1NC
1NC
Interpretation and violation---legalization requires removal of all penalties and
creation of a commodity/activity-specific regulation---the aff is only the former which
means they’re not topical
CLB ‘14 – The Canna Law Group™ is a five-attorney dedicated practice group of Harris Moure, focusing
on cannabis corporate, compliance, intellectual property, litigation, and consumer product issues
“Marijuana Decriminalization Versus Legalization: A Difference That Matters” [http://www.cannalawblog.com/marijuana-decriminalizationversus-legalization-cause-it-matters/] July 1 //Many
people use decriminalization and legalization synonymously and
not correct.¶ Decriminalization essentially means that a given activity no longer
qualifies as criminal conduct and can only be treated as a civil infraction, but that activity is unregulated.
Legalization ultimately means the ability to lawfully regulate a given activity, as well as the fact that that
activity is no longer considered criminal conduct. A great article highlighting the staggering differences between
interchangeably, and that’s
decriminalization and legalization is by The Economist, entitled “A half-smoked joint: Decriminalizing drugs leaves the crooks with the cash.
Legalize drugs instead.”
‘Should’ in the resolution implies mandatory action
WEBSTER ONLINE DICTIONARY 2003. Available from the World Wide Web at:
www.onelook.com, accessed 4/2/06.
Used in laws, regulations, or directives to express what is mandatory
Resolved means make a definite decision
Websters no date
(http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/resolve)
to make a definite and serious decision to do something
Legalization requires making marijuana legal for consumption and production under a
regulatory regime
Leicht 14
Angela, “FYI: Decriminalization of Cannabis Does Not Mean Weed Will Be Legal in Texas”
[http://blogs.houstonpress.com/artattack/2014/01/fyi_decriminalization_of_canna.php] January 31 //
Unfortunately, the short answer to that question is "no." Decriminalization is not equivalent to legalization of
marijuana in any form or fashion , although the two terms are often used interchangeably. There are some big differences
between the two terms, and they're differences you might want to know about, because the differences could mean rehab on one hand,
and a thriving pot industry on the other.¶ When it comes to decriminalization, the term means what it sounds like.
To decriminalize
pot means that it would no longer be a crime for which you would face jail time for simply possessing
pot, but pot as a substance is still completely illegal. If it's on you, you can still be punished for it, just
not in criminal court. And if you're selling it -- even in a less shady "pot shop" -- you can still face criminal charges, because selling
pot remains a criminal offense under decriminalization.¶ And legalization is a term that also means what it sounds like. To legalize pot
is to allow the sale and use of cannabis to adults, with regulations on the sale of marijuana, much like
the ones that exist for the sale of alcohol. Under legalization, pot is legal, you can use it if you're an
adult, and if you're a licensed, taxed and regulated business, you can sell it. Legalization is worlds
away from decriminalization .
Removing marihuana from the CSA doesn’t legalize marihuana in the United States – it
just makes state policy precedent, so post plan it’s still illegal in 48 states
Altieri 13 – NORML Communications Director
Erik, “Everything You Wanted to Know About the New Federal Marijuana Legalization Measures”
[http://blog.norml.org/2013/02/05/everything-you-wanted-to-know-about-the-new-federal-marijuanalegalization-measures/] February 5 //
Today, Representatives Jared Polis and Earl Blumenauer introduced two legislative measures that would end the federal
prohibition on marijuana and permit for the regulated production and retail sales of cannabis to adults in states that have legalized its
consumption.¶ Representative Polis’ legislation, The Ending Marijuana Prohibition Act of 2013, would remove marijuana
from the Controlled Substances Act, transfer the Drug Enforcement Administration’s authority to regulate marijuana to a newly
renamed Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Marijuana and Firearms, require commercial marijuana producers to purchase a permit, and ensure
federal law distinguishes between individuals who grow marijuana for personal use and those involved in commercial sale and distribution.¶
Speaking on the bill, Rep. Polis stated, “This legislation doesn’t force any state to legalize marijuana, but Colorado and the 18 other jurisdictions
that have chosen to allow marijuana for medical or recreational use deserve the certainty of knowing that federal agents won’t raid state-legal
businesses. Congress should simply allow states to regulate marijuana as they see fit and stop wasting federal tax dollars on the failed drug
war.”¶ Representative Blumenauer’s legislation is aimed at creating a federal tax structure which would allow for the federal government to
collect excise taxes on marijuana sales and businesses in states that have legalized its use. The Marijuana Tax Equity Act, would impose an
excise tax on the first sale of marijuana, from the producer to the next stage of production, usually the processor. These regulations are similar
to those that now exist for alcohol and tobacco. The bill will also require the IRS to produce a study of the industry after two years, and every
five years after that, and to issue recommendations to Congress to continue improving the administration of the tax.¶ “We are in the process of
a dramatic shift in the marijuana policy landscape,” said Rep. Blumenauer. “Public attitude, state law, and established practices are all creating
irreconcilable difficulties for public officials at every level of government. We want the federal government to be a responsible partner with the
rest of the universe of marijuana interests while we address what federal policy should be regarding drug taxation, classification, and legality.Ӧ
You can use NORML’s Take Action Center here to easily contact your elected officials and urge them to support these measures.¶ These two
pieces of legislation are historic in their scope and forward looking nature and it is likely you have many unanswered questions. NORML has
compiled the below FAQs to hopefully address many of these inquiries.¶ FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS¶ Q: Would
this make
No , but it would allow states who wish to pursue legalization to do so
marijuana legal everywhere?¶ A:
without federal incursion. Currently, the federal government claims that state laws which have legalized medical and recreational
marijuana use are in conflict with federal law. It is under this claim that they raid medical marijuana dispensaries, arrest consumers, etc. If
these measures were to pass, marijuana law would be the domain of the states. If a state choses to
legalize and regulate its use, it can do so in the way it would any other product and the federal government would issue permits to
commercial growers and sellers and collect tax revenue. If a state choses to retain marijuana prohibition, they may as
well, and the federal government would assist in stopping flow of marijuana into the state’s borders, as transporting marijuana from a
legalized state into one retaining prohibition would still be illegal under this legislation
It’s a voting issue for neg ground----legalize v. decrim is a core negative strategy across
all topic areas---their interpretation devolves into stale, processed-based debate
1NC
Text: The fifty United States state governments and relevant United States territories
should legalize Marihuana.
State legalization alone solves – allows use, creates norms, and sends a signal – anticommandeering clause means no preemption
Mikos 12 {Professor of Law and the Director of the Program in Law and Government (Vanderbilt), J.D.
Summa Cum Laude (UM), former articles editor on the Michigan Law Review, former professor at CalDavis, Notre Dame and UM focusing on Federalism, Constitutional Law, Marijuana Law and Policy,
Federal Criminal Law, and Drug Law and Policy, "On the Limits of Federal Supremacy When States Relax
(or Abandon) Marijuana Bans," CATO Policy Analysis No. 714, 12/12,
http://www.cato.org/sites/cato.org/files/pubs/pdf/PA714.pdf}
This paper also explains why permissive state laws matter: states are able to foster, or at least enable, federally proscribed
behavior, even when they cannot engage in, require, or facilitate it—or block federal authorities from imposing their own harsh sanctions on
it—that is, even when states cannot depart from the state of nature. The federal government does not have the law
enforcement resources needed to enforce its bans vigorously (although this could vary somewhat by con text), and its
ability to marshal the most important private and social behavioral influences to enhance compliance with its bans is likewise limited.202 As a
practical matter, by
simply legalizing a given behavior, the states can remove or at least diminish the most
significant barriers inhibiting that behavior, including state legal sanctions (which often can be enforced vigorously)
and the person al, moral, and social disapproval of the behavior as well. Though Congress has banned marijuana outright through legislation
that has sur vived Supreme Court scrutiny, state laws legalizing medical use of marijuana not only remain in effect, they now constitute the de
facto governing law in 18 states. These state
laws and most related regulations have not been—arid, more interestingly, cannot be—
preempted by Congress, given constraints imposed on Congress’s preemption power by the anticommandeering rule, properly understood. Just as importantly, these state laws matter, state legalization of medical marijuana has not
only eliminated the most relevant legal barrier to using the drug. it has arguably fostered more tolerant per sonal and social attitudes toward
the drug. In sum, medical marijuana use has survived and, indeed, thrived in the shadow of the federal ban. The war over medical marijuana
may be largely over, though skirmishes will undoubtedly continue, but contrary
to conventional wisdom, it is the states, and
not the federal government, that have emerged the victors in this struggle. Supremacy, in short, has its limits.
1NC
The aff’s notion of legal reform props up regulatory capitalism – this normalizes and
sustains neoliberal control of social relations
LEVI-FAUR 05 David Levi-Faur, senior research fellow at RegNet, the Research School of the Social
Science, Australian National University, and a senior lecturer (on leave) at the University of Haifa. His
professional interests include comparative politics, comparative political economy, and comparative
public policy. He is currently studying the rise of regulatory capitalism and has published an edited
volume (with Jacint Jordana), The Politics of Regulation (Edward Elgar, 2004). He is also the guest editor
of a special issue of Governance (forthcoming 2006) on varieties of regulatory capitalism, “THE RISE OF
REGULATORY CAPITALISM: THE GLOBAL DIFFUSION OF A NEW ORDER: SPECIAL EDITORS: DAVID LEVIFAUR, JACINT JORDANA: SECTION ONE: GLOBALIZATION AS A DIFFUSION PROCESS: THEORETICAL
FRAMEWORK: The Global Diffusion of Regulatory Capitalism”, The American Academy of Political and
Social Science, March, 2005, Lexis.
[*12] Ours is an era of change, and indeed change is prevalent everywhere, from Latin America to eastern Europe, from southern Europe to
northern Europe and from Africa to Asia. n1 Such change
is commonly captured in the notions of privatization and
deregulation and understood as the outcome of the rise of neoliberalism and the sweeping forces of economic
globalization. n2 Yet it has significant regulatory components that go largely unnoticed and that are incompatible
with either neoliberalism or economic globalization.¶ [*13] This volume highlights the globalization of regulation and the regulatory
components that are transforming the neoliberal agenda of deregulation and privatization in unexpected ways. Governance through
regulation (that is, via rule making and rule enforcement) is at the same time both constraining and encouraging the
spread of neoliberal reforms. Regulatory expansion has acquired a life and dynamics of its own. Regulatory solutions that were
shaped in North America and Europe are increasingly internationalized and projected globally. Deregulation proved to be a
limited element of the reforms in governance and, where it occurred, it was followed either immediately or somewhat later with new
regulations. These regulations are shaping a new global order that reflects the set of problems and
solutions that were socially and politically constructed in some dominant countries and regions. While the ideals of
democratic participation and discursive democracy have gained some prominence in recent decades, the reality is that many supposedly
sovereign polities are increasingly rule takers rather than rule makers (Braithwaite and Drahos 2000, 3-4). We could now be experiencing a
transformation from representative democracy to indirect representative democracy. Democratic
governance is no longer
about the delegation of authority to elected representative but a form of second-level indirect
representative democracy -- citizens elect representatives who control and supervise "experts" who
formulate and administer policies in an autonomous fashion from their regulatory bastions (van Waarden
2003).¶ Bits and pieces of this new order have been expressed and explored through the notions of the rise of the
regulatory state (Majone 1997), the postregulatory state (Scott 2004), the "deregulation revolution that
wasn't" (Vogel 1996), the legalization of international relations (Goldstein et al. 2001), adversarial legalism (Kagan
2001; Keleman 2004), regulation inside government (Hood et al. 1999), the "audit society" (Power 1999), the regulatory
society (Braithwaite 2003), the growth of internal control systems in corporations (Parker 2002), and the
proliferation of instruments of smart regulation (Gunningham and Grabosky 1998). Each of these notions captures
some important aspects of the new order, but they are not usually explored as the interrelated elements of regulatory
capitalism. There may well be some advantages in exploring these elements of the new order in an interrelated way. Thus, it is argued that
a new division of labor between state and society (e.g., privatization) is accompanied by an increase in delegation, proliferation of new
technologies of regulation, formalization of interinstitutional and intrainstitutional relations, and the proliferation of mechanisms of selfregulation in the shadow of the state. Regulation, though not necessarily in the old-fashioned mode of command and control n3 and not
directly exercised by the state, seems to be the wave of the future, and the current wave of regulatory reforms constitutes a new chapter in the
history of regulation.¶ Much debate has taken place over the causes and impact of neoliberalism, but few doubt that neoliberalism has become
an important part of our world (Campbell and Pedersen 2001, 1; Crouch and Streeck 1997; Hirst and Thompson 1996; Kitschelt et al. 1999). Yet
a revisionist literature on the impact of neoliberal reforms is increasingly challenging the notion of neoliberal change and the consolidation of
[*14] a neoliberal hegemonic order. Thus, Frank Castles's (2004) work on welfare state expenditure seems to provide conclusive evidence that
welfare state expenditure across the rich countries did not decline. Linda Weiss's critique of the Myth of the Powerless State (1998) and her
emphasis on the persistence of neomercantilist strategies in foreign economic relations seem now not to attract dissent but to reflect the
consensus. Swank and Steinmo (2002) found "remarkable stability in the levels and distribution of tax burdens" across the fourteen developed
economies and that statutory cuts in tax rates were not associated with reductions in effective average tax burdens. A
recent review of
the globalization literature across the social sciences concluded that "the most persuasive empirical
work to date indicates that globalization per se neither undermines the nation-state nor erodes the
viability of the welfare state" (Guillen 2001, 254). While neoliberalism may well be the dominant discourse,
it is not the only discourse available. This volume suggests that the discourse of regulatory reform and "good governance" both
complements the neoliberal reforms and poses a challenge to some of its simplistic assumptions about the nature of the relations between
politics and the economy in general and the state and the market in particular (cf. Campbell and Pedersen 2001, 3). Consequently, it adds
another dimension to this revisionist view of the effects of neoliberalism and the rise of a new global order. While
at the ideological
level neoliberalism promotes deregulation, at the practical level it promotes, or at least is accompanied by,
regulation. The results are often contradictory and unintended, and the new global order may well be
most aptly characterized as "regulatory capitalism."¶ The new regulatory order is social, political, and economic. State,
markets, and society are not distinct entities. Indeed, regulatory capitalism rests on an understanding
of the relations between state and market along a condominium (Underhill 2003). n4 The state is embedded in the
economic and social order; any change in the state is expected to be reflected in the economy and the society, and vice versa. That much is
reflected through the various dimensions of regulation. Thus, efficient markets do not exist outside the state and the society in which they
operate, and efficient markets may require not only strong regulatory frameworks but also efficient ones (Polanyi 1944; Underhill 2003).
Elsewhere I have argued that regulation-for-competition may be a necessary condition for competition both in network industries and well
beyond them (Levi-Faur 1998). Efficiency is often achieved through smart regulations that are a sine qua non for the efficient function of
markets. At the same time, the
legitimacy of capitalism rests on the ability of government to mitigate negative
externalities through "social regulation" (or the regulation of risk). Regulation is both a constitutive element of capitalism (as
the framework that enables markets) and the tool that moderates and socializes it (the regulation of risk). From this point of view, the history
of economic development is the history of regulation.
