Round 7—Aff vs Kansas BC
1AC
1AC
The United States should make legal and regulate nearly all prohibited cannabis
sativa L. in the United States.
1AC 1
Contention one is Mexico The war on drugs fails – legalization creates a regulated domestic industry to
displace cartels
Beckley Foundation, 11 [The Beckley Foundation policy programme is dedicated to
improving national and global drug policies, through research that increases understanding of
the health, social and fiscal implications of drug policy, “Legalizing Marijuana: An Exit Strategy
from the War on Drugs,” http://www.beckleyfoundation.org/2011/04/legalizing-marijuana-anexit-strategy-from-the-war-on-drugs/]
There are a few “unknowns” when it comes to the marijuana industry—its effects on productivity and drug-related violence, for example. Experts need to examine these effects, and policymakers must open their
ears to these experts. A government-sponsored marijuana commission is not a new idea; in fact, Nixon established one in 1972 when he formed the National Commission on Marihuana and Drug Abuse. When the
commission opposed Nixon by supporting decriminalization, he ignored their recommendations and instead intensified his efforts on the “War on Drugs” campaign. This tradition of adhering to popular and
personal beliefs instead of scientific facts is still common today. With the U.S. federal debt sky-high and drug-related violence in Mexico mounting, legalization is more relevant than ever and the topic is ripe for
debate. Here we explore the domestic costs and benefits that the legalization of marijuana would incur, how it might affect the marijuana industry in the Americas (particularly in Mexico), and aims to debunk the
multitude of popular falsehoods that surround marijuana. Why Current Policies Are Not Working Despite assurances from the Drug Enforcement Agency (DEA) that the current drug policy is making headway,
there are clear signs that prohibition has not succeeded in diminishing drug supply or demand. Lowering demand for illegal drugs is the most effective way to lower illegal drug production—while vendors may not
respond to the threat of legal repercussions, they certainly respond to market forces. As the largest consumer of Mexican drugs, it is the responsibility of the U.S. to address its own demand for marijuana. But
American demand and accessibility to marijuana are not decreasing. In fact, marijuana use is currently on the rise and, although usage has oscillated in the past decades, the proportion of use among 12th graders
is only a few percentage points below what it was in 1974. Eighty-one percent of American 12th graders said marijuana was “fairly easy or very easy” to acquire in 2010.2 In a 2009 survey, 16.7 million Americans
While the U.S. may be unable to control its own
demand for marijuana, it could stop its contribution to drug cartel revenues by allowing a
domestic marijuana industry to thrive , shifting profits from cartels to U.S. growers. While figures on
over 12 years of age had used marijuana in the past month—that’s 6.6 percent of the total population.3
marijuana smuggling into the U.S. fail to provide conclusive evidence of how much of the drug is entering the country, marijuana seizures have been steady throughout the Americas in the past decade. However,
this says nothing certain about actual production numbers.4 Domestically, the task of restricting U.S. production is becoming more difficult. Indoor crops that use efficient hydroponic systems are becoming more
popular in the U.S. but pose a challenge to law enforcement agencies for a number of reasons. According to the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC), indoor systems: “[have] the benefit of having
lower chances of detection, high yields with several harvests per year with high potency cannabis and elevated selling prices. The equipment, knowledge and seeds for indoor growing have become very accessible…
[and] The costs of building an indoor growing site can be quickly recovered.”5 Cultivating high-quality marijuana is becoming easier, less risky, and more profitable even for the casual grower. The rise of indoor
crops will pose a new obstacle to drug enforcement agencies in stopping marijuana production in the U.S. The UNODC outlines other negative “unintended consequences” that have resulted from the illegality of
when a good is forbidden, a black market inevitably rises. Black markets inherently
lack safety regulations and often finance other criminal activities. A second consequence is that treatment programs are often
underfunded when the bulk of any drug policy budget is spent on law enforcement. Two other consequences have been termed “geographical” and “substance” displacement. Both terms
involve the idea of the “balloon effect”: when an activity is suppressed in one area, it simply
reappears in another area. Geographical displacement can be illustrated by events in Colombia,
the Caribbean, and Mexico: as the U.S. cracked down on Colombian drug trafficking, smuggling
routes were shifted to Mexico and the Caribbean. Drug trafficking was not eliminated, but
simply moved from one site to another. Substance displacement is an even more disturbing repercussion: as availability of one drug is mitigated through
drugs. The first is obvious;
enforcement, consumers and suppliers flock to alternate drugs that are more accessible.6 While marijuana is not a harmless substance, most would agree that it is the least harmful of illicit drugs. Some drug users
may be pushed toward more dangerous substances, or “hard” drugs, because marijuana is too difficult to or dangerous to obtain. Conversely,
marijuana could pull users away from hard drugs.
