrent in
the Ukrainian case. Despite
bitter military rivalry and arms race
the US and Soviet
Union never engaged in direct confrontation
as each was aware of the
consequences of nuclear war With both the US and Russia holding considerable military nuclear
capabilities, the possibility of direct military confrontation is very low
Cold War
which has so far ensured no two nuclear powers have engaged in a full scale military conflict
enduring a
which lasted for over 4 decades,
with each other
side
potentially catastrophic
.
.
Keystone 1AR
Keystone thumps
FOX NEWS 1—8, http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2015/01/08/mcconnell-keystone-senate/
Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell blasted President Obama on Wednesday for vowing to veto the first bill of
the new, Republican-controlled Senate -- legislation to approve the controversial Keystone XL oil pipeline. In his first major floor
speech as majority leader, the Kentucky Republican pushed for bipartisan cooperation on major issues but said it could "only be
achieved if, if, President Obama is interested in it." He added: "And I assure you, threatening to veto a jobs and infrastructure
bill within minutes of a new Congress taking the oath of office -- a bill with strong bipartisan support -- is
anything but productive." McConnell's top lieutenants echoed his concerns, with Senate Majority Whip John Cornyn, RTexas, calling the "premature" veto threats "deeply irresponsible and troubling." The White House on Tuesday threatened to veto
two pieces of legislation being produced by the new Congress -- one related to ObamaCare and the economy, and the other on the
Keystone pipeline. On Wednesday, the White House issued formal statements vowing to veto the bills. On the Keystone bill, the
White House claimed the legislation would prevent "the thorough consideration of complex issues that could bear on U.S. national
interests." The Obama administration wants to let a separate State Department review process play out, though pipeline supporters
complain that process already has been underway for years. The veto threat over Keystone sets up a looming
showdown between Obama and the GOP-controlled Congress, while underscoring the deep tensions
likely to persist as majority Republicans challenge the president's agenda during his final two years in office. As the Senate
moves ahead with its own legislation -- with sponsors claiming to have more than enough votes to pass it -- the House is set
to vote on its version on Friday.
Keystone pounds---alienates Dems and draws in Obama
Kevin Cirilli 1/4, Political Reporter at The Hill, “Dem 'very frustrated' with Obama on Keystone,” http://thehill.com/policy/energyenvironment/228442-dem-very-frustrated-with-obama-on-keystone-xl
Sen. Amy Klobuchar (D-Minn.) said Sunday that she is "very frustrated" with President Obama and his
handling of the Keystone XL pipeline project.¶ Her comments come ahead of a tough vote for Democrats
on the pipeline , which environmentalists oppose, when Republicans take back control of the Congress.¶ "I'm getting very frustrated with this...
I don't think you're going to see a lot of votes switching on the Democratic side," Klobuchar said on NBC's "Meet The Press." "I
think the president needs to make a decision. A lot of us are frustrated it has taken this long."¶ Sen. John Barrasso (R-Wyo.) said
on the same panel that Republicans would make the issue one of their first priorities when they return for session
this week.¶ "The president is going to see the Keystone XL pipeline on his desk," he said. " It is going to be a bellwether decision
by the president whether to go with jobs and the economy."
No TTIP 1AR
No TTIP—especially on agricultural issues
Durkin 10-30-14 (Joel, staff writer, "Transatlantic trade deal between US and EU 'may not happen'" Farmers Guardian)
www.farmersguardian.com/home/business/transatlantic-trade-deal-between-us-and-eu-may-not-happen/68221.article
A FREE trade agricultural agreement with the US may never happen, trade chiefs have warned. With negotiations
currently stalling on the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP) due to American mid-term elections in
November, the US Meat Export Federation has outlined several possible stumbling blocks to a deal’s
completion. A completed TTIP agreement could create the world’s largest bilateral trade deal. Several EU-based food
groups have expressed concerns over the deal’s implications. These include the possibility of GM and
hormone-treated foods from the US competing with EU produce on the common market. Speaking to Farmers
Guardian at SIAL food exhibition in Paris, John Brook, regional director for Europe, Russia and the Middle East for the US Meat
Export Federation, said people had speculated over whether a TTIP deal would include agriculture. Talking about whether
agriculture would be left out of a deal, he said: “The question is very much there.” He claimed US officials wanted ‘full’ market
access, and while discussions had not begun on agriculture, voices within the EU had already ruled out food standards being
compromised. “It undermines the principle [of a free trade deal]. Both sides have yet to engage,” he said. “There
are massive difficulties for both sides and it is likely we will see everything else moving forward and agriculture will be
left to the very end.”