Neoliberalism’s emphasis on individuality over collective action lead to an unending
war and massive human suffering-there is no value to life in their framework
Giroux, 06 [Henry, chair of cultural studies at McMaster University, Dirty Democracy and State
Terrorism: The Politics of the New Authoritarianism in the United States, Comparative Studies of South
Asia, Africa and the Middle East 26.2 (2006) 163-177,
http://muse.jhu.edu.proxy.library.emory.edu/journals/comparative_studies_of_south_asia_africa_and_
the_middle_east/v026/26.2giroux.html]
As the state of emergency, in Giorgio Agamben's aptly chosen words, becomes the rule rather than the exception, a
number of powerful antidemocratic tendencies threaten the prospects for both American and global
democracy.10 The first is a market fundamentalism that not only trivializes democratic values and
public concerns but also enshrines a rabid individualism , an all-embracing quest for profits, and a
social Darwinism in which misfortune is seen as a weakness—the current sum total being the Hobbesian rule of a "war
of all against all" that replaces any vestige of shared responsibilities or compassion for others. The values of the market and the
ruthless workings of finance capital become the template for organizing the rest of society. Everybody is now
a customer or client , and every relationship is ultimately judged in bottom-line, cost-effective terms
as the neoliberal mantra "privatize or perish" is repeated over and over again. Responsible citizens are replaced
by an assemblage of entrepreneurial subjects, each tempered in the virtue of self-reliance and forced to face the increasingly difficult
challenges of the social order alone. Freedom is no longer about securing equality, social justice, or the public welfare but about unhampered
trade in goods, financial capital, and commodities. As
the logic of capital trumps democratic sovereignty, low-
intensity warfare at home chips away at democratic freedoms, and high-intensity warfare abroad
delivers democracy with bombs, tanks, and chemical warfare . The global cost of these neoliberal commitments
is massive human suffering and death, delivered not only in the form of bombs and the barbaric practices of occupying
armies but also in structural adjustment policies in which the drive for land, resources, profits, and goods are implemented by
global financial institutions such as the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund. Global
lawlessness and armed
violence accompany the imperative of free trade, the virtues of a market without boundaries , and
the promise of a Western-style democracy imposed through military solutions, ushering in the age of
rogue sovereignty on a global scale. Under such conditions, human suffering and hardship reach
unprecedented levels of intensity. In a rare moment of truth, Thomas Friedman, the columnist for the New York Times, precisely
argued for the use of U.S. power—including military force—to support this antidemocratic world order. He claimed that "the hidden hand of
the market will never work without the hidden fist. . . . And the hidden fist that keeps the world safe for Silicon Valley's technologies to flourish
is called the US Army, Air Force, Navy and Marine Corps."11 As Mark Rupert points out, "In Friedman's twisted world, if people are to realize
their deepest aspirations—the longing for a better life which comes from their very souls—they must stare down the barrel of [End Page 165]
Uncle Sam's gun."12 As neoliberals in the Bush administration implement policies at home to reduce taxation and regulation while spending
billions on wars abroad, they slash funds that benefit the sick, the elderly, the poor, and young people. But public resources are diverted not
only from crucial domestic problems ranging from poverty and unemployment to hunger; they are also diverted from addressing the fate of
some 45 million children in "the world's poor countries [who] will die needlessly over the next decade," as reported by the British-based group
Oxfam.13 The
U.S. commitment to market fundamentalism elevates profits over human needs and
consequently offers few displays of compassion, aid, or relief for millions of poor and abandoned children in the world who
do not have adequate shelter, who are severely hungry, who have no access to health care or safe water, and who succumb needlessly to the
ravages of AIDS and other diseases.14 For instance, as Jim Lobe points out, "U.S. foreign aid in 2003 ranked dead last among all wealthy
nations. In fact, its entire development aid spending in 2003 came to only ten percent of what it spent on the Iraq war that year. U.S.
development assistance comes to less than one-fortieth of its annual defense budget."15 Carol Bellamy, the executive director of UNICEF,
outlines the consequences of the broken promises to children by advanced capitalist countries such as the United States.
The alternative is to vote negative to endorse a radical break from neoliberal market
society---we should use educational spaces to create networks of resistance to capital.
Henry Giroux, currently holds the Global TV Network Chair Professorship at McMaster University in the
English and Cultural Studies Department and a Distinguished Visiting Professorship at Ryerson
University, “Beyond Savage Politics and Dystopian Nightmares” ‘13
Right-wing market fundamentalists want to root out those considered defective consumers and citizens,
along with allegedly unpatriotic dissidents. They also want to punish the poor and remove their children from the possibility of
a quality public education. Hence, they develop schools that are dead zones of the imagination for most children and highly creative classroom
environments free of the frenzy of empiricism and test-taking for the children of the rich. It gets worse. In Pennsylvania, right-wing Gov. Tom
Corbett and Philadelphia Mayor Michael Nutter are intent on destroying the public school system. Instead of funding public schools, Corbett
and Nutter are intent on crushing the teachers union and supporting vouchers and charter schools. They also are fond of claiming that money
can’t help struggling public schools as a pretext for closing more than 23 schools “while building a $400 million state prison.”[xv] As Aaron Kase
reports, “Things have gotten so bad that at least one school has asked parents to chip in $613 per student just so they can open with adequate
services, which, if it becomes the norm, effectively defeats the purpose of equitable public education, and is entirely unreasonable to expect
from the city’s poorer neighborhoods.”[xvi] Vouchers and under-regulated charter schools have become the unapologetic face of a vicious form
of casino capitalism waging war on the imagination while imposing a range of harsh and punitive disciplinary methods on teachers and
students, particularly low-income and poor white minorities.[xvii] The
vast stores of knowledge and human creativity
needed by young people to face a range of social, economic and political problems in the future are not
simply being deferred, they are being systematically destroyed. When the emancipatory potential of education does emerge, it is
often couched in the deadening discourse of establishing comfort zones in classrooms as a way of eliminating any pedagogy that provokes,
unsettles or educates students to think critically. Critical
knowledge and pedagogy are now judged as viable only to
the degree that they do not make a student uncomfortable. There is more at stake here than the
death of the imagination; there is also the elimination of those modes of agency that make a democracy
possible. In the face of such cruel injustices, neoliberalism remains mute, disdaining democratic politics by claiming
there are no alternatives to casino capitalism. Power in the United States has been uprooted from any respect for public value, the
common good and democratic politics. This is not only visible in the fact that 1 percent of the population now owns 40 percent of the nation’s
wealth or took home “more than half of the nation’s income,” it is also evident in a culture that normalizes, legitimates and thrives in a politics
of humiliation, cruelty, racism and class discrimination.[xviii] Political, moral and economic foundations float free of constraints. Moral and
social responsibilities are unmoored, free from any sense of responsibility or accountability in a permanent war state. Repression is now the
dominant mantra for all of society. As Zygmunt Bauman and David Lyons point out, the
American public has been turned into
“ security addicts ,” ingesting mistrust, suspicion and fear as the new common sense for a security
state that seems intent on causing the death of everything
that matters in a democracy.[xix] The surveillance state
works hard to not only monitor our phone conversations or track our Internet communication but to turn us into consumers, ratchet up the
desire to be watched, and enforce new registers of social exclusion between those inside and outside the official temples of consumerism,
social rights and captainship itself. Confining, excluding and vigilantism is one register of the new face of authoritarianism in the US. As America
enters a historical era dominated by an authoritarian repressive state, the refugee camp as a symbol of exclusion and suffering is everywhere,
visible in the material encampments for the homeless, urban ghettoes, jails, detention centers for young people, and in the tents propping up
alongside highways that hold the new refugees from the suburbs who have lost their jobs, homes and dignity. The
refugee camp also
has become a metaphor for those who question authority, because they are increasingly rendered
stateless, useless and undesirable. Critical thought is now considered dangerous , discomforting and
subject to government prosecution, as is evident in the war being waged against whistleblowers in the name of national
(in)security.[xx] The technologies of smart missiles hunt down those considered enemies of the United
States, removing the ethical imagination from the horror of the violence it inflicts while solidifying the “victory of technology
over ethics.”[xxi] Sorting out populations based on wealth, race, the ability to consume and immigration status is the new face of America.
The pathologies of inequality have come home to roost in America.[xxii] Moreover, as suffering increases
among vast swaths of the population, the corporate elite and rich use the proliferating crises to
extract more wealth, profits and resources.[xxiii] Crises become the new rationale for destroying the
ideologies, values and institutions that give power to the social contract. [xxiv] The ethos of rabid
individualism , hyper-masculinity and a survival-of-the-fittest ethic has created a society of
throwaways of both goods and people. The savage ethic of economic Darwinism also drives the stories we
now tell about ourselves. The state of collective unconsciousness that haunts America has its deepest
roots not only in the writings of Friedrich Hyek, Ayn Rand, Milton Friedman and other neoliberal philosophers but also
in the increasing merging power of private-sector corporations that, as John Ralston Saul has argued, has its roots
in the “anti-democratic underpinnings of Fascist Italy in particular, but also of Nazi Germany .”[xxv] Today this
“corporatism [is] so strong it that it has taken the guts out of much of daily democratic life.”[xxvi] Combined
with the power of the national surveillance state, it is fair to say, again quoting Saul, that “corporatism, with all of the problems attached to it, is
digging itself ever deeper into our society, undermining our society.”[xxvii] Clearly, those words echoed a few years ago were not only prescient
but vastly underestimated the growing authoritarianism in the United States, in particular. We
now live in a society in which
leadership has been usurped by models of corporate management, self-interest has triumphed over the
ethical imagination, and a respect for others is discarded for the crude instrumental goal of
accumulating capital, regardless of the social costs . Intellectuals in too many public spheres have become either
dysfunctional or they have sold out. Higher education is no longer the city on the hill. Instead it has become a corporate
boardroom/factory in which Bill Gates wannabes govern the university as if it were an outpost of Wall
Street. Outside of the boardrooms, intellectual violence prevails aimed largely at faculty and students, who are reduced to either grant
writers or consumers. To make matters worse academic knowledge is drowning in firewalls of obtuseness, creating a world of dysfunctional
intellectuals, at least those who have tenure. Those who don’t have such security are tied to the harsh rhythm and rituals of contingent
subaltern labor and barely make enough money to be able to pay their rent or mounting debts - never mind engage in teaching critically and
creatively while writing as a sustained act of dissent. At the same time, the wider culture is sinking under a flood of consumer and celebrity
idiocy. There
are some who suggest that such critiques of the growing authoritarianism and repression in
American society are useless and in the long run do nothing more than reinforce a crippling dystopianism. I
think this line of argument is not only wrong but complicitous with the very problems it refuses to
acknowledge. From a left suffocating in cynicism, there is the argument that people are already aware of these problems, as if neoliberal
hegemony does not exist and that its success in building a consensus around its ideology as a mode of common sense is passé. At the same
time, liberals
detest such criticism because it calls into question the totality of American politics rather
than focus on one issue and gestures toward a radical restructuring of American society rather than
piecemeal and useless reforms. The call for such a restructuring rather than piecemeal reforms sends liberals into
fits of hysteria. Of course, the right in all of its varieties views criticism as a virus that destroys everything they admire about America - a
society in which democracy has been eviscerated and largely benefits the top ten percent of the population. Most importantly, the banality
of evil lies less in the humdrum cruelty of everyday relations but in its normalization, the depolicitizaton of
culture, and, at the present moment, in the reproduction of a neoliberal society that eradicates any vestige of
public values, the ethical imagination, social responsibility, civic education and democratic social
relations. The enemy is not a market economy but a market society and the breakdown of all forms
of social solidarity that inform democratic politics and the cultural, political and economic institutions
that make it possible. The authoritarianism that now shapes American society is not a matter of fate but one
rooted in organized struggle and a vision built on the recognition that there are always alternatives to
the existing order that speak to the promise of a democracy to come. The contradictions of neoliberalism are
unraveling, but the consensus that informs it is alive and well. And it is at that level of educational
intervention that the war against market authoritarianism in all of its diverse forms has to be fought first .
Commonsense has become the enemy of critical thought. Hope is no longer part of the discourse of the left, only a
dreary sense of despair with no vision of how to imagine a radical democracy. Manufactured ignorance has become a virtue
instead of a liability in a society ruled by the financial elite. And as such we have no serious crisis of ideas. Instead, we
have a crisis of power relations and structures that needs a new political language if it is to be
contested at the level of both a pedagogical and political struggle. The current neoliberal drive to
ruthlessly extend the never-ending task of accumulating capital is matched only by its ruthless determination to
produce a notion of common sense that reinforces the idea that there is no way to think beyond the
present system. The American public needs to break the authoritarian dysimagination machine that
affirms everyone as a consumer and reduces freedom to unchecked self-interest while reproducing subjects who are willingly
complicit with the plundering of the environment, resources and public goods by the financial elite. Class and racial warfare are
alive and well in the United States. In fact, racism and the class warfare waged by right-wing politicians, bankers, hedge fund
managers and the corporate rich are intensifying. Americans need to reject a politics in which public goods are
demonized and eradicated, African-American youths become the fodder for wars abroad and the
military-prison-industrial complex, the underclass disappears, public servants are disparaged, youths
vanish into debt and despair, and the middle class passes into oblivion. While politics must be connected to its
material moorings, it is not enough to imagine a different future than the one that now hangs over us like a suffocating sandstorm. Those
intellectuals, workers, young people, artists and others committed to a radical democracy need to
develop a new vocabulary about how to think about the meaning of politics, human agency and the
building of a formative culture through which organized collective struggles can develop in the effort
to imagine a new and more democratic future.
1nc
GOP will win the Senate – multiple warrants – but the races are close
New Yorker 10/1/14 [BY JOHN CASSIDY; OCTOBER 1, 2014; The G.O.P. and the Midterms: An Empty
Victory Beckons; http://www.newyorker.com/news/john-cassidy/gop-midterms-empty-victorybeckons//TonyPlayBoy]
With less than five weeks to go until Election Day, opinion polls and statistical forecasting models
indicate that the Republican Party is likely to pick up the six seats it needs to gain control of the Senate.
It’s by no means a sure thing, though. Many of the key races are still close, and Kansas is a wild card.¶ Over the past
month or so, the Democrats’ hopes of winning a G.O.P. seat in Georgia or Kentucky have faded, although a
new poll commissioned by the campaign of Alison Lundergan Grimes, the thirty-five-year-old state official who is challenging Senator Mitch
McConnell, shows her two points ahead. Meanwhile, the Republicans
have solidified their positions in Montana, South
Dakota, and West Virginia. Not counting Kansas, which I’ll get to in a moment, it looks like the outcome will come
down to whether the G.O.P. can win three of these six states: Alaska, Arkansas, Colorado, Iowa,
Louisiana, and North Carolina. Right now, according to the polling averages at Real Clear Politics, G.O.P.
candidates are narrowly ahead in all of these places except North Carolina, where Democratic
incumbent Kay Hagan retains a four-point lead over Thom Tillis, the speaker in the state legislature.¶ But Kansas
can’t be ignored. The three-term Republican incumbent, Pat Roberts, is facing a strong challenge from
Greg Orman, a local businessman who is running as an independent. And complicating matters for
Roberts, his Democratic opponent, Chad Taylor, has withdrawn from the race. Some recent polls show
Orman with the lead.¶ For fans of political horse races, many of these contests are humdingers: in the coming weeks, I’ll focus on some
of them. But first, a general point about what it would mean if, as most people in Washington are assuming, the G.O.P.
does regain the Senate. As far as I can see, it wouldn’t signify much beyond what we already know: the
electoral map favors the G.O.P. this year, and President Obama is unpopular, particularly in the South. A
Republican triumph wouldn’t herald a lasting political realignment at the national level, and it wouldn’t imply that the Party has made the
changes necessary to retake the White House. Indeed, it would be a victory for the G.O.P.’s past rather than for its future.¶ The
good
news for the G.O.P. is that it has demonstrated a reasonable level of competency, something it has
sorely lacked in recent years. In nominating experienced politicians such as Dan Sullivan in Alaska, Bill
Cassidy (no relation) in Louisiana, and Tom Cotton in Arkansas, it has avoided repeating the mistakes of
2012. And in most places where the contests are close, Republican candidates have stuck with a
message that resonates locally: a vote for my opponent is a vote for Obama. (Here’s Cotton on Senator
Mark Pryor, his Democratic opponent: “He votes ninety-three per cent of the time with Barack Obama. I
don’t know many Arkansans who think that Barack Obama is right ninety-three per cent of the time.”)¶
The GOP has an edge because of turnout—the plan is the key issue in flipping that
Linskey, 14—Annie, citing; George Washington U polling, Lake Research Partners polling firm and the
Tarrance Group, a public affairs firm
“Poll: Marijuana Legalization Measures Will Drive Voters,” Bloomberg, Mar 25,
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-03-25/poll-marijuana-legalization-measures-will-drivevoters.html -A majority of Americans favor legalizing marijuana and would be motivated to vote if a measure to do so is
on the ballot, according to a George Washington University Battleground poll released today. The survey of
1,000 likely voters found 73 percent support allowing marijuana for legal medical purposes, 53 percent favor
decriminalization and 68 percent are “more likely” to go to their polling place to weigh in on a ballot.
“Marijuana
legalization and marijuana decriminalization is at a tipping point ” said Celinda Lake,
president of Lake Research Partners and one of the two pollsters who conducted the survey. Support crosses party lines, though
younger and single voters -- who tend to vote for Democrats -- are more motivated by those issues,
she said. Ballot measures on legalizing pot are set for Alaska’s August primary and probably this November in Oregon, according to Allen St.