raising the accessibility of
These ramifications of the current drug control system need to be taken into
account in the debate over legalization. A critical shortcoming of U.S. drug policy is that it treats drug addiction as a crime instead of a health matter. Almost 60 percent of the overall economic cost of drug abuse is
due to expenditures spent on “drug crime”—the sale, manufacture, and possession of drugs.7 There seems to be a wide consensus that at the very least, drug policy must shift its focus to treatment. Tarnishing
someone’s record for drug use makes no sense; it encourages criminal activity by obstructing job opportunities and it does nothing to address the factors that cause drug use. Additionally, treatment is not readily
accessible to those seeking help despite its efficacy in preventing future drug use. In 2009, 20.9 million Americans (8.3 percent of the total population over age 12) who needed treatment for drug or alcohol abuse
did not receive it in a specialty facility—a hospital, a rehab facility, or a mental health facility.8 This is an unacceptably high number. The U.S. overinvests in its prohibition strategy while severely underfunding
treatment options. Marijuana legalization’s potential role in improving treatment options for all drugs will be discussed later in this article; for now, suffice it to say that the status quo is not producing the desired
results and requires modification. Legalization and The Mexican Drug War The issue of legalization has been brought to the forefront in recent years because of numerous calls by Latin American leaders to discuss
the matter as a viable policy option. Presidents Juan Manuel Santos of Colombia and Felipe Calderón of Mexico, while not personally advocating legalization, have publicly called for serious discussion of the
concept. Former Mexican President Vicente Fox, who previously took a hard line against drugs, has altered his public stance and now supports legalization of all drugs, especially marijuana. He argues that
prohibition does not work, that drug production ends up funding criminals, and that it is the responsibility of citizens to decide whether to use drugs or not.9 Former Presidents Fernando Henrique Cardoso of
Brazil, Ernesto Zedillo of Mexico, and César Gaviria of Colombia all supported in a report by The Latin American Commission on Drugs and Democracy that the U.S. decriminalize marijuana use (Colombia and
Mexico have already done so).10 The U.S. has ignored these requests to place drug legalization or decriminalization on the policy agenda. Drug trafficking is not a national problem; it transcends country borders
and needs to be approached from a hemispheric perspective. Therefore, the United States needs to work with its southern neighbors to formulate a comprehensive drug policy. However, it is also telling that every
Latin American leader who has formally supported legalization or decriminalization has done so only after leaving office, indicating that such policies are not politically “safe” stances. The difference between
decriminalization permits drug use while legalization
permits both drug use and production. Those that favor decriminalization maintain that it would enable law enforcement agencies to shift resources from
prosecuting drug users to prosecuting drug suppliers. Decriminalization would also free up resources for effective drug treatment programs. Those that favor legalization go
one step further than decriminalization: in Vicente Fox’s words, “[W]e have to take all the production chain out of the hands of criminals and into
the hands of producers—so there are farmers that produce marijuana and manufacturers that process it and distributors that distribute it, and shops that sell it.”11 Legalization would
include the benefits of decriminalization , while also depriving gangs and cartels of a
lucrative product; if both the supply and demand sides are legitimate, a black market would
become obsolete. Legalizing marijuana in the United States, the largest buyer of Mexican
drugs, could potentially weaken drug cartels by limiting their sources of revenue. The UNODC has acknowledged
that this is a plausible way of reducing gang and cartel profits.12 Mexican and American Marijuana Markets Eliminating the marijuana market share of
decriminalization and legalization is in their degree of leniency towards drugs;
Mexican cartels would hit them especially hard because it serves as a steady, reliable source of
income and carries relatively little risk for them to produce. The percentage of total cartel drug revenues from marijuana is greatly debated—
Mexican and American official figures range from 50-65 percent, but a study by the RAND Corporation suggests closer to 15-26 percent.13 Even the most conservative of
these estimates—roughly a fifth of revenue—would strike a blow to cartel profits if
eliminated. Marijuana is particularly valuable to cartels because they control the entire
production line; they both grow and distribute it themselves, making it more reliable and
less risky . Conversely, cocaine is imported to Mexico mostly from South America, heightening
the risk of smuggling it. More troubling is that cartels are now even growing marijuana on U.S. public lands, mostly throughout national parks and forests, in order to avoid the task of
smuggling drugs across the U.S.-Mexican border.14 If Mexico were to reach the point of legalizing marijuana, the U.S.
could continue to buy the drug legally from south of the border, like many other
consumer goods . But even if Mexico did not implement its own legalization, recent data
indicates that a domestic U.S. industry could fill the role of the supplier and eliminate the need
for Mexican marijuana. The drug is increasingly grown domestically15 and U.S. growers are already posing a threat to Mexican market share. Exact numbers are impossible to assess,
but figures of American domestic marijuana production range from 30-60 percent of the total consumed in the U.S.16 Additionally, a report by the RAND Corporation found that legalizing marijuana in California
alone (and a subsequent rise in state-wide marijuana production) could lower Mexican cartel marijuana revenues by 65-85 percent. This could occur if Californian marijuana were smuggled to the rest of the U.S.
where the drug would still be illegal. The marijuana’s projected high quality and low price would make it an extremely competitive product.17 It seems reasonable to assume that if the drug were legalized in all fifty
states, the domestic market could easily overwhelm the Mexican market share. In terms of tangible effects on Mexican drug violence, the RAND Corporation and UNODC agree that removing U.S. demand for
illegal marijuana would increase violence in the short run because Mexican cartels would be fighting for dominance in a shrinking market.18 But in the long run, once U.S. demand is met by domestic supply,
The U.S. population is by far the largest drug market for
Mexico, making our action necessary for any transnational legalization to be effective. While
cocaine, methamphetamines, and heroin are still funding cartels, drug violence will not be
completely eliminated; but any move to starve their resources is a step forward in
weakening them and, ultimately, saving lives.
cartels would be financially debilitated and, most likely, some of the violence quelled.
Only the plan sufficiently limits cartel power
Carpenter, 11 [Undermining Mexico’s Dangerous Drug Cartels by Ted Galen Carpenter, Ted
Galen Carpenter, a senior fellow at the Cato Institute, is the author of eight books and more than
500 articles and policy studies on international issues. His latest book, The Fire Next Door:
Mexico’s Drug Violence and the Danger to America, is forthcoming in 2012]
unless the production and sale of drugs is also legalized, the black-market premium
will still exist and law-abiding businesses will still stay away from the trade. In other words, drug
commerce will remain in the hands of criminal elements that do not shrink from engaging
in bribery, intimidation, and murder. Wall Street Journal columnist Mary Anastasia O’Grady aptly makes that distinction with respect to the drug-law reform that
Mexico enacted in 2009: Mexican consumers will now have less fear of penalties and, increasingly in the case of marijuana, that’s true in the United States as well. But trafficking will
remain illegal, and to get their product past law enforcement the criminals will still have an
enormous incentive to bribe or to kill. Decriminalization will not take the money out of the
business, and therefore will not reduce corruption, cartel intimidation aimed at democraticgovernment authority or the terror heaped on local populations by drug lords.58 Because of its proximity to the huge
U.S. market, Mexico will continue to be a cockpit for that drug-related violence. By its domestic commitment to prohibition, the United States is
creating the risk that the drug cartels may become powerful enough to destabilize its southern
neighbor. Their impact on Mexico’s government and society has already reached worrisome levels. Worst of all, the
Yet
carnage associated with the black-market trade in drugs does not respect national boundaries. The frightening violence now convulsing Mexico could become a feature of life in American communities, as the
cartels begin to flex their muscles north of the border. When the United States and other countries ponder whether to persist in a strategy of drug prohibition, they need to consider all of the potential societal
costs, both domestic and international. On the domestic front, American’s prisons are bulging with people who have run afoul of the drug laws. Approximately one-third of inmates in state prisons and nearly 60
percent of those in federal prisons are incarcerated for drug trafficking offenses. Most of those inmates are small-time dealers. Prohibition has created or exacerbated a variety of social pathologies, especially in
minority communities where drug use rates are higher than the national average and rates of arrests and imprisonment are dramatically higher. Those are all serious societal costs of prohibition. Conclusion
The most feasible and effective strategy to counter the mounting turmoil in Mexico is to
drastically reduce the potential revenue flows to the trafficking organizations. In other words, the
United States could substantially defund the cartels through the full legalization (including
manufacture and sale) of currently illegal drugs. If Washington abandoned the prohibition model, it is very
likely that other countries in the international community would do the same. The United States
exercises disproportionate influence on the issue of drug policy, as it does on so many other
international issues. If prohibition were rescinded, the profit margins for the drug trade would
be similar to the margins for other legal commodities, and legitimate businesses would become
the principal players. That is precisely what happened when the United States ended its quixotic
crusade against alcohol in 1933. To help reverse the burgeoning tragedy of drug-related violence in Mexico, Washington must seriously consider adopting a similar course today with
respect to currently illegal drugs. Even taking the first step away from prohibition by legalizing marijuana , indisputably the
mildest and least harmful of the illegal drugs, could cause problems for the Mexican cartels. Experts provide a wide range
of estimates about how important the marijuana trade is to those organizations. The high-end estimate, from a
former DEA official, is that marijuana accounts for approximately 55 percent of total revenues. Other experts dispute that figure.