5
Miranda doc
Warming Bad: Ag—A2 “Adaptation”
Predictions are getting worse—will exacerbate underlying problems
Seth Borenstein, AP, “Global Warming Impact Could Spiral ‘Out of Control’ without Drastic Change in Emissions: UN Scientific
Panel,” NATIONAL POST, 3—31—14, http://news.nationalpost.com/2014/03/31/global-warming-impact-could-spiral-out-of-controlwithout-drastic-change-in-emissions-un-scientific-panel/, accessed 4-21-14.
These risks are both big
farmers and big cities. Some
and small, according to the report. They are now and in the future. They hit
places will have too much water, some not enough, including drinking water.
Other risks mentioned in the report involve the price and availability of food, and to a lesser and
more qualified extent some diseases, financial costs and even world peace . “ Things are worse
than we had predicted” in 2007, when the group of scientists last issued this type of report, said report co-author
Saleemul Huq, director of the International Centre for Climate Change and Development at the Independent University in
Bangladesh. “We are going to see more and more impacts, faster and sooner than we had
anticipated.” The problems have gotten so bad that the panel had to add a new and dangerous
level of risks. In 2007, the biggest risk level in one key summary graphic was “high” and colored
blazing red. The latest report adds a new level, “very high,” and colors it deep purple. You might
as well call it a “horrible” risk level, said van Aalst: “The horrible is something quite likely, and we won’t be able to
do anything about it.” The report predicts that the highest level of risk would first hit plants and animals,
both on land and the acidifying oceans. Climate change will worsen problems that society already
has, such as poverty, sickness, violence and refugees, according to the report. And on the other
end, it will act as a brake slowing down the benefits of a modernizing society, such as regular
economic growth and more efficient crop production, it says.
CP
CEAs link more than the plan to politics
Taylor 13 (Stuart, Nonresident Senior Fellow, The Brookings Institution, 4-15-13, "MARIJUANA LEGALIZATION: ARE THERE
ALTERNATIVES TO STATE-FEDERAL CONFLICT?" Brookings Institution)
www.brookings.edu/~/media/events/2013/4/15%20marijuana/20130415_marijuana_federalism_transcript.pdf
MR. RAUCH: Stuart, I have a question for you. Then we’ll go back over here, but
suppose that the administration were
to follow your advice and go with c ooperative e nforcement a greement s? And the next thing that
happens is generic conservative Republican in Congress files the impeachment resolution saying they
don’t have the authority under the law. And then the very next thing they do is conservative advocacy
groups decide to file suit against the administration. Who has standing to force the administration to take a
stronger, not weaker, position against state initiatives than it would like? MR. TAYLOR: I doubt that anyone would have legal
standing. That’s a tricky question to answer on the fly, but it’s hard for me to think of any individual who could advance the sort of
arm to me from what you’re doing to map marijuana that would pass muster with the Supreme Court. As for the impeachment
resolution, whatever the politics of it, I think it would be legally frivolous. There’s such a thing as prosecutorial discretion. The federal
government never prosecutes the millions of people -- or almost never -- the millions of people who violate federal law on marijuana
every month by consuming it. Federal law makes that a crime. They don’t prosecute it. In states that have for many years, since
Oregon started it, decriminalized marijuana, they don’t go after people who get the traffic ticket form. They don’t go after medical
marijuana patients anywhere. They don’t go after medical marijuana suppliers in some states, although they do go after them in
others. And, therefore, the idea that they just have to prosecute everybody to the fullest all the time is at war with history and at war
with commonsense and at war with the law. MR. RAUCH: So if their policy is cooperative enforcement agreements, if that’s what
they want to do, they can probably make that stick as a matter of law. MR. TAYLOR: As a legal matter, they can. Now, whether
they will get so much political flack for it that it costs them more than they think it’s worth is a more
complicated question, which Mark may know more than I do.