Pierre, the executive director Norml, a Washington-based nonprofit pushing for more access to the drug. Florida will see a decriminalization
effort, he said. The marijuana question was part of a wide-ranging poll that tested President Barack Obama’s approval rating, potential 2016
presidential candidates and American’s views on the billionaire Koch brothers. The survey, conducted March 16-20, was released today at a
breakfast sponsored by The Christian Science Monitor. It has a margin of error of plus or minus 3.1 percentage points. Republican Edge While
the poll showed Americans are evenly split between supporting Democrats and Republicans on a generic ballot, Republicans
hold an
advantage because they are more motivated to vote : 64 percent said they are “extremely likely” to go to the polls
compared with 57 percent of Democrats. The president’s job-approval rating is 44 percent in the survey -- up 3 points from when the question
was last asked in mid-January. Obama’s disapproval is 53 percent, down a point from when the question was last asked. “This
data gives
an edge to Republicans,” said Ed Goeas, chief executive officer of the Tarrance Group, a public affairs
firm based in Alexandria, Virginia, who also worked on the survey. “Obama’s name will not be on the ballot but Obama’s
polices will be,” he said. And “you don’t have the operation of the presidential race there turning out votes on that side.”
GOP win key to successful Asia pivot
Keck, 14 – is the Managing Editor of the Diplomat (Zachary,“The Midterm Elections and the Asia
Pivot,” http://thediplomat.com/2014/04/the-midterm-elections-and-the-asia-pivot/)
There is a growing sense in the United States that when voters go to the polls this November, the Republican Party will win enough Senate
seats to control both houses of Congress. This would potentially introduce more gridlock into an already dysfunctional American political
system.¶ But it needn’t be all doom and gloom for U.S. foreign policy, including in the Asia-Pacific. In fact, the
Republicans wrestling
control of the Senate from the Democrats this November could be a boon for the U.S. Asia pivot. This is true for
at least three reasons.¶ First, with little prospect of getting any of his domestic agenda through Congress, President Barack Obama will naturally
focus his attention on foreign affairs. Presidents in general have a tendency to focus more attention on foreign policy during their second term,
and this effect is magnified if the other party controls the legislature. And for good reason: U.S. presidents have far more latitude to take
unilateral action in the realm of foreign affairs than in domestic policy. Additionally, the 2016 presidential election will consume much of the
country’s media’s attention on domestic matters. It’s only when acting on the world stage that the president will still be able to stand taller in
the media’s eyes than the candidates running to for legislative office.¶ Second, should
the Democrats get pummeled in the
midterm elections this year, President Obama is likely to make some personnel changes in the White House
and cabinet. For instance, after the Republican Party incurred losses in the 2006 midterms, then-President George W. Bush quickly
moved to replace Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld with the less partisan (at least in that era) Robert Gates. Obama
followed suit by making key personnel changes after the Democrats “shellacking” in the 2010 midterm
elections.¶ Should the Democrats face a similar fate in the 2014 midterm elections, Obama is also likely to make notable personnel changes.
Other aides, particular former Clinton aides, are likely to leave the administration early in order to start vying for spots on Hillary Clinton’s
presumed presidential campaign. Many of these changes are likely to be with domestic advisors given that domestic issues are certain to decide
this year’s elections. Even so, many nominally domestic positions—such as Treasury and Commerce Secretary—have important implications for
U.S. policy in Asia. Moreover, some
of the post-election changes are likely be foreign policy and defense
positions, which bodes well for Asia given the appalling lack of Asia expertise among Obama’s current
senior advisors.¶ But the most important way a Republican victory in November will help the Asia Pivot is that the GOP in
Congress are actually more favorable to the pivot than are members of Obama’s own party. For example,
Congressional opposition to granting President Trade Promotional Authority — which is key to getting the Trans-Pacific Partnership ratified — is
largely from Democratic legislators. Similarly, it is
the Democrats who are largely in favor of the defense budget cuts
that threaten to undermine America’s military posture in Asia.¶ If Republicans do prevail in November,
President Obama will naturally want to find ways to bridge the very wide partisan gap between them.
Asia offers the perfect issue area to begin reaching across the aisle.¶ The Republicans would have
every incentive to reciprocate the President’s outreach. After all, by giving them control of the entire Legislative Branch,
American voters will be expecting some results from the GOP before they would be ostensibly be ready to elect them to the White House in
2016.
A Republican failure to achieve anything between 2014 and 2016 would risk putting the GOP in
the same dilemma they faced in the 1996 and 2012 presidential elections. Working with the president to pass the TPP and
strengthen America’s military’s posture in Asia would be ideal ways for the GOP to deliver results without violating their principles.¶ Thus, while
the president will work tirelessly between now and November to help the Democrats retain the Senate, he should also prepare for failure by
having a major outreach initiative to Congressional Republicans ready on day one. This initiative should be Asia-centric.
Pivot is to key to prevent Asia wars
Lohman, 13 – MA in Foreign Affairs @ UVA (Walter, “Honoring America’s Superpower
Responsibilities,” http://www.heritage.org/research/lecture/2013/06/honoring-americas-superpowerresponsibilities)
When you withdraw from the world, either by imposing trade barriers or drawing down military commitments, you lose your
ability to influence events. Those considering an Asia with less American presence have to ask
themselves whether freedom would do as well without us. In fact, proponents of American withdrawal have to ask
themselves a more important question: Whether they have responsibility for anyone’s well-being but their own! Times are, indeed,
changing in Asia. Power is shifting. I have traveled to Asia quite a bit—easily 50 times over the course of my career. I’ve seen
the change first-hand. One thing that is not changing is that the U.S. is the one “ indispensable”
ingredient for continued peace, prosperity, and freedom around the world. Everyone I talk to in Asia tells
me that. They must be talking to President Obama, too, because he’s also used the word “indispensable” to describe America’s role in the
world. Of course, these countries want access to our markets and our capital. But on
the diplomatic side, it is also the case
that the U.S. is the closest thing in Asia to an honest broker. And because if anything, nationalist
tensions in Asia are only growing, this is not going to change anytime soon. Sure, there are South Koreans
who would rather not have American troops in their country. But they are not the majority. And they like us a whole heck of a lot more
than they like the prospect of another invasion. They like us a lot better than they like the Japanese. Imagine how the Koreans feel about
the prospect of Japan acquiring nuclear weapons to defend itself. That’s what they would have to do without the benefit of the American
nuclear deterrent.
Asian wars cause extinction – multiple reasons they uniquely escalate
Mead, 10 – Senior Fellow @ the Council on Foreign Relations (Walter Russell, 11-9, “Obama in Asia”,
http://blogs.the-american-interest.com/wrm/2010/11/09/obama-in-asia/)
The decision to go to Asia is one that all thinking Americans can and should support regardless of either party or ideological
East and South Asia are the places where the 21st century, for better or for worse, will
most likely be shaped; economic growth, environmental progress, the destiny of democracy and
success against terror are all at stake here. American objectives in this region are clear. While convincing China that its
affiliation.
best interests are not served by a rash, Kaiser Wilhelm-like dash for supremacy in the region, the US does not want either to isolate or
Our destiny is
inextricably linked with Asia’s ; Asian success will make America stronger, richer and more
contain China. We want a strong, rich, open and free China in an Asia that is also strong, rich, open and free.
secure. Asia’s failures will reverberate over here, threatening our prosperity, our security and
perhaps even our survival . The world’s two most mutually hostile nuclear states, India and
Pakistan, are in Asia. The two states most likely to threaten others with nukes , North Korea and
aspiring rogue nuclear power Iran, are there. The two superpowers with a billion plus people are
in Asia as well. This is where the world’s fastest growing economies are. It is where the worst
environmental problems exist. It is the home of the world’s largest democracy, the world’s most populous
Islamic country (Indonesia — which is also among the most democratic and pluralistic of Islamic countries), and the world’s most rapidly
rising non-democratic power as well. Asia holds more oil resources than any other continent; the world’s most important and most
threatened trade routes lie off its shores. East Asia, South Asia, Central Asia (where American and NATO forces are fighting the Taliban)
and West Asia (home among others to Saudi Arabia, Israel, Turkey and Iraq) are the theaters in the world today that most directly engage
America’s vital interests and where our armed forces are most directly involved.
The world’s most explosive territorial
disputes are in Asia as well, with islands (and the surrounding mineral and fishery resources) bitterly disputed between countries
like Russia, the two Koreas, Japan, China (both from Beijing and Taipei), and Vietnam. From the streets of Jerusalem to the beaches of
Taiwan the
world’s most intractable political problems are found on the Asian landmass and its
surrounding seas. Whether you view the world in terms of geopolitical security, environmental
sustainability, economic growth or the march of democracy, Asia is at the center of your
concerns. That is the overwhelming reality of world politics today, and that reality is what President Obama’s trip is
intended to address.
1NC
The status quo is moving in the direction of adaptable global governed and prohibition
free frameworks - counter-hegemonic cracks are beginning to spill through
Manique 14 - MA in Political Economy @ Carleton University Ottawa, Ontario (Sophie O,
https://curve.carleton.ca/system/files/theses/31680.pdf, From Prohibition to
Decriminalization: Interrogating the Emerging International Paradigm Shift in the War on Drugs
Discourse, 2014) NAR
As Kofi Annan has articulated on several occasions, the shift in discourse around drug policy has not been met with widespread substantive
policy changes. For the most part,
the War on Drugs continues to be waged uninterrupted, much the same way
it has over the course of the last forty years. Repressive tactics are still employed to eradicate coca at
the source in the Andean region, while governments continue to battle the cartels. While it was far beyond
the scope of this project to explore every example of policy ingenuity related to illicit drugs, as more and more places move towards reform and
implement policies that run counter to the dominant line of thought over the course of the last forty years, the
global prohibition
regime and its associated approach to drug management is likely to be increasingly discredited . The
implementations of harm reduction programs in the Scandinavian countries and in Canada have been successful in reducing the transmission of
blood borne diseases amongst injecting drug users. Further, although such policies have only been implemented very recently, new
experiments with marijuana legalization in Washington State, Colorado and in Uruguay are likely to inspire policy innovation in other
jurisdictions. Policy
experimentation in Bolivia under ‘control social’ has worked to strengthen the
authority of the emerging counter-hegemonic discourse as members of the international community
increasingly issue their support for the initiative. Finally, countries all over the world have moved
towards the decriminalization of possession and consumption of small quantities of marijuana,
suggesting that
further change is likely to come . It is also clear that further policy innovation is on the horizon –
President Otto Pérez Molina in Guatemala for example, has recently made mention of his government’s intention to bring illegal poppy
plantations along the Northern Guatemalan border under regulation. The issue is one that is contemporary in nature, and is evolving day by day
– with
each passing week we see developments that suggest we are moving away from the repressive
tactics of the War on Drugs and towards a new hegemony concerning drug production and drug use.
Interestingly, the upcoming UN General Assembly Special Session on Drugs was originally scheduled for
2019. However, upon the request of the governments of Mexico, Colombia and Guatemala, a motion
was put forth in the General Assembly to move the session forward (IDCP, 2012). The motion received
widespread support and was cosponsored by 95 members of the General Assembly. Accordingly, the
Special Session has been rescheduled for 2016. The passing of this motion is significant, in that it implies that
members of the General Assembly understand the issue as one that needs to be managed with
haste . Further, the passing of the motion is indicative of shifting attitudes towards the global drug
prohibition regime, as the purpose of such a conference is to revisit the UN legislation surrounding
drug management and debate alternate strategies. If we can understand institutions like the UN as
agents of ideational hegemony, we have an indication that ideas surrounding drug production and
consumption are likely to shift even further, and that substantive policy change is likely to follow.
Legalization spills over to collapse all treaty norms
Counts 13 Nathaniel Counts, J.D. Candidate, Harvard Law School, 2014, graduated from Johns Hopkins
with a major in Biology and a minor in Entrepreneurship and Management, “INITIATIVE 502 AND
CONFLICTING STATE AND FEDERAL LAW”, Gonzaga Law Review 49 Gonz. L. Rev. 187, 2013
In dealing with the conflicting state and federal law, enforcement decisions will affect the United States’ role as an
actor in international law and the direction of international cooperation in combatting illegal drug
trade. First, if the United States breaches its treaty obligations under the Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs and
the Convention Against Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drags and Psychotropic Substances, it would undermine the international rule
of law. A strong international rule of law is desirable "to establish and maintain order and enhance reliable
expectations" in international affairs.142 As there are no enforcement mechanisms for international legal
obligations equivalent to that which exists with domestic law the weight of obligations relies to some extent on
comity among the states involved.143 As long as states agree to limit their sovereignty and comply with international law
states will be more likely to respect one another’s reasonable expectations and fulfill then obligations.144 Both
conventions have provisions that read. "If there should arise between two or more Parties a dispute relating to the interpretation or application
of this Convention, the Parties shall consult together with a view to the settlement of the dispute by...peaceful means of then own choice." and
should this fail, they agree to jurisdiction before the International Court of Justice (ICJ).145Despite this possibility of
justifiability of breach, it is highly unlikely that any state party would bring a case before the ICJ over domestic non-enforcement of the treaty
obligations, as diplomatic channels are more predictable and possible
noncompliance with ICJ judgments weakens the
international rule of law.146 If the United States fails to enforce the CSA and allows the Washington
legalization system to succeed, it may signal to other states that the United States is willing to allow its
domestic law overcome its international law obligations and may not be reliable in international
transnational enforcement efforts in the future. It also signals to other states that they may allow their
domestic law to inhibit effective enforcement of international treaty obligations, which may
undermine the United States’ goals in the future.
Treaties breaking hampers cooperation on every issue – climate, debt, trafficking,
trade, terrorism, and proliferation
Koh and Smith 2006 (Gerard C. and Bernice Latrobe Smith Professor of International Law, Yale Law
School; Assistant Secretary of State for Democracy, Human Rights and Labor, 1998-2001, May, 2003,
“FOREWORD: On American Exceptionalism,” 55 Stan. L. Rev. [Ben]
http://www.questia.com/googleScholar.qst;jsessionid=MJtQqpPM7QgZQHCm1hjSyn01k0Mh2nhnVWLT
YgfGp19rl3LDnGcR!-150223949!333767387?docId=5001997668)
Similarly, the oxymoronic concept of "imposed democracy" authorizes top-down regime change in the name of democracy. Yet the United
States has always argued that genuine democracy must flow from the will of the people, not from military occupation. 67 Finally, a
policy of
strategic unilateralism seems unsustainable in an interdependent world. For over the past two centuries, the
United States has become party not just to a few treaties, but to a global network of closely interconnected
treaties enmeshed in multiple frameworks of international institutions. Unilateral administration
decisions to break or bend one treaty commitment thus rarely end the matter, but more usually trigger vicious
cycles of treaty violation. In an interdependent world, [*1501] the United States simply cannot afford
to ignore its treaty obligations while at the same time expecting its treaty partners to help it solve the
myriad global problems that extend far beyond any one nation's control: the global AIDS and SARS crises, climate
change, international debt, drug smuggling, trade imbalances, currency coordination, and trafficking
in human beings, to name just a few. Repeated incidents of American treaty-breaking create the damaging
impression of a United States contemptuous of both its treaty obligations and treaty partners. That
impression undermines American soft power at the exact moment that the United States is trying to
use that soft power to mobilize those same partners to help it solve problems it simply cannot solve
alone: most obviously, the war against global terrorism, but also the postwar construction of Iraq, the Middle
East crisis, or the renewed nuclear militarization of North Korea.
A1
Newest resolution solves India and Pakistan relations and instability
-explicitly addresses Kashmir, Terrorism, and Afghanistan issues and it says the resolution is passed, inevitably renewed, and includes people
like military to military contacts
RKN 3-19-14 (Rising Kashmir News, Indian News Agenacy located in Srinagar, India“Joint resolution
calls on India, Pak to improve bilateral relations”http://www.risingkashmir.com/joint-resolution-callson-india-pak-to-improve-bilateral-relations/,)
The fourth Delhi dialogue between India and Pakistan concluded in New Delhi on Friday with the adoption of
a joint resolution calling on both countries to make concerted efforts towards improving bilateral
relations.
The dialogue brought together senior journalists, policy experts, academics, advocates,
former military officials, and diplomats from India and Pakistan for two days who held intense
deliberations to discuss a wide range of outstanding issues between two countries.
Entering its fourth year, the
dialogue is part of an India-Pakistan Track II diplomacy initiative by the Center for Dialogue and Reconciliation and the Jinnah Institute.
To
promote peace between the two countries through constructive engagement and dialogue both the factions passed a joint resolution on the
occasion.