Edgardo Buscaglia, who was a research scholar at the conservative Hoover Institution until 2008, provides the low-end estimate, contending that the drug amounts to “less than 10 percent” of total revenues.
the marijuana business is financially
important to the cartels. The Mexican marijuana trade is already under pressure from
competitors in the United States. One study concluded that the annual harvest in California alone equaled or exceeded the entire national production in Mexico, and that output for the
Officials in both the U.S. and Mexican governments contend that it’s more like 20 to 30 percent.59 Whatever the actual percentage,
United States was more than twice that of Mexico.60 As sentiment for hard-line prohibition policies fades in the United States, and the likelihood of prosecution diminishes, one could expect domestic growers,
Legalizing pot would strike a blow against Mexican
traffickers. It would be difficult for them to compete with American producers in the American
market, given the difference in transportation distances and other factors. There would be little
incentive for consumers to buy their product from unsavory Mexican criminal syndicates when
legitimate domestic firms could offer the drug at a competitive price—and advertise how they are honest enterprises. Indeed, for many
both large and small, to become bolder about starting or expanding their businesses.
Americans, they could just grow their own supply—a cost advantage that the cartels could not hope to match. It is increasingly apparent, in any case, that both the U.S. and Mexican governments need to make
drastic changes in their efforts to combat Mexico’s drug cartels. George Grayson aptly summarizes the fatal flaw in the existing strategy. “It is extremely difficult—probably impossible—to eradicate the cartels.
They or their offshoots will fight to hold on to an enterprise that yields Croesus-like fortunes from illegal substances craved by millions of consumers.”61 Felipe Calderón’s military-led offensive is not just a futile,
The most
effective way is to greatly reduce the “Croesus-like” fortunes available to the cartels. And the
only realistic way to do that is to bite the bullet and end the policy of drug prohibition,
preferably in whole, but at least in part, starting with the legalization of marijuana. A failure to move away
from prohibition in the United States creates the risk that the already nasty corruption and violence
next door in Mexico may get even worse. The danger grows that our southern neighbor could
become, if not a full-blown failed state, at least a de-facto narco-state in which the leading drug
cartels exercise parallel or dual political sovereignty with the government of Mexico. We may eventually encounter a situation—if we haven’t already—
where the cartels are the real power in significant portions of the country. And we must worry that the disorder inside Mexico will
spill over the border into the United States to a much greater extent than it has to this point. The fire of drug-related
violence is flaring to an alarming extent in Mexico. U.S. leaders need to take constructive action now, before that fire consumes our neighbor’s home
and threatens our own. That means recognizing reality and ending the second failed prohibition crusade.
utopian crusade. That would be bad enough, but the reality is much worse. It is a futile, utopian crusade that has produced an array of ugly, bloody side effects. A different approach is needed.
The plan also frees up enforcement resources to combat cartels
David Shirk 11, director of the Trans-Border Institute and associate professor of political
science at the University of San Diego, conducts research on Mexican politics, U.S.-Mexico
relations, and law enforcement and security along the U.S.-Mexico border, currently the
principal investigator for the Justice in Mexico project, a binational research initiative on
criminal justice and the rule of law in Mexico, “Drug Violence and State Responses in Mexico”,
last date cited was 2011, http://iis-db.stanford.edu/evnts/6716/ShirkDrug_Violence_and_State_Responses_in_Mexico.pdf
In evaluating Mexico’s efforts to address these challenges, it seems clear that inter-cartel dynamics and the
government’s own efforts to decapitate top leadership structures has contributed to the
fractionalization of organized crime groups, more severe and disorganized violence, and a diversification of
organized criminal activities. If current trends continue, my estimation is that we are likely to see a reconfiguration of international
drug trafficking networks —with a continued shift to Central America— and a gradual diminishing, but greater dispersion of crime
and violence in Mexico. For some, this result will seem like a victory, since it would achieve the Calderón administration’s stated goal
of eliminating drug trafficking organizations as a national security threat. However, in my view, this result would merely illustrate
the utter failure of counter-drug efforts, in that it would perpetuate the pattern of displacement —the so-called balloon effect— that
has characterized the war on drugs for over 40 years. Meanwhile, little real progress has been made with regard to
the two factors of greatest concern to ordinary people: significantly
reducing drug violence and the accessibility of
traditional strategies associated with the drug war —the disruption of
cartel leadership structures, the concentration of interdiction efforts at the border, and the overall
emphasis of a law enforcement approach to the shared problem of drug consumption— have arguably produced
more harm than good. ¶ Still, the policy options available to Mexico partly reflect the policies and priorities of the United
psychotropic substances. In fact, in both areas, the
States, which is presently opposed to any alternative to the criminalization of drugs and strongly supports counter drug efforts in
Mexico. What most ordinary U.S. and Mexican citizens don't realize is that the vast majority of counter-drug efforts currently focus
marijuana represented 98% of the bulk
tonnage seized by authorities at the U.S. Mexican border , although even the most
generous estimates suggest that this represented no more than 5-10% of the total volume of
marijuana flowing across the border. Meanwhile, more than half of U.S. drug arrests—and roughly 6%
of all arrests in the United States — are related to the illegal possession, consumption, or sale of
cannabis.¶ Efforts to restrict cannabis flows and consumption does little damage to drug cartels, since marijuana sales in
the United States represent 20-25% of proceeds from exports by Mexican drug traffickers, at best. Some
observers stress this point to argue that legalization of marijuana would do little to sway the fight against
organized crime. Given that the repeal of marijuana prohibition would cause drug traffickers to lose
roughly a fifth of their U.S. proceeds almost overnight, they are probably wrong . Indeed,
repealing marijuana prohibition would likely do far more than our current, costly restrictions to
deprive organized crime groups of profits, and it would also free up badly needed law enforcement
resources to fight organized crime groups on other fronts and reduce consumer dependence on
high risk drugs like cocaine and heroin. Marijuana legalization is therefore a potential first
step toward a more rationale and effective approach to combating organized crime.