The
resolution stated that Islamabad and New Delhi must move forward on a menu of
outstanding items in order to move the region out from the shadows of instability, human insecurity
and lost opportunities in trade, energy, and information connectivity.
The resolution also urged both
countries to fully implement all agreed CBMs, cooperate on outstanding issues and address each
other’s concerns on key issues like Kashmir as well as terrorism with the aim of resuming the stalled
bilateral dialogue.
It was agreed that the bilateral dialogue should be irreversible and uninterruptable.
“We
appreciate the implementation of the one year multiple entry visa for businessmen and recommend that
people- to-people contacts between India and Pakistan be encouraged through the extension of the liberal visa policy
towards all category of travelers, particularly media-persons, artists, students and academics,” resolution said.
The resolution also stated
that the cessation of ceasefire violations along the LoC after the DGMO meeting last year recommend that both governments
and their respective security establishments hold regular meetings to address any such future
incidents.
“We call upon both governments to urgently take up discussions on Jammu and Kashmir so
that a solution that is acceptable to India, Pakistan and the people of Kashmir on both sides of the Line of Control can be found,” resolution
said.
The resolution also stated that the policy of issuing travel permits for cross-LoC travel be extended to all residents of Jammu and
Kashmir.
“We urge removing unnecessary hurdles in the issuance of cross-LoC travel permits by respective district officials,” resolution
said.
“We recommend that Non-Discriminatory Market Access be granted by Pakistan to India at the earliest and urge India to remove all nontariff barriers to facilitate trade between both countries,” resolution added.
The resolution also suggested that both governments should
improve custom clearance processes and the establishment of one-window container loading and off-loading facilities at the Wagah- Attari
border.
“We recommend that the Wagah-Attari border should be opened for 24-hour operations and both governments should explore
opportunities for opening all economically feasible land routes between India and Pakistan for trade and travel, particularly Ganda SinghwalaFerozpur, Muktasar-Fazilka and Khokhrapar-Munabao road.”
The
resolution also recommend that serious efforts be made
towards exploring the possibility of Pakistan granting India overland transit rights for trade with
Afghanistan and India granting overland transit rights to Pakistan for other South Asian countries.
“We
support an Afghan-led and Afghan-owned reconciliation process in Afghanistan and recognize that a peaceful Afghanistan is essential for
regional stability. We urge both countries to engage with each other to clarify each other’s apprehensions on a post-2014 Afghanistan,”
resolution stated.
The
resolution also recommends that opportunities for mutual cooperation in the
development and reconstruction of Afghanistan be explored, especially under the aegis of
SAARC.
“We urge both countries not to let competing interests in Afghanistan negatively impact
bilateral relations. We recommend that all regional countries with stakes in Afghanistan initiate a dialogue on adopting a
non-interventionist policy towards the country,” resolution added.
Warming is irreversible – consensus of most qualified scientists
Romm 13 [Joe, PhD in Physics from MIT, Senior Fellow at American Progress, editor of Climate
Progress, former acting assistant secretary of energy for energy efficiency and renewable energy in
1997, “The Dangerous Myth that Climate Change is Reversible,”
http://theenergycollective.com/josephromm/199981/dangerous-myth-climate-change-reversible]
The CMO (Chief Misinformation Officer) of the climate ignorati, Joe Nocera, has a new piece, “A Real Carbon Solution.” The biggest of its many
errors comes in this line:¶ A reduction of carbon emissions from Chinese power plants would do far more to help reverse climate change than
— dare I say it? — blocking the Keystone XL oil pipeline.¶ Memo to Nocera: As a
NOAA-led paper explained 4 years ago, climate
change is “largely irreversible for 1000 years,” with permanent Dust Bowls in Southwest and around the globe (if we don’t
slash emissions ASAP).¶ This notion that we can reverse climate change by cutting emissions is one of the
most commonly held myths — and one of the most dangerous , as explained in this 2007 MIT study, “Understanding
Public Complacency About Climate Change: Adults’ mental models of climate change violate conservation of matter.”¶ The fact is that, as
RealClimate has explained, we
would need “an immediate cut of around 60 to 70% globally and continued
further cuts over time” merely to stabilize atmospheric concentrations of CO2 – and that would still leave us
with a radiative imbalance that would lead to “an additional 0.3 to 0.8ºC warming over the 21st Century.” And
that assumes no major carbon cycle feedbacks kick in, which seems highly unlikely.¶ We’d have to drop total
global emissions to zero now and for the rest of the century just to lower concentrations enough to stop temperatures from rising.
Again, even in this implausible scenario, we still aren’t talking about reversing climate change///¶ , just
stopping it — or, more technically, stopping the temperature rise. The great ice sheets might well continue to disintegrate, albeit slowly.¶ This
doesn’t mean climate change is unstoppable — only that we are stuck with whatever climate change we cause before we get desperate and go
all WWII on emissions. That’s why delay is so dangerous and immoral. I’ll discuss this further below the jump.¶ First, though, Nocera’s piece has
many other pieces of misinformation. He
leaves people with the impression that coal with carbon capture and storage
(CCS) is a practical, affordable means of reducing emissions from existing power plants that will be available soon. In fact, most
demonstration projects around the world have been shut down, the technology Nocera focuses on would not work
on the vast majority of existing coal plants, and CCS is going to be incredibly expensive compared to other lowcarbon technologies — see Harvard stunner: “Realistic” first-generation CCS costs a whopping $150 per ton of CO2 (20 cents per kWh)!
And that’s in the unlikely event it proves to be practical, permanent, and verifiable (see “Feasibility, Permanence and Safety Issues Remain
Unresolved”).¶ Heck, guy who debated me on The Economist‘s website conceded things are going so slowly, writing “The idea is that CCS then
becomes a commercial reality and begins to make deep cuts in emissions during the 2030s.” And he’s a CCS advocate!!¶ Of course, we
simply don’t have until the 2030s to wait for deep cuts in emissions. No wonder people who misunderstand the
irreversible nature of climate change, like Nocera, tend to be far more complacent about emissions reductions than those who understand
climate science.¶ The point of Nocera’s piece seems to be to mock Bill McKibben for opposing the idea of using captured carbon for enhanced
oil recovery (EOR): “his answer suggests that his crusade has blinded him to the real problem.”¶ It is Nocera who has been blinded. He explains
in the piece:¶ Using carbon emissions to recover previously ungettable oil has the potential to unlock vast untapped American reserves. Last
year, ExxonMobil reportedthat enhanced oil recovery would allow it to extend the life of a single oil field in West Texas by 20 years.¶
McKibben’s effort to stop the Keystone XL pipeline is based on the fact that we have believe the vast majority of carbon in the ground. Sure, it
wouldn’t matter if you built one coal CCS plant and used that for EOR. But we need a staggering amount of CCS, as Vaclav Smil explained in
“Energy at the Crossroads“:¶ “Sequestering a mere 1/10 of today’s global CO2 emissions (less than 3 Gt CO2) would thus call for putting in place
an industry that would have to force underground every year the volume of compressed gas larger than or (with higher compression) equal to
the volume of crude oil extracted globally by [the] petroleum industry whose infrastructures and capacities have been put in place over a
century of development. Needless to say, such a technical feat could not be accomplished within a single generation.”¶ D’oh! What precisely
would be the point of “sequestering” all that CO2 to extract previously “ungettable oil” whose emissions, when burned, would just about equal
the CO2 that you supposedly sequestered?¶ Remember, we have to get total global emissions of CO2 to near zero just to stop temperatures
from continuing their inexorable march toward humanity’s self-destruction. And yes, this ain’t easy. But it is impossible if we don’t start
slashing emissions soon and stop opening up vast new sources of carbon.¶ For those who are confused on this point, I recommend reading the
entire MIT study, whose lead author is John Sterman. Here is the abstract:¶ Public attitudes about climate change reveal a
contradiction. Surveys show most Americans believe climate change poses serious risks but also that reductions in greenhouse gas (GHG)
emissions sufficient to stabilize atmospheric GHG concentrations or net radiative forcing can be deferred until there is greater evidence that
climate change is harmful. US policymakers likewise argue it is prudent to wait and see whether climate change will cause substantial economic
harm before undertaking policies to reduce emissions. Such wait-and-see
policies erroneously presume climate change
can be reversed quickly should harm become evident, underestimating substantial delays in the climate’s response to anthropogenic
forcing. We report experiments with highly educated adults–graduate students at MIT–showing widespread misunderstanding of the
fundamental stock and flow relationships, including mass balance principles, that lead to long response delays. GHG
emissions are
now about twice the rate of GHG removal from the atmosphere. GHG concentrations will therefore
continue to rise even if emissions fall, stabilizing only when emissions equal removal. In contrast, results show most subjects
believe atmospheric GHG concentrations can be stabilized while emissions into the atmosphere continuously exceed the removal of GHGs from
it. These
beliefs-analogous to arguing a bathtub filled faster than it drains will never overflow-support
wait-and-see policies but violate conservation of matter. Low public support for mitigation policies may be based more
on misconceptions of climate dynamics than high discount rates or uncertainty about the risks of harmful climate change.
Warming won’t cause extinction
Barrett, professor of natural resource economics – Columbia University, ‘7
(Scott, Why Cooperate? The Incentive to Supply Global Public Goods, introduction)
First, climate change does not threaten
the survival of the human species.5 If unchecked, it will cause other species to
become extinction (though biodiversity
is being depleted now due to other reasons). It will alter critical
ecosystems (though this is also happening now, and for reasons unrelated to climate change). It will reduce land
area as the seas rise, and in the process displace human populations. “Catastrophic” climate change is possible, but not certain.
Moreover, and unlike an asteroid collision, large changes (such as sea level rise of, say, ten meters) will likely take centuries
to unfold, giving societies time to adjust. “Abrupt” climate change is also possible, and will occur more rapidly, perhaps over a
decade or two. However, abrupt climate change (such as a weakening in the North Atlantic circulation), though potentially very serious,
is unlikely to be ruinous. Human-induced climate change is an experiment of planetary proportions, and we cannot be sur of its
consequences.
Even in a worse case scenario , however, global climate change is not the equivalent of the
Earth
mega-asteroid. Indeed, if it were as damaging as this, and if we were sure that it would be this
harmful, then our incentive to address this threat would be overwhelming. The challenge would still be more difficult
being hit by
than asteroid defense, but we would have done much more about it by now.
No ocean acid impact
CSCDGC 09 (Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change, “Ocean Acidification
Database,” CO2 Science, 2009, http://www.co2science.org/data/acidification/results.php)
The results we have depicted in the figures above suggest something very different from the doomsday predictions of the
climate alarmists who claim we are in "the last decades of coral reefs on this planet for at least the next ... million
plus years, unless we do something very soon to reduce CO2 emissions," or who declare that "reefs are starting to crumble and disappear," that
"we may lose those ecosystems within 20 or 30 years," and that "we've got the last decade in which we can do something about this problem."
is not supported by the vast bulk of pertinent experimental data.¶ Two other
predicted decline in oceanic pH will have little to no lasting
negative effects on marine life are the abilities of essentially all forms of life to adapt and evolve. Of those
Clearly, the promoting of such scenarios
important phenomena that give us reason to believe the
experiments in our database that report the length of time the organisms were subjected to reduced pH levels, for example, the median value
was only four days. And many of the experiments were conducted over periods of only a few hours, which is much too short a time for
organisms to adapt (or evolve) to successfully cope with new environmental conditions (see, for example, the many pertinent Journal Reviews
we have archived under the general heading of Evolution in our Subject Index). And when
one allows for such phenomena, the
possibility of marine life experiencing a negative response to ocean acidification becomes even less
likely.¶ In conclusion, claims of impending marine species extinctions driven by increases in the
atmosphere's CO2 concentration do not appear to be founded in empirical reality, based on the experimental
findings we have analyzed above.
Hydroponic production causes GHG emissions – turns the advantage
Lewis 2013 - senior lecturer in international history at Stanford (October 22, Martin W., “Unnecessary
Environmental Destruction from Marijuana Cultivation in the United States ”
http://geocurrents.info/place/north-america/northern-california/unnecessary-environmentaldestruction-marijuana-cultivation-united-states)
Although I am tempted to break down the graph and criticize its various components, I will confine my attention to one feature: the
environmental damage of cannabis production. According to the figure, such costs are almost negligible, as can be seen in the inset illustration
(which I have modified to highlight cannabis). In reality, the environmental damage imposed by marijuana growing is massive. The
most
extreme form of environmental degradation associated with the cannabis industry stems from indoor
cultivation. Growing indoors requires not merely intensely bright lights, but also extensive ventilation
and dehumidification systems. The result is a gargantuan carbon footprint. According to a well-researched 2012
report: The analysis performed in this study finds that indoor Cannabis
production results in energy expenditures of $6
billion each year–6-times that of the entire U.S. pharmaceutical industry–with electricity use
equivalent to that of 2 million average U.S. homes. This corresponds to 1% of national electricity
consumption or 2% of that in households. The yearly greenhouse-gas pollution (carbon dioxide, CO2 ) from the electricity plus
associated transportation fuels equals that of 3 million cars. Energy costs constitute a quarter of wholesale value.
Federalism is resilient
Rodriguez 14 - Professor of Law @ Yale Law School [Christina M. Rodriguez, “Negotiating Conflict Through Federalism: Institutional and
Popular Perspectives,” Yale Law Journal, Vol. 124, (2014) p. 2094
Though pursuit of their interests by each player may often lead to conflict, particularly over which institutions should control any given policy
domain, I argue that the
value of the system common to all of its participants is the framework it creates for the
ongoing negotiation of disagreements large and small—a value that requires regular attention by all participants to the
integrity of federalism’s institutions. It is in this sense that I think federalism constitutes a framework for national
integration, in the spirit of this Feature. It creates a multiplicity of institutions with lawmaking power through
which to develop national consensus, while establishing a system of government that allows for
meaningful expressions of disagreement when consensus fractures or proves¶ elusive—a value that
transcends perspective.
In what follows, I attempt to establish these conclusions by considering how the
negotiations required by federalism have
structured our national debates over a number of pressing social welfare issues, including immigration, marriage equality,
drug policy , education and health care reform, and law enforcement. I focus on how these debates play out in what I call the
discretionary spaces of federalism , which consist of the policy conversations¶ and bureaucratic
negotiations that actors within the system must have to figure¶ out how to interact with one another
both vertically and horizontally. Indeed, within existing legal constraints, state and local actors will have
considerable room to maneuver, and the federal government considerable discretion to¶ refrain from
taking preemptive action. 2 I highlight questions of administration and enforcement, because it is in these domains that the system’s
actors construct one another’s powers and interests on an ongoing basis, based on the value they seek to derive from the system. In these
discretionary spaces, “ winners” must sometimes emerge from discrete conflicts, whether through judicial resolution or
political concession, and the parameters set by courts and Congress obviously define the terrain of
negotiation. But the intergovernmental relationships and overlapping political communities the
system creates are neither locked in zero-sum competition nor bound by fixed rules of engagement ,
precisely what makes federalism productive regardless of perspective. pg. 2097-2098
Federal illegality is a non-issue
Kamin 12 - Professor of Law and Director of the Constitutional Rights & Remedies Program, University of Denver [Sam Kamin, “Keynote:
Marijuana at the Crossroads,” Denver University Law Review, Volume 89 Issue 4 (2012)
Thus, the
state has permitted (or at least tacitly endorsed) that which the federal government has officially
prohibited—the possession of mari-juana.8 This development is both contradictory and unproblematic from
a federalism perspective . That is, it is a matter of black letter constitutional law that the federal
government cannot commandeer state governments into helping federal officials enforce the CSA’s
continuing marijuana prohibition.9 And the federal government, although free to prohibit mari-juana under its Commerce Clause
power,10 cannot force the states to pro-hibit particular conduct that they do not wish to prohibit. Thus,
there is nothing inherently illegitimate or inappropriate about the states choosing to decriminalize or
even permit conduct that violates federal law.11 pg. 979
Cooperative federalism impossible – establishes no bright line of authority for the
courts to enforce, which guarantees centralization
Robert Schapiro March 6 (Emory Law Professor; “Justice Stevens's Theory of Interactive Federalism,”
74 Fordham Law Review, pp. 2136-7)
In its recent federalism cases, the United States Supreme Court has affirmed a dualist understanding of federalism.
Indeed, to emphasize the independent stature of states, the Court has used the term "dual sovereignty" to describe its conception of the
federal system. A majority of the Court asserts that the
constitutional principle of federalism requires drawing a line
between the local and the national. This five-Justice majority further insists that it is up to the Court to police this boundary,
preventing the federal government from encroaching on state turf. In the Court's conception of dual federalism, when a border dispute breaks
out between two sovereigns, one sovereign should not be the judge. As the Court has recognized, distinguishing between local and national
activities is not easy. To
enforce the boundary between state and national power the Court has relied on a
set of categorical distinctions. This reliance on a categorical approach follows from the Court's
insistence on judicially enforceable boundaries. The Court has admitted that the lines it draws may be arbitrary. However, it
insists that for federalism to be judicially enforceable, there must be lines.
A2
No impact to economy – best data
Drezner ’14 (Daniel Drezner, IR prof at Tufts, The System Worked: Global Economic Governance
during the Great Recession, World Politics, Volume 66. Number 1, January 2014, pp. 123-164)
The final significant outcome addresses a dog that hasn't barked: the effect of the Great Recession on cross-border conflict and
violence. During the initial stages of the crisis, multiple analysts asserted that the financial crisis would
lead states to increase their use of force as a tool for staying in power.42 They voiced genuine concern that the global economic
downturn would lead to an increase in conflict—whether through greater internal repression, diversionary wars, arms
races, or a ratcheting up of great power conflict. Violence in the Middle East, border disputes in the South China Sea, and
even the disruptions of the Occupy movement fueled impressions of a surge in global public disorder. The aggregate data suggest
otherwise , however. The Institute for Economics and Peace has concluded that "the average level of peacefulness in
2012 is approximately the same as it was in 2007."43 Interstate violence in particular has declined since
the start of the financial crisis, as have military expenditures in most sampled countries. Other studies confirm
that the Great Recession has not triggered any increase in violent conflict, as Lotta Themner and Peter
Wallensteen conclude: "[T]he pattern is one of relative stability when we consider the trend for the past five years."44 The secular decline
in violence that started with the end of the Cold War has not been reversed. Rogers Brubaker observes that
"the crisis has not to date generated the surge in protectionist nationalism or ethnic exclusion that might
have been expected."43
Consumer spending is stabilizing economic growth now – all recent data goes neg
Schoolman 9/26 Judith Schoolman, MA in Journalism from the University of North Carolina at Chapel
Hill, NYT Reporter, “Corporate investing and consumer spending help accelerate U.S. economy in the
second quarter”, NY Daily News, September 26th, 2014,
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/gdp-surge-boosts-confidence-markets-article-1.1954376
The U.S. economic engine shifted into a higher gear in the second quarter.¶ Thanks to corporate
investing and consumer spending, the nation’s economy accelerated in the second quarter at its fastest
pace since the end of 2011.¶ Gross domestic product grew at a revised 4.6% , up from an initial estimate of
4.2%, the Commerce Department said Friday. This followed a 2.1% decline in the first three months of the year. ¶ “The data signal an
even stronger rebound from the decline seen in the first quarter, when extreme weather battered many parts of the
economy,” said Chris Williamson, chief economist of financial information firm Markit.¶ “However, the impressive gain in the
second quarter looks to be far more than just a weather-related upturn, with evidence pointing to an underlying buoyant
pace of economic expansion .Ӧ The news lifted stocks, which had suffered its worst day in months on Thursday. The Dow
Jones, which had taken a 264-point dive, regained much of its losses Friday, rising 167 points, to 17,113. It had been down 2% from its record
high of 17,280 reached last week.¶ The S&P 500 recovered half of its 1.6% loss, closing .86% higher Friday, at 1,982.85.¶ A brighter
economic picture is also being painted by consumers, as sentiment climbed to a 14-month high due
in large part to an uptick in employment and cheaper prices at the gas pump.
Econ resilient
Economist, Economist Intelligence Unit – Global Forecasting Service, 11/16/’11
(http://gfs.eiu.com/Article.aspx?articleType=gef&articleId=668596451&secID=7)
The US economy, by any standard, remains weak, and consumer and business sentiment are close to 2009 lows. That said, the economy
has been surprisingly resilient in the face of so many shocks. US real GDP expanded by a relatively robust 2.5%
in the third quarter of 2011, twice the rate of the previous quarter. Consumer spending rose by 2.4%, which is impressive given
that real incomes dropped during the quarter (the savings rate fell, which helps to explain the anomaly.) Historically, US
consumers have been willing to spend even in difficult times. Before the 2008-09 slump, personal spending rose in
every quarter between 1992 and 2007. That resilience is again in evidence: retail sales in September were at a seven-month
high, and sales at chain stores have been strong. Business investment has been even more buoyant: it expanded in the third
quarter by an impressive 16.3% at an annual rate, and spending by companies in September on conventional capital goods (that
is, excluding defence and aircraft) grew by the most since March. This has been made possible, in part, by strong
corporate profits. According to data compiled by Bloomberg, earnings for US companies in the S&P 500 rose by 24% year on year in the
third quarter. All of this has occurred despite a debilitating fiscal debate in Washington, a sovereign debt
downgrade by a major ratings agency and exceptional volatility in capital markets. This reinforces our view that the US
economy, although weak, is not in danger of falling into a recession (absent a shock from the euro zone). US growth will,
however, continue to be held back by a weak labour market—the unemployment rate has been at or above 9% for 28 of the last 30 months—
and by a moribund housing market.
Multiple reasons commercial regimes failTaxation forces a black market and drives supply back underground – turns the aff
Reid 14 Melanie Reid, Associate Professor of Law, Lincoln Memorial University-Duncan School of Law,
“THE QUAGMIRE THAT NOBODY IN THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT WANTS TO TALK ABOUT: MARIJUANA”,
New Mexico Law Review 44 N.M.L. Rev. 169, Spring 2014, Lexis
Taxation follows regulation, and is another benefit of legalization. Colorado proposed limiting taxes to no greater than 15 percent, n107 and
California proposed a tax of US$ 50 per ounce of purchased marijuana. n108 According
to a report by Jeffrey Miron, a
visiting professor of economics at Harvard University, "a system of taxation would produce combined
savings and tax revenues of between US$ 10 billion per year and US$ 14 billion per year." n109
However, taxation could spawn the potential growth of a black market. Higher taxes increase the risk
that users would try to buy marijuana from the black market; these drugs may be of inferior quality,
but cheaper than marijuana sold by regulated businesses. n110 Thus, legalization may not eliminate
all criminal activities and elements associated with the production and use of marijuana.
No method for how to implement tax systems – that fails
Caulkins 12 Jonathan P. Caulkins, Ph.D. in Operations Research (MIT, 1990), H. Guyford Stever
Professorship of Operations Research and Public Policy, “Design considerations for legalizing cannabis:
lessons inspired by analysis of California's Proposition 19”, Addiction. May2012, Vol. 107 Issue 5, p865871. 7p 2012
Presumably, jurisdictions will want to collect taxes and licensing fees on cannabis to generate revenue
and offset the costs of regulation. These taxes could also partially offset the price drop. Because legal production costs are far
below current prices, it would take a concerted effort and a well-designed scheme to prevent retail prices
from falling dramatically (and such a scheme would incentivize black market suppliers to remain in the market-place). Thus,
dismissing the price drop with reference to simply using excise taxes or price regulations to maintain
more or less current prices is unconvincing, even though it is a staple of economist’s writings on the subject (e.g. [18]). ¶
Untaxed retail prices of $40 per ounce of sinsemilla imply that preventing a price decline would require taxes of $210360 per ounce, or $7-13 per gram. By comparison, a $3 excise tax on a 20-g pack of cigarettes is only $0.15 per gram, and even such
relatively small tobacco taxes generate considerable tax avoidance and gray market sales [19-23]. Taxes
of $7-13 per gram generate a strong incentive for evasion, literally 10 times stronger per unit weight
than the price differential that induces smugglers to bring cannabis into the United States from
Mexico [3]. Therefore, deciding to use excise taxes to avoid a price collapse probably implies subordinating
other goals to the objective of making tax evasion difficult, eg. By collecting taxes from producers and tightly
constraining the number of producers as well as the quantities produced.
Home cultivation wrecks regulation
Caulkins 12 Jonathan P. Caulkins, Ph.D. in Operations Research (MIT, 1990), H. Guyford Stever
Professorship of Operations Research and Public Policy, “Design considerations for legalizing cannabis:
lessons inspired by analysis of California's Proposition 19”, Addiction. May2012, Vol. 107 Issue 5, p865871. 7p 2012
However, it would be harder to regulate commercial production and prevent diversion if user growing were
allowed. If the only legal production were that which occurred in a handful of tightly regulated facilities, then one could require stamped
packaging or quantity limits; e.g. no cannabis could leave the approved production facility packaged in quantities larger than an ounce (28
g). Possession of more than an ounce that is not sealed in a stamped container could be prima facie evidence of illegal production. However,
if user growing is allowed, such
tight regulation would be enormously more difficult, because someone caught in
possession of contraband could claim that it had been grown legally at home. This creates a potential
Catch-22; allowing home cultivation might undermine the very regulations needed to prevent prices
from falling so far that home cultivation would not be worth the effort, except for those who enjoyed
growing as a hobby.
The US has the innovation lead – China is behind in R&D, patents, and new product
development
Beckley, Michael is a research fellow in the International Security Program at Harvard Kennedy School’s Belfer
Center for Science and International Affairs and a fellow at the Miller Center at the University of Virginia “China’s
Century? Why America’s Edge Will Endure.” International Security, Vol. 36, No. 3 (Winter 2011/12), pp: 41-78.
It is far from clear, therefore, that China is catching up to the United States in terms of basic scientific research. More important, such a trend
would not necessarily affect the balance of power. After all, what ultimately matters is not scientific superiority but technological superiority—
the ability to produce and use commercially viable and militarily relevant innovations. In the nineteenth century, German scientists excelled at
turning scientific breakthroughs into practical products, developing major innovations in the chemical, electrical, and industrial dye industries
that formed what many scholars now refer to as the “second industrial revolution.” Today, scientific superiority is not necessary for
technological superiority because published articles circulate globally—they sit in searchable databases and can be obtained by anyone with
access to a major library—and it is insufficient because most scientific breakthroughs are useless in isolation from lower-level innovations and
infrastructure. Thus, the ability to produce scientific breakthroughs may be less important than the ability to capitalize on them. On first
glance, China’s emergence as the world’s leading exporter of hightechnology products suggests it has capitalized on its scientific investments
and become an “advanced-technology superstate,” perhaps even “the world’s leading technology-based economy.” On closer inspection,
however, it becomes clear that China’s
high-technology exports are “not very Chinese, and not very hightech”—more than 90 percent are produced by foreign firms and consist of imported components that
are merely assembled in China, a practice known as “export processing.” These percentages have increased over
time, a trend that suggests Chinese firms are falling further behind foreign competitors. Moreover, approximately 50 percent of China’s total
exports are produced by foreign enterprises (see figure 5). By comparison, foreign enterprises produced less than 25 percent of Taiwan and
Chinese technological stagnation is also evident in sales and
patent statistics. From 1991 to 2008, Chinese firms’ sales of new products as a share of total sales revenues
remained fast at 15 percent. In the United States, by contrast, new products account for 35 to 40 percent of
sales revenue. The Chinese government grants the majority of its invention patents to foreign firms
even though Chinese firms are five times more numerous. This result is all the more startling because many foreign
South Korea’s manufactured exports in the 1970s.
firms do not seek Chinese patents. Instead they seek “triadic patents,” which are simultaneously recognized by the patent offices of the three
largest markets for high-technology products (the United States, Europe, and Japan), and are thus the most secure and most difficult to obtain.
Figure 6 shows that the U.S. lead in triadic patents has increased over the last twenty years. Chinese firms, moreover, do not seem to be taking
genuine steps to improve their technological abilities. For the past twenty years, Chinese
firms’ total spending on R&D as a
percentage of sales revenue has remained at levels seven times below the average for American
firms. Between 1995 and 2008, the share of Chinese enterprises engaged in scientific or technological activities declined from 59 percent
to 37 percent, and the share of Chinese firms with an R&D department declined from 60 percent to 24 percent. When Chinese firms import
technology, they spend a fraction of the total cost on absorbing the technology. This fraction increased recently from 4 percent to 25 percent,
but it remains far lower than the 200 to 300 percent spent by Korean and Japanese firms when they were trying to catch up to the West in the
1970s. Technological leaders sometimes rest on their laurels and abandon innovative efforts in favor of “finding new markets for old products.”
The United States, however, looks set to excel in emerging high-technology industries. It has more
nanotechnology centers than the next three nations combined (Germany, the United Kingdom, and China) and
accounts for 43 percent of the world’s nanotechnology patent applications (see figure 7). In biotechnology, the United States accounts for
The United States accounts for
20 to 25 percent of all patent applications for renewable energy, air pollution, water pollution, and
waste management technologies; China accounts for 1 to 4 percent of the patent applications in these areas (see
41.5 percent of patent applications (China accounts for 1.6 percent) and 76 percent of global revenues.
figure 8). Since 1991, the United States has increased its lead in patent applications over China in all of these industries. Finally, the
Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development has identified ten “knowledge- and technology-intensive industries” that are capable
of “altering lifestyles and the way business is conducted across a wide range of sectors.” 147 The U.S. lead, in terms of value added, in
knowledge- and technology-intensive manufacturing industries dipped during the 2001 recession but quickly recovered and has increased
overall since 1996. Over the same time period, the United States steadily increased its lead in knowledge and technology-intensive services
(see figures 9 and 10). In sum, a comparison of U.S. and Chinese innovation systems over the past twenty years provides strong evidence
against declinism and in favor of the alternative perspective that China continues to lag behind the United States. China has increased its
investments in basic science, but these efforts have yet to significantly enhance its innovative capabilities. Data on Chinese hightechnology
exports show that Chinese firms have increased their participation in high-technology industries.
Data on commercial R&D,
patents, and profits, however, suggest Chinese firms engage primarily in low-end activities, such as
manufacturing and component supply. By contrast, U.S. firms seem to focus on activities in which profits
and proprietary knowledge are highest, such as product design, development, and branding. This division of labor has
remained stable over the last two decades; if anything, it has become more pronounced.
2NC
CP
No preemption
Meacham 13 Carl Meacham, “ reporter for CSIS, Uruguay legalizes marijuana: What will this mean for U.S. narcotics policy in the
region?”, Center for strategic and International Studies, December 20th, 2013 http://csis.org/publication/uruguay-legalizes-marijuana-what-willmean-us-narcotics-policy-region
A3: Producing, selling, and possessing marijuana all remain illegal in the United States under federal law. To date, however, 20 states and
Washington, DC have legalized use of physician-prescribed marijuana for medical purposes. And in 2012, the state governments of
Washington and Colorado both legalized the recreational use of marijuana—in direct contradiction to federal
law.¶ Although the government has kept its firm opposition to legalizing marijuana under federal law,
the U.S. Department of Justice announced that it will not challenge Washington’s and Colorado’s laws,
which some have read as tacit acceptance of the state-led legislative trend.¶ The trend towards greater
acceptance of cannabis is still stronger among the U.S. public—and is clearly reflected in Gallup’s latest poll, published
in October 2013, showing that 58 percent of Americans support the legalization of marijuana while just 39 percent are
opposed.¶ Meanwhile, world leaders are urging countries to implement alternative methods to the war
on drugs. In November, former UN secretary general Kofi Annan and former Brazilian president Fernando Henrique Cardoso released a
statement urging their contemporaries to “break [the] century-old taboo” and seek a new approach to the issue.¶ This, in combination
with regional leaders' explicit appeal to Vice President Biden during his travel to the region in May
2013 and the OAS report released the same month, has resulted in increasing pressure throughout the
hemisphere to reconsider the strategy behind the war on drugs.