on the drug that is most widely used: marijuana. Indeed, last year
Cartel violence is up—current efforts insufficient
Paul Kan 14, Associate Professor of National Security Studies and the Henry L. Stimson Chair
of Military Studies at the US Army War College, “The Year of Living Dangerously: Peña Nieto’s
Presidency of Shadows”, 1/6/14, Small Wars Journal,
http://smallwarsjournal.com/jrnl/art/the-year-of-living-dangerously-pe%C3%B1anieto%E2%80%99s-presidency-of-shadows
Outgoing New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg, who has a notorious thirst for information and statistics, reportedly tormented
his staff with the slogan, “In God We Trust. Everyone Else Bring Data.” There are several interesting and
contradictory pieces of data to apply to an assessment of Mexican President Enrique Peña
Nieto’s efforts to tackle drug violence during his first year in office. The Sistema Nacional de Seguridad
Publica (SNSP) reports that homicides fell in 2013 compared to the peak numbers in 2012. Official figures show that there were
nearly 6000 fewer killings between January and October of this year as compared to last year—15,350 homicides versus 21,700.
There were also the notable arrests of several cartel leaders of Los Zetas, the Gulf cartel, the Tijuana cartel, and even the Sinaloa
cartel. ¶ Yet these seeming successes cannot cast a strong enough shadow over more ominous data .
The decline in reported homicides was in sharp contrast to the rise in extortion, which was
up 10 percent , and the rise
up 33 percent . The number of disappearances also shows no signs of abating. The key
arrests of some cartel leaders have not been matched with equal vigor in prosecutions or
extraditions. Few high level cartel members have been prosecuted and sentenced in Mexico over the
in kidnappings, which were
past year and extraditions to the US are stalled.¶ Also stalled was the plan to reduce the military’s activity in favor of building a
national gendarmerie. There are no fewer troops on the street and the gendarmerie’s rollout has been diluted and
delayed. What was to be a force of 40,000 will now be 5,000 to be deployed sometime next year .
The continuing weakness of Mexican law enforcement and judiciary has undermined the already fragile confidence that civil society
has in the government to provide security. The result has been that many Mexicans have taken public safety into their own hands.
While there are no firm numbers, there has been the noticeable emergence of numerous vigilante groups
and ad hoc militias, especially in the states of Michoacan and Guerrero. The internet hacktivist collective, Anonymous, has
created franchises in Mexico who act as “cyber-vigilantes” to expose the collusion between drug cartels, business owners and
politicians.¶ What has been most obscured in darkness is a coherent strategy to fight organized crime in the country. The explicit
promise by Peña Nieto to reduce drug fueled violence in Mexico has not evolved into a plan for action
with clear goals and measurements for success. Initially, it appeared that the new administration was attempting a
violence reduction strategy to be focused on community building by offering more education, jobs, parks, and social activities while
sweeping up lower level criminals and not focusing on removing kingpins. However, what has emerged is not a violence
reduction strategy, but a “violence perception management” strategy . The management of perceptions of
drug violence has the goal of reducing drug killings from the headlines of national and international news so that PRI can focus on
its larger reform package of economic and social policies like tackling education, energy, and telecommunication. ¶ Drug violence is
an unwelcomed distraction from the grander plans of the PRI and President Peña Nieto. By intention or by default, their organized
crime strategy in this first year has sought to drape a veil of shadows across the country’s drug violence by bringing to light other
economic and social efforts.¶ Adding to this enveloping shadow is the growing lack of accessible
information about drug violence in Mexico. The country remains the deadliest place in Latin America for journalists
and one of the most dangerous in the world. This has severely affected the ability to check the government’s crime
statistics, which have been notoriously manipulated over the years. A recent post on insightcrime.org
demonstrates the unevenness of government crime statistics, “Some newspapers, which began counting the organized crime-related
murders during Calderon’s administration, continue their own homicide tallies. Reforma said in mid-March that the “drug-related”
homicides were higher in the first three months under Peña Nieto than the last three months of Calderon. Milenio had numbers that
were consistent with the current administration’s. La Jornada registered significantly lower levels than the others but said there was
an upward trend.” The shadow on information has also swallowed government agencies—the Procudaria General de la Republica
(PGR) has not developed a reliable database to track kidnappings and disappearances. ¶ However, the most revealing piece of data
comes from Mexican citizens themselves. According to the Instituto Nacional de Estadística y Geografía (INEGI) 2013 victimization
survey, the net result of the past twelve months is that Mexicans say they feel more unsafe than in
previous years. The darkness of drug violence appears to have grown only deeper .
The aff undermines the Sinaloa and Tijuana cartels—key to stability
Chad Murray 11, M.A. student in the Latin American and Hemispheric Studies Program @
George Washington, supervised and sponsored by the OAS and Inter-American Drug Abuse
Control Commission, “Mexican Drug Trafficking Organizations and Marijuana: The Potential
Effects of U.S. Legalization”, 4/26/11,
https://elliott.gwu.edu/sites/elliott.gwu.edu/files/downloads/acad/lahs/mexico-marijuana071111.pdf
While Los Zetas and La Familia have recently dominated the media coverage of the drug war in Mexico, they might not be
objectively termed the strongest cartels in the country. They are the most active in attacking government forces and setting up narco
bloqueos in major cities.59 However, they do not have the financial strength, military prowess, territorial reach, or tactical discipline
of Mexico‟s largest DTO, the Sinaloa cartel. 60 This DTO and the Tijuana cartel are major traffickers of
marijuana, and their territories are the major marijuana production areas in Mexico. They have
near exclusive control of the so called “Golden Triangle” region of Mexico where the mountainous areas
of Sinaloa, Durango and Chihuahua states meet. This makes sense, because according to sources in the Drug Enforcement Agency
these two DTOs likely make a majority their revenue from marijuana.¶ The amount of marijuana
trafficked by the Sinaloa cartel is evident by the scale of recent drug busts. In October of 2010 Mexican
police and military forces seized more than 134 metric tons of marijuana in one Sinaloa facility. This was equal to almost $200
million according to Mexican authorities.63 The very next month 30 tons of marijuana was retrieved by law enforcement on both
sides of the border after a Tijuana drug smuggling tunnel was discovered.64 The DTO behind this operation has not been
determined, but based on the location it is likely to be either the Sinaloa cartel or Arello Felix Organization. These seizures represent
only a proportion of the amount marijuana trafficked into the United States from Mexico through the San Diego-Tijuana corridor in
2 months. There are other drug transport corridors that likely receive more marijuana traffic. ¶ Although the Sinaloa cartel
does not often target civilians, it is the most violent DTO in terms of overall casualties. It has
targeted hundreds of police officers and its leader, “El Chapo” Guzmán, is widely thought to
have caused a recent upsurge in violence after breaking a truce with the other major criminal groups in the
country.66 The feud between the Sinaloa and Juarez organizations is the reason that Juarez is the most violent city in Mexico, and
according to some accounts, the entire world. 67 The Sinaloa cartel’s huge financial resources make it a
major threat to the government , because they are able to corrupt large numbers of local, state, and
federal government officials. This was revealed in several high profile cases in recent years.68The Sinaloa cartel is
constantly trying to expand its territory into that traditionally held by other cartels , particularly in
Juarez, and this is a major cause of much of the violence.¶ The Sinaloa cartel has the greatest capacity
to wage „all-out war‟ because they have far more money than the other DTOs. Guzmán is also more
focused on winning the favor and tacit protection of the populace, and thus is more involved in the drugs trade than
kidnapping, and prefers to bribe rather than confront authorities.69 However, in many ways this makes the Sinaloa cartel
more dangerous to the Government in Mexico. Its use of bribes can make local state and even federal law
enforcement unreliable. Furthermore, the Sinaloa organization’s outreach to the civilian population makes it even harder
for the government to gain information about Guzmán. In addition, the massive strength of the Sinaloa cartel makes an eventual
peace all the more allusive. In the event that the government would try to reduce the violence through talks with cartels, the Sinaloa
organization would be unlikely to take them seriously. The government has little to offer big organizations like Sinaloa, which
already enjoy near uncontested control over the areas in which they operate.¶ The Tijuana cartel is also a powerful, though often
underrated organization. This group was infamous in 2008 and 2009, when it destabilized much of Tijuana with its attacks on the
police and rival cartels. 71As with the Sinaloa cartel, the Tijuana cartel is a very important organization with
networks mainly in the Tijuana and the San Diego area. This DTO is famous for both its violence
and the brutality. Most notoriously, Teodoro García Simental’s war for control of Tijuana led to hundreds being tortured and
killed until his arrest in 2010. ¶ The main areas where the Sinaloa
and Tijuana cartels tend to cultivate marijuana include
on trafficking in marijuana because it is easy to grow,
profitable for wholesale, and cheap to pay laborers. In 2010 farmers received only 15 to 20 dollars for a pound of
marijuana. 73 This price is just barely above the amount farmers could get for corn and other produce. Therefore, if the price
farmers were to be paid for marijuana were to fall much further, it is not unlikely that many
would turn to more legitimate crops.¶ These cartels represent a huge part of the Mexican
organized criminal structure. Dealing a major blow to these groups could give the Mexican
government a leg up. The Sinaloa cartel currently has the ability, due to its huge monetary reserves, to project its influence
Sonora, Michoacán, and Sinaloa states. They focus
and carry out violence acts across vast swathes of Mexico. The Tijuana cartel holds large parts of its namesakxe city through violence
and coercion. The following chapter will explore what effect, if any, the legalization of marijuana would have on the revenue,
operational capacities, overall strength, and ability to wage violence for these two cartels.
Cartel influence determines the likelihood of state failure
Pedigo, 12 [David, “The Drug War and State Failure in Mexico” The Johns Hopkins University
- Paul H. Nitze School of Advanced International Studies (SAIS) Beloit College Universidad San
Fransisco de Quito Cumbayá The Drug War and State Failure in Mexico David Pedigo Beloit
College]
State failure is an imminent threat in Mexico but it is not inevitable. Even failed cities
are not unavoidable realities.
This goal must be to reduce the power of cartels so that the Mexican state
can gain a monopoly on the use of legitimate force throughout its territory. This monopoly
cannot be fully achieved through policies that aim to stop the flow of drugs or reduce short term
violence
indeed
characterize its border region
,
the
that have begun to
It is necessary, however, for policies to have the appropriate goals in mind, as well as a clear understanding of how those goals can be realistically
accomplished, before the current situation can be reversed.
; these are merely symptoms of cartel power. While statistics such as homicide rates and levels of drug trafficking are certainly indicative of cartel activity, they are not nece ssarily accurate indicators of cartel power. Indeed, over the short term,
spikes of violence may even signify the desperate attempts of cartels to assert their power when it is being threatened. While it may be more difficult to measure, a more relevant indicator of cartel power may be the frequency with which state actors such as mayors,
police chiefs, governors, etc. are forced out of their post or bribed by cartels. Bribery is never likely to stop outright, but it is not overly ambitious to aim to create a Mexico where cartels can no longer influence high ranking public officials by violence and
intimidation. Higher arrests and conviction rates would also be indicative of the state’s regained monopoly on the use of force. To put this in perspective, while the arrest rate in the United States is in the 90th percentile and the conviction rate is over 50 percent,102
the arrest rate in Mexico is 22 percent and the conviction rate is 1.5 percent.103 Mexico should by no means be expected to match these rates of its much more developed neighbor to the north, but this comparison shows that a dramatic increase is certainly needed.