CSA anti-preemption clause
Taylor 13 Stuart S. Taylor Jr, Nonresident Senior Fellow,Governance Studies @ Brookings, Law Degree
from Harvard University, “Marijuana Policy and Presidential Leadership: How to Avoid a Federal-State
Train Wreck”, Brookings Institute, April 11th, 2013,
http://www.brookings.edu/research/papers/2013/04/11-marijuana-policy-taylor
Instead, in a sort of anti-preemption clause, the CSA explicitly provides that ¶ Congress did not intend “to occupy
the field . . . to the exclusion of any state law on the ¶ same subject matter . . . unless there is a positive conflict
between [the CSA] and that state ¶ law so that the two cannot consistently stand together.”29 This was a
logical approach,given that state drug laws, which predated the CSA, have always differed both from it ¶ and from one another. This CSA nonpreemption clause reinforces both the above-noted ¶ CSA direction that the Attorney General “shall cooperate” with the states on controlled ¶
substances and the Supreme Court’s traditional rule that “the historic police powers of ¶ the states were not to be superseded by the federal
act unless that was the clear and ¶ manifest intent of Congress.”30 ¶ To be sure, some
state courts have held that, even under the
CSA’s anti-preemption ¶ language, any state regulation of marijuana (beyond simple repeal of criminal penalties) ¶ is
preempted if it “stands as an obstacle” to the objectives of the federal statute by ¶ “affirmatively
authorizing” conduct prohibited by federal law—as, to some extent, do ¶ all medical and recreational marijuana laws.31 But
this twists the plain meaning of the ¶ CSA’s anti-preemption clause. The better view is that, with narrow exceptions,
there is ¶ no “positive conflict” between the CSA and the new Colorado or Washington law, or most ¶ state medical
marijuana regulations, because most of them neither prevent the federal ¶ government from enforcing
the CSA nor make it impossible for people to comply with ¶ both federal and state laws (easily done by simply avoiding
marijuana).32¶ Given the CSA’s anti-preemption clause, it appears likely that the only state ¶ legalization
efforts clearly preempted by federal law are those that would involve state ¶ or local officials themselves in
unambiguously committing or requiring others to commit ¶ federal crimes, as by possessing, growing, or
distributing marijuana, aiding and abetting, ¶ or conspiring in such activities with private actors.
1. Our Counter-interpretation is that the Negative gets a CP and K and the status quo.
2. Key to neg flex. Stops bad one off debates and forces aff argument innovation. Only
way to test the aff from a critical and policy angle.
3. Strategic thinking. Key to critical thinking and time management that outweigh
their types of education because they can be applied to every career path not just
policymaking.
4. “Time skew” is arbitrary. We would have made the same number of arguments on a
smaller number of flows because every argument in debate is conditional.
5. 2NR choice prevents the worst impacts to conditionality – we will only advocate a
position in one world.
6. Conditionality is key to permutations because each permutation is its own world.
7. Evaluate theory through a lens of reasonability. An Offense/defense paradigm is
bad since it encourages the affirmative to always go for theory over substance which
turns education.
8. The Alternative to conditionality is worse. The status quo should always be a logical
option because otherwise the judge is to endorse a bad counterplan if the plan is
worse.
People only care about state laws – have more recent and localized information, use
majoritarian law-making – no chilling
Mikos 12 ~{Professor of Law and the Director of the Program in Law and Government
(Vanderbilt), J.D. Summa Cum Laude (UM….Yuck), former articles editor on the Michigan
Law Review, former professor at Cal-Davis, Notre Dame and UM focusing on Federalism,
Constitutional Law, Marijuana Law and Policy, Federal Criminal Law, and Drug Law and
Policy, "On the Limits of Federal Supremacy When States Relax (or Abandon) Marijuana Bans,"
CATO Policy Analysis No. 714,
12/12, http://www.cato.org/sites/cato.org/files/pubs/pdf/PA714.pdf~~}
In the case of marijuana, of course, state and federal laws send conflicting signals about the social
acceptability of using the drug as medicine. The CSA strongly suggests societal disapproval, but
permissive state laws suggest societal tolerance—and possibly even approval—of medical use of the
drug. If citizens take their cues from federal law, Congress may have far more de facto impact on
marijuana use than suggested earlier. Conversely, if citizens take their cues from state law,
Congress’s influence in this domain is even weaker than previously noted. When it comes to
educating citizens about norms, state laws generally give citizens more current and relevant
information, and as a result are more likely to shape their choices than are federal laws. For one thing,
state laws typically convey more up-to-date information about current social norms. The main reason is
that states employ comparatively majoritarian-friendly lawmaking processes, such as referenda, that
make updating state laws to keep up with changes in societal views much easier.189 To be sure,
passage of a congressional law regulating an activity signals something about how the nation
feels about that activity when the law is passed. Indeed, because it takes super-majority support
to push any measure through Congress, laws that do emerge from the national process may
signal a strong national consensus and norm. But because federal laws are so resistant to change, the
signal broadcast by the passage of federal law fades quickly with time. The CSA illustrates the point.
The federal ban on medical use of marijuana was adopt ed nearly 40 years ago, when Congress
placed marijuana on Schedule I of the CSA. Whatever society’s views were circa 1970, they
have since changed: the strict marijuana ban is out of sync with current social norms. Society no
longer condemns the use of marijuana for medical purposes (assuming it ever did). On the
contrary, opinion polls consistently show more than 70 percent of the American public now
approves of the use of marijuana for medical conditions. But given the enormous challenge of
changing any congressional law, the resilience of the now seemingly passé federal ban is hardly
surprising.° It would take an even more dramatic shift in public opinion to formally undo it. By
contrast, state medical marijuana laws have all been enacted more recently than the federal ban,
starting with California in 1996 and continuing through Massachusetts in 2012. Many of these
state laws have been supported by large majorities. Support for Michigan’s Proposition 1, for
example, topped 63 percent in 2008. The passage of 18 state Laws, many by wide margins,
signals that society is more likely to support than to censure medical use of marijuana Thus,
there is virtually no social sanction for using marijuana for medical purposes—or at least no
consensus to condemn such behavior—in these states. In addition to being more current, state
Laws also convey more accurate information about local norms. This is important because norms held
by local society exert far more influence on one’s behavior than do norms held by distant
strangers.19’ After all, we in teract more—and care more about our standing—with neighbors,
co-workers, close fam ily, and fellow worshipers than we do with people who live far away.
Thus, for example, the passage of California’s Compassionate Use Act in 1996 may have
signaled the emer gence of a new, more permissive norm governing the medical use of marijuana
in that state. This event may have been enough to foster use of the drug in California, even if
drug norms elsewhere had not yet changed. In short, even if they cannot shield people from
federal legal sanctions or change federal law in the short term, states can make people feel secure
from social sanctions by credibly signaling public approval of once taboo conduct.192 In this
way, states wield another powerful influence on private behavior, an influence that is not necessarily
subject to congressional preemption.’93 Moreover, by signaling societal approval of marijuana use,
states may even hamstring Congress’s already limited ability to impose legal sanctions on those
who violate the federal ban. For example, jurors may be unwilling to convict people who use
marijuana for medical purposes (or the people who help them) if they know that local society
generally approves of medical marijuana. In fact, in order to avoid sympathetic juries, the DEA
has been attacking medical marijuana suppliers primarily by using civil injunctions and civil
sanctions such as forfeiture, which are tactics that do not require jury participation.195 Given the
federal government’s limited enforcement resources and its comparatively weak influence over
personal preferences, moral obligations, and social norms, many citizens are not dissuaded from
using marijuana by the existence of the federal ban. States have succeeded at removing—or at
least diminishing—the biggest obstacles curbing medical use of marijuana stare legal sanctions
and the personal, moral, and social disapproval that may once have inhibited use of the drug. To
be sure, they cannot eliminate all of the barriers to medical use—those that exist in the state of
nature (e.g., wealth constraints) or those posed by federal sanctions—but they have gone quite
far, as participation rates in state programs demonstrate: roughly 1,400,000 people may now be
using marijuana legally for medical purposes in 18 states. In short, though Congress’s categori
cal ban on marijuana has been held constitutional by a majority of the Supreme Court, state
exemptions have become the de facto governing law of the land in these states.
T
Special interest groups and states will backlash to legalization and overturn legislation
– this is the POINT of their cooperative federalism advantage! Obviously turns the aff
and timeframe for a solvency is at LEAST a year
Caulkins 12 Jonathan P. Caulkins, Ph.D. in Operations Research (MIT, 1990), H. Guyford Stever
cvProfessorship of Operations Research and Public Policy, “A Future of Legalized Marijuana?”, World
Future Review (World Future Society). Winter2012, Vol. 4 Issue 4, p28-32. 5p
There is no logical reason why a jurisdiction couldn’t legalize and then “repeal” the legalization and
return to a decriminalization regime, but the history of alcohol regulation post-legalization would not be
a basis for optimism. A hope back in the 1930s was that different states would go off and implement different forms of alcohol regimes,
ranging from quite free market to state stores to dry state. The hope or theory was that states could learn from each other
and over time converge on the optimal design. In reality, there has been much more stasis than learning
and adaptation. Whatever legal regime one invents, there will be stakeholders with a vested interest in
the status quo, and as a gross generalization, they will present a more organized lobby advocating their
interests than will the hypothetical or as-yet-not-organized stakeholders who would benefit from some
alternative system. To be blunt, if we get to the point where there is a legal marijuana industry, then its livelihood, profits, jobs, etc,
would all be destroyed by a return to decriminalization. So it would presumably fight that. And there is often a degree of regulatory capture.
Indeed, the Oregon proposition – which did not pass – would have built regulatory capture right into the system, with the growers picking five
of the seven members of the to-be-created Oregon Cannabis Commission that would have been charged with regulating the industry. So
another scenario is, if
legalization encounters hiccups and bumps along the way in pioneering jurisdictions,
then other jurisdictions that might otherwise have followed suit could instead stop short of legalization
with something like decriminalization. I don’t necessarily see this as likely, though, inasmuch as most of the hiccups will
more likely develop down the road, not straight out of the gate. For example, it will be the better part of a year
before a licensing system for public marijuana sales is even set up.
The aff is just a ‘devolve authority aff’ – it only removes a federal barrier to eventual
marihuana legalization
Firestone 14
David, “Let States Decide on Marijuana” [http://www.nytimes.com/2014/07/27/opinion/sunday/hightime-let-states-decide-on-marijuana.html?_r=0] July 26 //
In 1970, at the height of his white-hot war on crime, President Richard Nixon demanded that Congress pass the Controlled
Substances Act to crack down on drug abuse. During the debate, Senator Thomas Dodd of Connecticut held up a package wrapped in
light-green paper that he said contained $3,000 worth of marijuana. This substance, he said, caused such “dreadful hallucinations” in an
Army sergeant in Vietnam that he called down a mortar strike on his own troops. A few minutes later, the Senate unanimously passed the
bill.¶ That law, so antique that it uses the spelling “marihuana,” is still on the books, and is the principal reason that possessing the
substance in Senator Dodd’s package is considered illegal by the United States government. Changing it wouldn’t even require an act of
Congress — the attorney general or the secretary of Health and Human Services could each do so — although the law should be changed
to make sure that future administrations could not reimpose the ban.¶ Repealing
it would allow the states to decide
whether to permit marijuana use and under what conditions. Nearly three-fourths of them have already begun to do
so, liberalizing their laws in defiance of the federal ban. Two have legalized recreational use outright, and if the federal government also
recognized the growing public sentiment to legalize and regulate marijuana, that would almost certainly prompt more states to follow
along.
Doesn’t change status of marijuana in the US – states would still have to legalize it
Kenny 14
Jack, “New York Times Discovers States' Rights for Marijuana Laws”
[http://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews/constitution/item/18790-new-york-times-discovers-statesrights-for-marijuana-laws] July 28 //
"The federal government should repeal the ban on marijuana," said the editorial board in the introduction to a fivepart editorial dealing with various aspects of marijuana legalization. "There are no perfect answers to people's legitimate concerns about
marijuana use," the Times conceded. "But neither are there such answers about tobacco or alcohol, and we believe that on every level —
health effects, the impact on society and law-and-order issues — the balance falls squarely on the side of national legalization. That
will
put decisions on whether to allow recreational or medicinal production and use where it belongs — at
the state level.
Aff lets states opt out – could functionally re-criminalize marijuana
Chemerinsky et al, ’14 [Erwin (Dean of UC Irvine School of Law); Jolene Foreman (Criminal Justice
and Drug Policy Fellow at the ACLU of Northern California); Allen Hopper (American Civil Liberties Union
of Northern California - Criminal Justice and Drug Policy Director); Sam Kamin (Professor and Director,
Constitutional Rights and Remedies Program at University of Denver - Sturm College of Law),
“Cooperative Federalism and Marijuana Regulation”, Legal Studies Research Paper Series No. 2014-25,
RSR]
d. Amending 21 U.S.C. § 903 to allow cooperative federalism As noted in Section IV above, Congress included an explicit anti-preemption
provision in the CSA, found at 21 U.S.C. § 903. Section 903
sets out the limited circumstances under which the CSA
will preempt state laws. We propose adding a new Section 903A to effect the cooperative federalism
approach discussed above: Section 903. Application of State law No provision of this subchapter shall be construed as indicating an
intent on the part of 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
Section 903A . CSA marijuana
control law opt-out procedure for States 1) Notwithstanding any other provision of law: a) No provision
of this subchapter or any other federal statute concerning marijuana, including but not limited to
criminal and civil penalties, shall apply to any acts which take place within the jurisdiction of any State
during any time period in which such State is certified as a CSA Marijuana Control Opt Out State by the
Attorney General under the procedure established in subdivision 2), except to the extent the certified
State’s laws expressly provide otherwise. b) In any State certified under subdivision 2) during any period
of time the State is so certified: i) The certified State’s laws concerning marijuana shall supersede and
have full effect and control to the exclusion of this subchapter’s provisions concerning marijuana. ii) No
Act of Congress shall be construed to invalidate, impair, or supersede any law enacted by any certified
State for the purpose of regulating marijuana. 2) The Attorney General shall, as soon as practicable after
the enactment of this Section, issue regulations establishing a procedure by which States may request
certification as a CSA Marijuana Control Opt Out State. The regulations shall require the Attorney
General to certify any requesting State within a reasonable time period unless the Attorney General
determines that State’s marijuana control laws do not create strong and effective regulatory and
enforcement systems reasonably able to prevent the following: a) the distribution of marijuana to
minors; b) revenue from the sale of marijuana from going to criminal enterprises, gangs and cartels; c)
the diversion of marijuana from states where it is legal under state law in some form to other states; d)
state-authorized marijuana activity from being used as a cover or pretext for the trafficking of other
illegal drugs or other illegal activity; e) violence and the use of firearms in the cultivation and distribution
of marijuana f) drugged driving and the exacerbation of other adverse public health consequences
associated with marijuana use; g) growing of marijuana on public lands and the attendant public safety
and environmental dangers posed by marijuana production on public lands; h) preventing marijuana
possession or use on federal property. 3) The certification granted under subdivision 2) shall be for a
period of two years. Before the expiration of this two year certification period the Attorney General shall
provision of this subchapter and that State law so that the two cannot consistently stand together.
reassess the State’s marijuana control laws unless the State notifies the Attorney General it is not
seeking recertification. The State shall be recertified every two years unless the Attorney General
determines that the State’s marijuana control laws no longer meet the standards set out in subdivision
2). 4) Any determination that a State seeking certification under subdivision two does not satisfy the
certification standards set out in that subdivision shall be conveyed in writing and shall specify all of the
criteria provided in subdivisions a) through h) of subdivision 2 which the State’s marijuana control laws
fail to satisfy. Any such written determination shall also include specific changes to the State’s marijuana
control laws that would bring the State into compliance with the specified criteria and allow
certification. 5) The regulations issued under subdivision 2) shall include: a) Emergency procedures by
which the Attorney General may seek to revoke a certification granted under subdivision 2) prior to the
expiration of the two year certification period if a certified State’s marijuana control laws no longer
meet the standards set out in subdivision 2) and there is a imminent threat of significant harm to a
person or persons unless federal law is reinstated; and b) Procedures by which a State may seek
administrative review of any decision to deny certification under subdivision 2) or revoke a certification
previously granted.
A1’
Federalism is resilient
Rodriguez 14 - Professor of Law @ Yale Law School [Christina M. Rodriguez, “Negotiating Conflict Through Federalism: Institutional and
Popular Perspectives,” Yale Law Journal, Vol. 124, (2014) p. 2094
Though pursuit of their interests by each player may often lead to conflict, particularly over which institutions should control any given policy
domain, I argue that the
value of the system common to all of its participants is the framework it creates for the
ongoing negotiation of disagreements large and small—a value that requires regular attention by all participants to the
integrity of federalism’s institutions. It is in this sense that I think federalism constitutes a framework for national
integration, in the spirit of this Feature. It creates a multiplicity of institutions with lawmaking power through
which to develop national consensus, while establishing a system of government that allows for
meaningful expressions of disagreement when consensus fractures or proves¶ elusive—a value that
transcends perspective.