This is no small task, and Mexico cannot do it alone; it will require substantial assistance from the United States. This means more than financial assistance; the United States must own up to its role in the drug war through implementing effective policies. U.S.
nothing
would more significantly impact the drug war in Mexico than the full legalization
of
drugs
it would completely change the dynamics of the drug trade and weaken the cartels
in a way that perhaps nothing else could.
cartel power is the principle threat to the
Mexican state,
intelligence networks in the DEA and other law enforcement bodies are much better established than their Mexican counterparts, and these networks will continue to be useful in the pursuit of cartel members in the future. However,
in the United States
at least some
. As mentioned earlier,
It should also be noted that while
reducing this power will not solve all of Mexico’s ills, and crime and violence will most likely persist even after cartels are weakened. In Jamaica, for example, local gang bosses, or “dons” have continued to draw influence from
urban communities and engage in turf battles even after the shift of major drug flows to the Central American corridor. The dons in Jamaica are able to maintain their power networks because of a lack of alternative economic opportunities to crime.104 Undermining
the power of drug cartels in Mexico may help to avoid state failure, but the persistence of crime itself is an economic problem at heart. However, this is an entirely separate issue. Crippling the cartels in Mexico may also cause the drug trade to relocate once more, just
as it did after Plan Colombia. In fact, this has already begun to happen in Central America, which is now seeing increased levels of violence, with Honduras and El Salvador exhibiting the highest national homicide rates in the world (more than 60 murders a year per
every 100,000 people). 105 Unfortunately, given the history of the drug trade, this may simply be an unavoidable consequence. From the U.S. perspective, this at least means relocating the violence away from the border, but once again, this is a separate issue
The cartels of Mexico have created a
system that undermines the rule of law,
robs the Mexican state of its monopoly on the use of force, and threatens to turn Mexico into a
failed state.
doing nothing may create a failed state in Mexico
would have catastrophic results for both the United States and Mexico.
entirely.
n incredibly complex and dangerous
Destroying this power structure will be equally complex. It will take years, cost billions of dollars and thousands of lives, and may ultimately be an incomplete victory. Just as the drug trade will never be completely stopped, drug
traffickers will never completely lose power. Though it may seem to be a thankless struggle,
, which, as Mearsheimer and David
have both observed,
Mexico collapse causes terrorism
Pease 11 (Shadd A. Pease--master of arts in international security and former intelligence
analyst, June 2011, “Instability in the South: The Implications of Mexican State Failure on U.S.
National Security”, Proquest)//EM
Foreign Terrorist Organizations and Violations of Mexican State Sovereignty The possibility of foreign terrorist
organizations using Mexico as a base of operations for future attacks on the United States would
have major implication on U.S. national security. Foreign terrorist organizations, most likely linked to AlQaeda, would have greater freedom of movement in Mexico due to the lack of security in that
country. Organizations such as Al-Qaeda seem to move from country to country preying on weak and
chaotic states. The government of Mexico would be unable to sufficiently hamper the activities of terrorist organizations due to
a failed state scenario. The Mexican military and police forces would have limited leadership from the federal government which is
needed in order to confront terrorist organizations. The lack of security within the border of Mexico would provide terrorist
organizations with the needed cover to plan, train, and conduct terrorist activities. This insecurity in
Mexico is in stark contrast when compared to the United States neighbor to the north, Canada.
WMD terrorism draws in great powers.
Ayson, 10 — Professor of Strategic Studies and Director of the Centre for Strategic Studies in
New Zealand at the Victoria University of Wellington (Robert, “After a Terrorist Nuclear Attack:
Envisaging Catalytic Effects”, Studies in Conflict & Terrorism, Volume 33, Issue 7, July 2010,
InformaWorld)
A terrorist nuclear attack, and even the use of nuclear weapons in response by the country attacked in the first place, would not
necessarily represent the worst of the nuclear worlds imaginable. Indeed, there are reasons to wonder whether nuclear terrorism
should ever be regarded as belonging in the category of truly existential threats. A contrast can be drawn here with the global
catastrophe that would come from a massive nuclear exchange between two or more of the sovereign states that possess these
weapons in significant numbers. Even the worst terrorism that the twenty-first century might bring would fade into insignificance
alongside considerations of what a general nuclear war would have wrought in the Cold War period. And it must be admitted that as
long as the major nuclear weapons states have hundreds and even thousands of nuclear weapons at their disposal, there is always
the possibility of a truly awful nuclear exchange taking place precipitated entirely by state possessors themselves. But these two
nuclear worlds—a non-state actor nuclear attack and a catastrophic interstate nuclear exchange—are not necessarily separable. It is
just possible that some sort of terrorist attack, and especially an act of nuclear terrorism, could precipitate a chain of
events leading to a massive exchange of nuclear weapons between two or more of the states that possess
them. In this context, today’s and tomorrow’s terrorist groups might assume the place allotted during the early Cold War years to
new state possessors of small nuclear arsenals who were seen as raising the risks of a catalytic nuclear war between the superpowers
started by third parties. These risks were considered in the late 1950s and early 1960s as concerns grew about nuclear proliferation,
the so-called n+1 problem. It may require a considerable amount of imagination to depict an especially plausible situation where an
act of nuclear terrorism could lead to such a massive inter-state nuclear war. For example, in the event of a terrorist nuclear attack
on the United States, it might well be wondered just how Russia and/or China could plausibly be brought into the picture, not least
because they seem unlikely to be fingered as the most obvious state sponsors or encouragers of terrorist groups. They would seem far
too responsible to be involved in supporting that sort of terrorist behavior that could just as easily threaten them as well. Some
possibilities, however remote, do suggest themselves. For example, how might the United States react if it was thought or discovered
that the fissile material used in the act of nuclear terrorism had come from Russian stocks,40 and if for some reason Moscow denied
any responsibility for nuclear laxity? The correct attribution of that nuclear material to a particular country might not be a case of
science fiction given the observation by Michael May et al. that while the debris resulting from a nuclear explosion would be “spread
over a wide area in tiny fragments, its radioactivity makes it detectable, identifiable and collectable, and a wealth of information can
be obtained from its analysis: the efficiency of the explosion, the materials used and, most important … some indication of where the
nuclear material came from.”41 Alternatively, if the act of nuclear terrorism came as a complete surprise, and American officials
refused to believe that a terrorist group was fully responsible (or responsible at all) suspicion
would shift immediately
to state possessors. Ruling out Western ally countries like the United Kingdom and France, and probably Israel and India as