In what follows, I attempt to establish these conclusions by considering how the
negotiations required by federalism have
structured our national debates over a number of pressing social welfare issues, including immigration, marriage equality,
drug policy , education and health care reform, and law enforcement. I focus on how these debates play out in what I call the
discretionary spaces of federalism , which consist of the policy conversations¶ and bureaucratic
negotiations that actors within the system must have to figure¶ out how to interact with one another
both vertically and horizontally. Indeed, within existing legal constraints, state and local actors will have
considerable room to maneuver, and the federal government considerable discretion to¶ refrain from
taking preemptive action. 2 I highlight questions of administration and enforcement, because it is in these domains that the system’s
actors construct one another’s powers and interests on an ongoing basis, based on the value they seek to derive from the system. In these
discretionary spaces, “ winners” must sometimes emerge from discrete conflicts, whether through judicial resolution or
political concession, and the parameters set by courts and Congress obviously define the terrain of
negotiation. But the intergovernmental relationships and overlapping political communities the
system creates are neither locked in zero-sum competition nor bound by fixed rules of engagement ,
precisely what makes federalism productive regardless of perspective. pg. 2097-2098
Federal illegality is a non-issue
Kamin 12 - Professor of Law and Director of the Constitutional Rights & Remedies Program, University of Denver [Sam Kamin, “Keynote:
Marijuana at the Crossroads,” Denver University Law Review, Volume 89 Issue 4 (2012)
Thus, the
state has permitted (or at least tacitly endorsed) that which the federal government has officially
prohibited—the possession of mari-juana.8 This development is both contradictory and unproblematic from
a federalism perspective . That is, it is a matter of black letter constitutional law that the federal
government cannot commandeer state governments into helping federal officials enforce the CSA’s
continuing marijuana prohibition.9 And the federal government, although free to prohibit mari-juana under its Commerce Clause
power,10 cannot force the states to pro-hibit particular conduct that they do not wish to prohibit. Thus,
there is nothing inherently illegitimate or inappropriate about the states choosing to decriminalize or
even permit conduct that violates federal law.11 pg. 979
Cooperative federalism impossible – establishes no bright line of authority for the
courts to enforce, which guarantees centralization
Robert Schapiro March 6 (Emory Law Professor; “Justice Stevens's Theory of Interactive Federalism,”
74 Fordham Law Review, pp. 2136-7)
In its recent federalism cases, the United States Supreme Court has affirmed a dualist understanding of federalism.
Indeed, to emphasize the independent stature of states, the Court has used the term "dual sovereignty" to describe its conception of the
federal system. A majority of the Court asserts that the
constitutional principle of federalism requires drawing a line
between the local and the national. This five-Justice majority further insists that it is up to the Court to police this boundary,
preventing the federal government from encroaching on state turf. In the Court's conception of dual federalism, when a border dispute breaks
out between two sovereigns, one sovereign should not be the judge. As the Court has recognized, distinguishing between local and national
activities is not easy. To
enforce the boundary between state and national power the Court has relied on a
set of categorical distinctions. This reliance on a categorical approach follows from the Court's
insistence on judicially enforceable boundaries. The Court has admitted that the lines it draws may be arbitrary. However, it
insists that for federalism to be judicially enforceable, there must be lines.
A2
Home cultivation wrecks regulation
Caulkins 12 Jonathan P. Caulkins, Ph.D. in Operations Research (MIT, 1990), H. Guyford Stever
Professorship of Operations Research and Public Policy, “Design considerations for legalizing cannabis:
lessons inspired by analysis of California's Proposition 19”, Addiction. May2012, Vol. 107 Issue 5, p865871. 7p 2012
However, it would be harder to regulate commercial production and prevent diversion if user growing were
allowed. If the only legal production were that which occurred in a handful of tightly regulated facilities, then one could require stamped
packaging or quantity limits; e.g. no cannabis could leave the approved production facility packaged in quantities larger than an ounce (28
g). Possession of more than an ounce that is not sealed in a stamped container could be prima facie evidence of illegal production. However,
if user growing is allowed, such
tight regulation would be enormously more difficult, because someone caught in
possession of contraband could claim that it had been grown legally at home. This creates a potential
Catch-22; allowing home cultivation might undermine the very regulations needed to prevent prices
from falling so far that home cultivation would not be worth the effort, except for those who enjoyed
growing as a hobby.
The US has the innovation lead – China is behind in R&D, patents, and new product
development
Beckley, Michael is a research fellow in the International Security Program at Harvard Kennedy School’s Belfer
Center for Science and International Affairs and a fellow at the Miller Center at the University of Virginia “China’s
Century? Why America’s Edge Will Endure.” International Security, Vol. 36, No. 3 (Winter 2011/12), pp: 41-78.
It is far from clear, therefore, that China is catching up to the United States in terms of basic scientific research. More important, such a trend
would not necessarily affect the balance of power. After all, what ultimately matters is not scientific superiority but technological superiority—
the ability to produce and use commercially viable and militarily relevant innovations. In the nineteenth century, German scientists excelled at
turning scientific breakthroughs into practical products, developing major innovations in the chemical, electrical, and industrial dye industries
that formed what many scholars now refer to as the “second industrial revolution.” Today, scientific superiority is not necessary for
technological superiority because published articles circulate globally—they sit in searchable databases and can be obtained by anyone with
access to a major library—and it is insufficient because most scientific breakthroughs are useless in isolation from lower-level innovations and
infrastructure. Thus, the ability to produce scientific breakthroughs may be less important than the ability to capitalize on them. On first
glance, China’s emergence as the world’s leading exporter of hightechnology products suggests it has capitalized on its scientific investments
and become an “advanced-technology superstate,” perhaps even “the world’s leading technology-based economy.” On closer inspection,
however, it becomes clear that China’s
high-technology exports are “not very Chinese, and not very hightech”—more than 90 percent are produced by foreign firms and consist of imported components that
are merely assembled in China, a practice known as “export processing.” These percentages have increased over
time, a trend that suggests Chinese firms are falling further behind foreign competitors. Moreover, approximately 50 percent of China’s total
exports are produced by foreign enterprises (see figure 5). By comparison, foreign enterprises produced less than 25 percent of Taiwan and
Chinese technological stagnation is also evident in sales and
patent statistics. From 1991 to 2008, Chinese firms’ sales of new products as a share of total sales revenues
remained fast at 15 percent. In the United States, by contrast, new products account for 35 to 40 percent of
sales revenue. The Chinese government grants the majority of its invention patents to foreign firms
even though Chinese firms are five times more numerous. This result is all the more startling because many foreign
South Korea’s manufactured exports in the 1970s.
firms do not seek Chinese patents. Instead they seek “triadic patents,” which are simultaneously recognized by the patent offices of the three
largest markets for high-technology products (the United States, Europe, and Japan), and are thus the most secure and most difficult to obtain.
Figure 6 shows that the U.S. lead in triadic patents has increased over the last twenty years. Chinese firms, moreover, do not seem to be taking
genuine steps to improve their technological abilities. For the past twenty years, Chinese
firms’ total spending on R&D as a
percentage of sales revenue has remained at levels seven times below the average for American
firms. Between 1995 and 2008, the share of Chinese enterprises engaged in scientific or technological activities declined from 59 percent
to 37 percent, and the share of Chinese firms with an R&D department declined from 60 percent to 24 percent. When Chinese firms import
technology, they spend a fraction of the total cost on absorbing the technology. This fraction increased recently from 4 percent to 25 percent,
but it remains far lower than the 200 to 300 percent spent by Korean and Japanese firms when they were trying to catch up to the West in the
1970s. Technological leaders sometimes rest on their laurels and abandon innovative efforts in favor of “finding new markets for old products.”
The United States, however, looks set to excel in emerging high-technology industries. It has more
nanotechnology centers than the next three nations combined (Germany, the United Kingdom, and China) and
accounts for 43 percent of the world’s nanotechnology patent applications (see figure 7). In biotechnology, the United States accounts for
The United States accounts for
20 to 25 percent of all patent applications for renewable energy, air pollution, water pollution, and
waste management technologies; China accounts for 1 to 4 percent of the patent applications in these areas (see
41.5 percent of patent applications (China accounts for 1.6 percent) and 76 percent of global revenues.
figure 8). Since 1991, the United States has increased its lead in patent applications over China in all of these industries. Finally, the
Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development has identified ten “knowledge- and technology-intensive industries” that are capable
of “altering lifestyles and the way business is conducted across a wide range of sectors.” 147 The U.S. lead, in terms of value added, in
knowledge- and technology-intensive manufacturing industries dipped during the 2001 recession but quickly recovered and has increased
overall since 1996. Over the same time period, the United States steadily increased its lead in knowledge and technology-intensive services
(see figures 9 and 10). In sum, a comparison of U.S. and Chinese innovation systems over the past twenty years provides strong evidence
against declinism and in favor of the alternative perspective that China continues to lag behind the United States. China has increased its
investments in basic science, but these efforts have yet to significantly enhance its innovative capabilities. Data on Chinese hightechnology
exports show that Chinese firms have increased their participation in high-technology industries.
Data on commercial R&D,
patents, and profits, however, suggest Chinese firms engage primarily in low-end activities, such as
manufacturing and component supply. By contrast, U.S. firms seem to focus on activities in which profits
and proprietary knowledge are highest, such as product design, development, and branding. This division of labor has
remained stable over the last two decades; if anything, it has become more pronounced.
Midterms
Overview
Timeframe- Lohman
Most probable
Campbell 2008 (Kurt M Campbell, Assistant Secretary of State for East Asian and Pacific Affairs, Dr.
Campbell served in several capacities in government, including as Deputy Assistant Secretary of
Defense for Asia and the Pacific, Director on theNational Security Council Staff, previously the Chief
Executive Officer and co-founder of the Center for a New American Security (CNAS), served as Director
of the Aspen Strategy Group and the Chairman of the Editorial Board of the Washington Quarterly, and
was the founder and Principal of StratAsia, a strategic advisory company focused on Asia, rior to cofounding CNAS, he served as Senior Vice President, Director of the International Security Program, and
the Henry A. Kissinger Chair in National Security Policy at the Center for Strategic and International
Studies, doctorate in International Relation Theory from Oxford, former associate professor of public
policy and international relations at the John F. Kennedy School of Government and Assistant Director of
the Center for Science and International Affairs at Harvard University, member of Council on Foreign
Relations and International Institute for Strategic Studies, “The Power of Balance: America in iAsia” June
2008, http://www.cnas.org/files/documents/publications/CampbellPatelSingh_iAsia_June08.pdf)
Asian investment is also at record levels. Asian countries lead the world with unprecedented infrastructure projects. With over $3 trillion in foreign currency reserves, Asian nations and businesses are
starting to shape global economic activity. Indian firms are purchasing industrial giants such as Arcelor
Steel, as well as iconic brands of its once-colonial ruler, such as Jaguar and Range Rover. China’s Lenovo
bought IBM’s personal computer¶ We call the transformations across the Asia-Pacific the emergence of
“iAsia” to reflect the adoption by countries across Asia of fundamentally new strategic approaches to
their neighbors and the world. Asian nations are pursuing their interests with real power in a period of
both tremendous potential and great uncertainty. iAsia is: Integrating: iAsia includes increasing
economic interdependence and a flowering of multinational forums to deal with trade, cultural
exchange, and, to some degree, security. Innovating: iAsia boasts the world’s most successful
manufacturing and technology sectors and could start taking the lead in everything from finance to
nanotech to green tech. Investing: Asian nations are developing infrastructure and human capital at
unprecedented rates. But the continent remains plagued by: Insecurity: Great-power rivalry is alive in
Asia. Massive military investments along with historic suspicions and contemporary territorial and other
conflicts make war in Asia plausible. Instability: From environmental degradation to violent extremism
to trafficking in drugs, people, and weapons, Asian nations have much to worry about. Inequality: Within
nations and between them, inequality in Asia is more stark than anywhere else in the world.
Impoverished minorities in countries like India and China, and the gap in governance and capacity within
countries, whether as backward as Burma or as advanced as Singapore, present unique challenges. A
traditional approach to Asia will not suffice if the United States is to both protect American interests and
help iAsia realize its potential and avoid pitfalls. business and the Chinese government, along with other
Asian financial players, injected billions in capital to help steady U.S. investment banks such as Merrill
Lynch as the American subprime mortgage collapse unfolded. Chinese investment funds regional
industrialization, which in turn creates new markets for global products. Asia now accounts for over 40
percent of global consumption of steel 4 and China is consuming almost half of world’s available
concrete. 5 Natural resources from soy to copper to oil are being used by China and India at astonishing
rates, driving up commodity prices and setting off alarm bells in Washington and other Western capitals.
Yet Asia is not a theater at peace. On average, between 15 and 50 people die every day from causes tied
to conflict, and suspicions rooted in rivalry and nationalism run deep. The continent harbors every
traditional and non-traditional challenge of our age: it is a cauldron of religious and ethnic tension; a
source of terror and extremism; an accelerating driver of the insatiable global appetite for energy; the
place where the most people will suffer the adverse effects of global climate change; the primary source
of nuclear proliferation; and the most likely theater on Earth for a major conventional confrontation and
even a nuclear conflict. Coexisting with the optimism of iAsia are the ingredients for internal strife, nontraditional threats like terrorism, and traditional interstate conflict, which are all magnified by the risk of
miscalculation or poor decision-making.
Magnitude- Mead
Turns Indo Pak
Lohman
Turns Warming
Nuclear war destroys the ozone layer, threatening all life on earth
Carl Sagan (David Duncan Professor of Astronomy and Space Sciences and Director of the Laboratory
for Planetary Studies at Cornell University) Foreign Affairs 1983/1984
Nuclear explosions of more than one-megaton yield generate a radiant fireball that rises through the troposphere
into the stratosphere. The fireballs from weapons with yields between 100 kilotons and one megaton will
partially extend into the stratosphere. The high temperatures in the fireball chemically ignite some of the nitrogen in
the air, producing oxides of nitrogen, which in turn chemically attack and destroy the gas ozone in the middle
stratosphere. But ozone absorbs the biologically dangerous ultraviolet radiation from the Sun. Thus the partial depletion of the
stratospheric ozone layer, or ozonosphere,” by high-yield nuclear explosions will increase the flux of solar ultraviolet
radiation at the surface of the Earth (after the soot and dust have settled out). After a nuclear war in which thousands of
high-yield weapons are detonated, the increase in biologically dangerous ultraviolet light might be several hundred
percent. In the more dangerous shorter wavelengths, larger increases would occur. Nucleic acids and proteins, the fundamental
molecules for life on Earth, are especially sensitive to ultraviolet radiation . Thus, an increase of the solar
ultraviolet flux at the surface of the Earth is potentially dangerous for life.
Turns Econ
No ability for trade if the region is enveloped in regional wars- Asia generally huge
trading partners
Impact
Internal Link
Keck 14
Link
Marijuana legalization would allow the Dems to maintain control of the Senate
Walker ‘14 Jon Walker is a senior policy analyst , “How Marijuana Legalization Could End up
Saving Democratic Control of the Senate,” Firedoglake, 04/22/2014, date accessed: 8/11/2014,
http://elections.firedoglake.com/2014/04/22/how-marijuana-legalization-could-end-up-savingdemocratic-control-of-the-senate/, R.T.]
Thanks to a strange series of coincidences marijuana legalization could now be what helps
Democrats narrowly maintain control of the Senate – even though not one Senate Democrat is
willing to publicly support this popular change yet. Democrats have the Alaska state legislature’s
inability to work quickly for this potential pot political windfall. This week the Alaska legislature
needed to go into extend session, which means they will not finish work 120 days before the
August 19th primary. As a result Alaska law required local election officials to move a marijuana
legalization initiative scheduled for the August primary ballot to the November general election.
This date change could be what narrowly save Sen. Mark Begich (D-AK) re-election bid and
Democrats control of the Senate. There are strong indications that having legalization on the
ballot has the unique ability to get young people to vote. In 2012 the three states with legalization
initiatives saw a significant increase in the percent of young voters compared to 2008, but there
was no similar increase in the rest of the country. Similarly, a George Washington Battleground
poll found 69 percent said they were more likely to turn out if marijuana legalization is on the
ballot. Since Democrats have a 13 point affiliation advantage with voters under 30, any increase
in youth turnout will have a noticeable benefit for Begich. Even a modest boost in youth turnout
can legitimately make the difference between a narrow win and a narrow loss for Begich given
how close the race is. According to a new analysis by the New York Times, Alaska is the most
competitive Senate race this year with Democrats and Republicans having exactly a 50 percent
chance of winning. More importantly, it is also currently projected to be the tipping point
election which will decide control of the Senate. On November 4th the nation could easily be up
late waiting for result from Alaska to tell us if Democrats end up with a 50 senator majority (plus
the Vice President who is the tie breaker) or 49 seat minority. This one recently moved
marijuana legalization initiative may just prove to be the small edge Begich, and by extension the
entire Democratic party, needs for a close win
Federal legalization causes Dem win – youth turnout, empirics
Applebaum, 14 [Josh Appelbaum is a Contributing Writer at The Suffolk Resolves and manages the
site's social media presence. 3-4-2014 http://suffolkresolves.com/2014/03/04/lets-weed-outrepublicans-in-2014/]
By running on pot legalization, Democrats can spur voter turnout and sweep the 2014 Midterms. In many ways,
the legacy of Barack Obama will be determined by how the final two years of his presidency play out. He will either be remembered as a transformational president who achieved great
legislative victories despite unprecedented obstruction, or a president who underestimated the partisanship of the political landscape and failed to deliver on his grandiose message of hope
and change. At the moment, you could make the case for either. His accomplishments are impressive: digging us out of the worst financial collapse since the Great Depression, passing the
Affordable Care Act, getting us out of Iraq and (by the end of this year) Afghanistan, forty-six straight months of job growth, killing Osama Bin Laden. But his first five years in office have also
been marred by dysfunction and disappointment, stagnation and inaction. Nothing can get passed in Congress because the Republicans refuse to work with him. No jobs bills. No background
checks on gun sales. No extension of unemployment insurance. No Immigration Reform or minimum wage increase. If Obama is to be remembered as one of the great Presidents in history,
the rest of his term must be marked by action, not gridlock. He needs a congress that will work with him to pass big, legislative initiatives that improve our country. To accomplish this goal, the
Democrats must win back the House and defend the Senate in the 2014 Midterm Elections. If they fail to do so, Obama’s final two years will be spent as a lame duck whose only remaining
So how can Democrats win big in 2014? It’s simple: run on pot. IT’S ALL ABOUT TURNOUT A recent
CNN poll showed that a majority of Americans (55%) support legalizing marijuana, which is a staggering number when you
consider that just 34% supported it in 2002. However, when you look deeper into the numbers, it tells a different story. Just 39% of people age 65+ support
legalization, and among people age 50-64 the approval rises only slightly to 50%. However, among 18-34 year olds, it’s wildly popular: over 66% support full
legalization. This is great news for the Democratic Party, which has struggled in recent years to turn out
voters during Midterm Elections, and continued this trend in 2010. In 2008, voters age 18-29 made up 18% of the electorate. In the
2010 midterms, young people accounted for a paltry 11% of the vote. In 2014, much of the debate will be centered on
Obamacare. Unfortunately for Democrats, this isn’t a motivating factor for young people to head to the
polls. It doesn’t excite them. They feel invincible and don’t think they need health insurance. It’s too
abstract. Marijuana is different. It’s beloved by young people: a symbol of equal parts independence
and rebellion. Unlike health care, which can feel overwhelming and complicated, marijuana is a tangible
issue that young people can relate to. It’s simple and straightforward. By pushing legalized marijuana
power lies in his veto pen.
nationally, Dem ocrat s can provide much-needed motivation for young people to turn out and vote for
them.
Simply put, paying $100 per month for Health Care that you may not even need doesn’t excite young voters, but being able to walk down the street to a pot shop and pay $40 for
Best of all, this isn’t just a theory — the numbers back it up.
an 8th of legal marijuana does.
Election data from the pro-marijuana group Just
Say Now showed that in 2008 the youth vote (18-29) stood at 14% in the state of Colorado. In 2012, when a marijuana initiative was on the ballot, that number rose to 20%. In the state of
Washington the increase was even more pronounced. In 2008, the youth vote was 10%. With pot on the ballot in 2012 it soared to 22%. If you put it on the ballot, young people will vote for it.
THE PATH TO VICTORY Heading into the 2014 Midterm Elections, Democrats control the Senate 55-45. There are 36 open seats, 21 of which are held by Democrats, 15 by Republicans.
Democrats can afford to lose up to four seats and still remain in control. It’s a different story in the House, where Democrats are in the minority 201-234. With every seat open — since
Representatives are elected every two years — Democrats must flip 17 seats in order to regain the majority. According to a recent Reason.com article, thirteen states could be voting to
legalize marijuana in 2014, while sixteen others could be voting to allow medical marijuana. Three of the most likely states to have recreational pot on the ballot just so happen to have
incumbent Democrat Senators up for re-election. This includes Alaska (Begich), Oregon (Merkley) and New Mexico (Udall). A fourth Senator up for re-election, Mark Udall of Colorado, will be
running on the backdrop of his state’s wildly successful legal marijuana launch. A recent report from the state’s Joint Budget Committee showed that in the first 18 months Colorado expects to
generate $610 million in marijuana retail sales and take in $184 million in tax revenue. Aside from full out legalization, the medical marijuana push may be more important to Democrats
because many of the states that could have ballot initiatives are traditionally Republican. This presents a golden opportunity to flip House seats in states like Florida, Georgia, Kentucky,
When
engaging in a fiscal debate, our two political parties get hung up on pledges. Republicans refuse to increase taxes while
Tennessee, Kansas, Nebraska, Arkansas and Wyoming, all of whom may have medical marijuana on the ballot in 2014. (Credit: Isaac Reese/Reason) THE TIME IS NOW
Democrats refuse to make cuts to entitlements. As a result, methods of addressing our debt and improving our economy are almost impossible to find in Washington. Legalizing marijuana is
the perfect bipartisan solution: it doesn’t raise taxes or cut Social Security. It allows us to bring in much-needed revenue that we can use to invest in education and infrastructure without
It’s time for the Democrats to step up and make pot legalization a central issue in the
Midterm Elections. They can look to Colorado and tout its success, and in doing so they’ll motivate young people to reject apathy and
turn out at the polls for them. As crazy as it sounds, pot legalization just might be the issue that
violating either party’s economic pledge.
propels the Democrats to victory in 2014 , ensuring that the final two years of Obama’s presidency will be marked by action and achievements, not
gridlock. All the Democrats need to do is find the courage to inhale.
Dems will campaign on legalization – solid majority of Dem public supports
Bernstein, 13[Jonathan Bernstein is a Bloomberg View columnist covering U.S. politics 10-22-2013
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-partisan/wp/2013/10/22/looks-like-democrats-have-aweed-fight-coming/]
The news today from Gallup is that, for the first time in its polling, a majority — indeed, a solid majority
— of Americans back legalizing marijuana. So far, most politicians have stuck with support for the status
quo, or perhaps the status quo plus various exemptions and loopholes. With 58 percent of all
respondents and 65 percent of Democrats favoring legalization, however, there’s now a very good
chance that a fair number of ambitious Democratic politicians are going to sign up for full legalization
as a way to differentiate themselves in Democratic primaries. Matt Yglesias suggests that Hillary Clinton
will be among them. I think that’s perhaps premature, but maybe not. The way this probably will unfold
is that a fair number of candidates will take a legalization position, and some may even try to run hard
on it, in 2014 elections and especially Democratic primaries. If it’s perceived to be successful, then
expect Clinton’s competitors for 2016 to flirt with or perhaps even embrace the position. Only after that
— or at least, only after it’s clear that it will happen — would I expect Clinton to go along. As a strong
front-runner (and assuming she’s running), expect Clinton to avoid positions that she perceives as
dangerous in a general election, but also expect her to match Democrats who embrace issues that could
divide the party. All of that analysis, for Clinton and the rest, is based on an assumption that candidates
will react here to electoral incentives rather than their personal views of the issue. I think that’s
extremely likely in this case; I’d be very surprised if more than a handful of candidates for Congress next
year have strong personal feelings on this. In that, it’s probably very different from marriage; while
obviously electoral incentives were important, I suspect a lot of politicians cared quite a bit about it on
substantive grounds. It’s true that there are some libertarian candidates who may try to run on the issue
in Republican primaries, but, for the most part, it’s still going to be a loser there. And remember: just
because most Democratic voters support legalization in polls doesn’t mean that it’s a voting issue for
them. But, yes, I do think there’s a good chance that it’s going to be an issue Democratic politicians
jump on in 2014 and 2016.
UQ
Republicans will win- key states are leaning towards the GOP
John Johnson Oct 2, 2014 "GOP Likely to Win Small Majority in Senate"
http://www.newser.com/story/196721/gop-likely-to-win-small-majority-in-senate.html Johnson is an
editor at Newser
With a month to go before the midterms, Republicans stand a decent and ever-improving chance of
taking control of the Senate, according to respected political prognosticator Larry Sabato. In his Crystal
Ball blog, Sabato writes that a one- to three-seat GOP majority is now the mostly likely outcome, a sharp
reversal from the the current 55-45 Democratic majority. "About the best Democrats can hope for is a
50-50 split with Vice President Biden breaking the tie," he writes with Kyle Kondik. They caution that big
gaffes by the GOP in the home stretch could change the outcome, adding that Republicans should be
plenty worried about Kansas. Some highlights: Blue trouble: Five seats currently held by Democrats are
"at least leaning" to the GOP now: Arkansas, Iowa, Montana, South Dakota, and West Virginia. Kansas:
Incumbent Republican Pat Roberts might be in trouble thanks to legal rulings that will require him to run
one-on-one against a popular independent who would likely caucus with Democrats. The race has gone
from favoring Roberts to being a toss-up. Other toss-ups: Colorado, Louisiana, and Alaska join Kansas.
Colorado had been leaning Democratic previously. Late surge? Republican gains could be even bigger "if
everything falls just right for them in the final month." But the "small surge" necessary for that to
happen hasn't emerged yet.
Iowa proves republican are on track to win
Logiurato 9/29
BRETT LOGIURATO , Business Insider, SEP. 29, 2014, 8:59 AM, “This Weekend Was A Disaster For Senate
Democrats,” http://www.businessinsider.com/senate-control-iowa-poll-democrats-republicans-20149,web .
, the past 10 days — particularly the
past weekend — served as a setback to those chances. The big punch to the gut for Senate Democrats: A poll of
the Iowa Senate race that showed the Republican candidate, Joni Ernst, pulling ahead
to a 6-point lead over Democrat Bruce Braley. The poll, conducted by the firm Selzer & Co. for The Des Moines Register, is
considered one of the most reliable in the state and the nation. The Democrats' path
toward retaining control of the Senate becomes much harder without a win in Iowa. And
that reflects in the predictive models, including ones that have been more favorable to Democrats this cycle. The Huffington Post's model, for
example, now gives Republicans about a 58% chance of taking back the Senate. Pollster and
Just as momentum was beginning to swing toward Democrats in retaining control of the Senate this November
professor Sam Wang's model at the Princeton Election Consortium, which has been the most favorable to Democrats' chances, now says the current conditions forecast the GOP to take
control with 51 seats. "New polls this weekend were almost entirely bad for the Democrats, who are now in danger of losing six to eight of their Senate seats while picking up — at most — one
GOP seat," said Greg Valliere, the chief political strategist at Potomac Research Group. "The GOP needs a net gain of six seats to control the Senate, and that appears increasingly likely."
The math does not look good for Democrats with 36 days until Election Day, as
conditions look favorable for Republicans in eight seats currently held by Democrats
— West Virginia (19-point average lead in polls), South Dakota (13.3), Montana (19), Louisiana (5), Iowa (2.2), Colorado (0.8), Arkansas (3.6), and Alaska (4.7).
LBL
AT – Not Intrinsic
Links prove the DA is intrinsic
Obama will have to spend political capital to get the plan done – that is the _______________ link
evidence in the 1NC and the other link evidence I read in this speech
Their interpretation of intrinsicness is bad for debate
A. Their intrinsicness standard would exclude politics disads – we should discuss the political
ramifications of the plan – politics is at the heart of why most plans haven’t been done – we
should be able to talk about the real world political ramifications
B. Infinitely regressive – no disad would be legitimate because no disad is intrinsic if an intervening
actor or phenomena can solve the impact
C. Voting issue - fairness and education – their interpretation would result in no neg ground and no
debate about real world implications
Mod
Asia Prolif Impact
Triggers a massive arms race
Kemp 2010 (Geoffrey Kemp, Director of Regional Strategic Programs at The Nixon Center, served in
the White House under Ronald Reagan, special assistant to the president for national security affairs and
senior director for Near East and South Asian affairs on the National Security Council Staff, Former
Director, Middle East Arms Control Project at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace 2010,
The East Moves West: India, China, and Asia’s Growing Presence in the Middle East, p. 233-5)
A third scenario, Asian Balance of Power, assumes that while economic growth on a global level resumes
and India, China, and Japan continue to show economic strength, the overall prosperity of the Western
world—particularly of the United States—weakens. That leads to increasing domestic pressures for the
United States and Europe to pay less attention to security problems in the Middle East and Asia, given
the high price that they already paid for intervention in the 1990s and the first decade of the twentyfirst century. While the Western World still has an interest in stable energy markets, there is less
inclination to intervene and play the role of policeman. In the United States, there is an equivalent of
the East of Suez debate that took place in Britain in the 1960s, when Britain decided to draw down its
military presence in both the Indian Ocean and the Gulf. With the unilateral decision by the United
States to draw down its presence, the major Asian powers—given that they continue to have unresolved
problems among themselves—expand their own military forces, particularly their nuclear and maritime
capabilities, ultimately leading to a triangular Asian arms race among India, China, and Japan. Under
those circumstances, Japan is likely to obtain nuclear weapons, especially if the crisis on the Korean
peninsula remains unresolved, and the security of the region ultimately will be in the hands of the Asian
powers themselves. The sorts of alliances and arrangements that they make with the Gulf states and
other Middle East countries would be uncertain. In all probability, India would play a key role,
particularly in the Gulf. Indeed, India would be most assertive if it felt that China was encroaching on a
region in which India believes that it should have hegemonic control.¶ A fourth scenario, International
Cooperation, assumes that while the world economic situation may not be as rosy as outlined in the first
scenario, there nevertheless remains a strong interest on the part of all the major industrial powers in
ensuring secure energy supplies; as a result, the price of energy is kept at a reasonable level. The United
States does not go through an East of Suez moment and continues to play a responsible and significant
role in the maritime peacekeeping operations in the region. However, there is more pressure on the
regional powers to share more of the burden and to participate in joint security operations ranging from
sea control missions to cooperative ventures to curb terrorism, proliferation, and radicalism. Under
these circumstances, the presence of the United States is seen as beneficial and reduces the tendency of
the Asian powers to compete among themselves. While the U.S. commitment is not open ended, it
serves long—term U.S. interests, in much the same way that the U.S. presence in Europe today
continues to serve U.S. national interests. In this cooperative environment, local conflicts are easier to
manage since it is in the interests of the all major powers to resist the forces of radicalism and
proliferation—particularly nuclear terrorism.
Goes nuclear
Cirincione 2000 (Joseph, director of the Non-Proliferation Project at the Carnegie Endowment for
International Peace, Foreign Policy, “The Asian Nuclear Reaction Chain,” 3/22/00, lexis)
The blocks would fall quickest and hardest in Asia, where proliferation pressures are already building more
quickly than anywhere else in the world. If a nuclear breakout takes place in Asia , then the international arms
control agreements that have been painstakingly negotiated over the past 40 years will crumble.
Moreover, the United States could find itself embroiled in its fourth war on the Asian continent in six
decades--a costly rebuke to those who seek the safety of Fortress America by hiding behind national
missile defenses. Consider what is already happening: North Korea continues to play guessing games with its
nuclear and missile programs; South Korea wants its own missiles to match Pyongyang's; India and Pakistan
shoot across borders while running a slow-motion nuclear arms race; China modernizes its nuclear arsenal amid
tensions with Taiwan and the United States; Japan's vice defense minister is forced to resign after extolling the
benefits of nuclear weapons; and Russia--whose Far East nuclear deployments alone make it the largest
Asian nuclear power--struggles to maintain territorial coherence. Five of these states have nuclear weapons;
the others are capable of constructing them. Like neutrons firing from a split atom, one nation's actions can
trigger reactions throughout the region, which in turn, stimulate additional actions . These nations form an
interlocking Asian nuclear reaction chain that vibrates dangerously with each new development. If the
frequency and intensity of this reaction cycle increase, critical decisions taken by any one of these governments
could cascade into the second great wave of nuclear-weapon proliferation, bringing regional and global
economic and political instability and, perhaps, the first combat use of a nuclear weapon since 1945 .