well, authorities in Washington would be left with a very short list consisting of North Korea, perhaps Iran if its
program continues, and possibly Pakistan. But at what stage would Russia and China be definitely ruled out
in this high stakes game of nuclear Cluedo? In particular, if the act of nuclear terrorism occurred against a backdrop of existing
tension in Washington’s relations with Russia and/or China, and at a time when threats had already been traded between these
major powers, would officials and political leaders not be tempted to assume the worst? Of course, the chances of this occurring
would only seem to increase if the United States was already involved in some sort of limited armed conflict with Russia and/or
China, or if they were confronting each other from a distance in a proxy war, as unlikely as these developments may seem at the
present time. The reverse might well apply too: should a nuclear terrorist attack occur in Russia or China during a period of
heightened tension or even limited conflict with the United States, could Moscow and Beijing resist the pressures that might rise
domestically to consider the United States as a possible perpetrator or encourager of the attack? Washington’s early
response to a terrorist nuclear attack on its own soil might also raise the possibility of an unwanted (and nuclear
aided) confrontation with Russia and/or China. For example, in the noise and confusion during the immediate
aftermath of the terrorist nuclear attack, the U.S. president might be expected to place the country’s armed forces, including its
nuclear arsenal, on a higher stage of alert. In such a tense environment, when careful planning runs up against the friction of reality,
it is just possible that Moscow and/or China might mistakenly read this as a sign of U.S. intentions to use force (and possibly nuclear
force) against them. In that situation, the temptations to preempt such actions might grow, although it must be admitted that any
preemption would probably still meet with a devastating response. As part of its initial response to the act of nuclear terrorism (as
discussed earlier) Washington
might decide to order a significant conventional (or nuclear) retaliatory or
disarming attack against the leadership of the terrorist group and/or states seen to support that group. Depending on the
identity and especially the location of these targets, Russia and/or China might interpret such action as being far
too close for their comfort, and potentially as an infringement on their spheres of influence and even on their sovereignty.
One far-fetched but perhaps not impossible scenario might stem from a judgment in Washington that some of the main aiders and
abetters of the terrorist action resided somewhere such as Chechnya, perhaps in connection with what Allison claims is the “Chechen
insurgents’ … long-standing interest in all things nuclear.”42 American pressure on that part of the world would almost certainly
raise alarms in Moscow that might require a degree of advanced consultation from Washington that the latter found itself unable or
unwilling to provide. There is also the question of how other nuclear-armed states respond to the act of nuclear terrorism on another
member of that special club. It could reasonably be expected that following a nuclear terrorist attack on the United States, both
Russia and China would extend immediate sympathy and support to Washington and would work alongside the United States in the
Security Council. But there is just a chance, albeit a slim one, where the support of Russia and/or China is less automatic in some
cases than in others. For example, what would happen if the United States wished to discuss its right to retaliate against groups
based in their territory? If, for some reason, Washington found the responses of Russia and China deeply underwhelming, (neither
“for us or against us”) might it also suspect that they secretly were in cahoots with the group, increasing (again perhaps ever so
slightly) the chances of a major exchange. If the terrorist group had some connections to groups in Russia and China, or existed in
areas of the world over which Russia and China held sway, and if Washington felt that Moscow or Beijing were placing a curiously
modest level of pressure on them, what conclusions might it then draw about their culpability? If Washington decided to use, or
decided to threaten the use of, nuclear weapons, the responses of Russia and China would be crucial to the chances of avoiding a
more serious nuclear exchange. They might surmise, for example, that while the act of nuclear terrorism was especially heinous and
demanded a strong response, the response simply had to remain below the nuclear threshold. It would be one thing for a non-state
actor to have broken the nuclear use taboo, but an entirely different thing for a state actor, and indeed the leading state in the
international system, to do so. If Russia and China felt sufficiently strongly about that prospect, there is then the question of what
options would lie open to them to dissuade the United States from such action: and as has been seen over the last several decades,
the central dissuader of the use of nuclear weapons by states has been the threat of nuclear retaliation. If some readers find this
simply too fanciful, and perhaps even offensive to contemplate, it may be informative to reverse the tables. Russia, which
possesses an arsenal of thousands of nuclear warheads and that has been one of the two most important trustees of the non-use
taboo, is subjected to an attack of nuclear terrorism. In response, Moscow places its nuclear forces very visibly
on a high er state of alert and declares that it is considering the use of nuclear retaliation against the group and any of its state
supporters. How would Washington view such a possibility? Would it really be keen to support Russia’s use of nuclear weapons,
including outside Russia’s traditional sphere of influence? And if not, which seems quite plausible, what options would Washington
have to communicate that displeasure? If China had been the victim of the nuclear terrorism and seemed likely to retaliate in kind,
would the United States and Russia be happy to sit back and let this occur? In the charged atmosphere
immediately after a nuclear terrorist attack, how would the attacked country respond to pressure from other major nuclear powers
not to respond in kind? The phrase “how dare they tell us what to do” immediately springs to mind. Some might even go so far as to
interpret this concern as a tacit form of sympathy or support for the terrorists. This might not help the chances of nuclear restraint.
Drug cartels can acquire WMD and bioweapons.
Reblup, 10 (Tina, article from Bio Prep Watch which is a website on Biological Threats for
Policymakers and First Responders, “Drug trade could increase availability of bioweapons,”
January 21, 2010, http://www.bioprepwatch.com/news/drug-trade-could-increase-availabilityof-bioweapons/211687/ ) Harbeck
Drug cartels, as a result of the increase in the narcotics trade, have been increasingly able to
acquire biological and chemical weapons and radioactive material for the purpose of WMD
creation, the U.S. State Department has warned.¶ “The sums of money involved are growing in
extraordinary amounts, and that raises the possibility, because of the sums and the areas in
which these groups have begun to operate, for that opportunity to be exploited,” David Johnson,
assistant secretary of state for the Bureau of International Narcotics and Law Enforcement Affairs, told The Jerusalem Post.¶
“Some of these criminal syndicates have the organizational and financial wherewithal that
could potentially allow them to acquire and sell radioactive material, biological and chemical
weapons, and technologies used for weapons of mass destruction.Ӧ Johnson told listeners at the
Washington Institute of Near East Affairs that the unparalleled growth in drug profits is attributable to increasing demand and
supply in the worldwide market.¶
Bioweapons are an existential risk.
Matheny, 7 (Jason, Former Associate – Oxford University, MPJ – Johns Hopkins University,
“Reducing the Risk of Human Extinction”, Risk Analysis, 27(5), pg. 1335-1344,
http://jgmatheny.org/matheny_extinction_risk.htm)
Of current extinction risks, the most severe may be bioterrorism. The knowledge
needed to engineer a virus is modest compared to that needed to build a nuclear weapon; the
necessary equipment and materials are increasingly accessible and because biological agents are
self-replicating, a weapon can have an exponential effect on a population (Warrick, 2006; Williams, 2006). 5
Current U.S. biodefense efforts are funded at $5 billion per year to develop and stockpile new drugs and vaccines, monitor biological
agents and emerging diseases, and strengthen the capacities of local health systems to respond to pandemics (Lam, Franco, &
Shuler, 2006). There is currently no independent body assessing the risks of high-energy physics experiments. Posner (2004) has
recommended withdrawing federal support for such experiments because the benefits do not seem to be worth the risks.
1AC 2
Contention two is Pharma—
Pharma companies are facing a cliff of patent expiration—decks the entire
industry
Ahmed 14—Triple Helix
(Rizwan, “The Patent Cliff: Implications for the Pharmaceutical Industry”, http://triplehelixblog.com/2014/07/the-patent-cliffimplications-for-the-pharmaceutical-industry/, dml)
The pharmaceutical industry is a trillion dollar international market, dominated by only a few major
companies that create and supply the most important prescription drugs available. The top fifteen
pharmaceutical companies consist of nearly half the total revenue in the industry in 2008 [1], inspiring a preconceived notion that
the pharmaceutical industry was an oligopoly with nearly impossible barriers to entry. However, over the last three years
major pharmaceutical companies have lost tens of billions of dollars to smaller companies for
one primary reason: the patent cliff – a series of patent expirations of important prescription
drugs. This phenomenon has led to the mass production of generic versions of major drugs by
small pharmaceutical companies, causing steep revenue losses for big pharmaceuticals. In the
coming years, many prescription drugs that make up many large pharmaceutical companies’ profits, known as blockbuster drugs,
are set to expire as intellectual property. This will create a gateway for small companies to flood the market
with generics. With hundreds of billions of lost revenue projected, the patent cliff has the
opportunity to change the face of the pharmaceutical industry in the consumer perspective,
as well as the back-end research, development, and business standpoints of major
pharmaceutical companies in the years to come.
The first major instance to display the severity of patent expiration came in 2011 after Pfizer lost
exclusivity to their blockbuster drug Lipitor. The drug was released for prescription in 1998 and became an instant success,
propelling Pfizer to become the world’s premier pharmaceutical company by the early 2000s. By 2011, Lipitor generated $115 billion
in revenue since its release, and comprised about forty percent of total profits for Pfizer in 2005. [2] Pfizer attempted to
minimize the inevitable profit loss that would follow the patent’s expiration by completing a
licensing agreement with the Indian pharmaceutical company Ranbaxy, which provided the India-based
generic drugs producer 180 days of exclusive production of the generic version of Lipitor. However, profit losses for
Pfizer were still very steep. After the patent for Lipitor expired in 2011, Pfizer instantly suffered
from losing exclusivity; by the end of the first fiscal quarter after Lipitor’s patent expiration, global sales
of Lipitor fell by forty two percent and Pfizer’s total profit declined by nineteen percent. [3] While
analysts predicted drops in revenue, nobody expected Pfizer to fall so steeply. The result from
Pfizer’s loss of patent exclusivity over Lipitor was a warning sign for many other pharmaceutical companies,
shareholders, competitors, payers, and consumers.
Although Lipitor was the largest blockbuster drug faced patent expiration in 2011, the patent cliff for other blockbuster drugs did not
end with Pfizer. Major pharmaceutical companies like Novartis experienced losses after the patent for their blood-pressure-reducing
drug Diovan expired in 2012. Merck had a similar issue with Singulair in the same year; Bristol-Myers Squibb with Plavix in 2011;
and Sanofi-Aventis with Lovenox in 2012. [4] Even looking onwards, the patent cliff does not end for blockbuster drugs by large
pharmaceutical companies. Nexium, a drug produced by AstraZenica that produced over $4.9 billion in sales in 2010, faces patent
expiration in 2014. Eli Lilly’s Cymbalta, which grossed $4 billion in global sales in 2011, will face a similar fate in 2014. [5] Pfizer,
Allergan, GlaxoSmithKline, and many other major pharmaceutical companies will have patents for many
drugs expiring within the next three years. Losses in revenue for major pharmaceutical
companies will be tremendous, with projections showing the pharmaceutical industry will
lose upwards to $127 billion in brand spending by 2016 due to patent expiration and cheaper
generics in the market (Figure 1). [6]
Due to the staggering losses in profits big pharmaceutical companies will face in the coming years, it is
evident the patent cliff will have serious implications on the future of the
pharmaceutical industry . Apart from obvious implications for the consumer, such as cheaper drug options and overthe-counter accessibility, the pharmaceutical companies will face a great deal of change from the
current model of the industry. The major changes will come in the research and development
(R&D) sector
of companies. Innovation in drug discovery over the last decade has been
considerably slower than before [7], and the necessity for a differentiable drug is imperative for sustained success
among large pharmaceutical companies. In addition, as a result of generic destroying prescription drug
dominance in various areas of treatment, pharmaceutical companies will be forced to focus
research to specific areas exclusive to prescription drugs. Consequently, considerable spending will
go towards R&D of specialty medicines, such as oncologics, immunostimulants, and antivirals. It is also very
likely that spending will be slowed, or even decreased, over the next few years for general therapy drugs
such as lipid regulators and anti-ulcerants (Figure 2). [6] The lack of funding and drive for innovation in these
areas are primarily due to patent expirations of prescription drugs and a genericsdominated market.
Another change that pharmaceutical companies will have to face due to the patent cliff is a
change in the development phase, particularly in market segmentation and brand development. The result of the
patent cliff on many significant drugs in the pharmaceutical industry will lead to a decrease in
blockbuster drugs, since it is clear that relying on a single drug for the majority of company
revenue can lead to very sudden and steep losses after the patent expires. As a result, there will be a
greater need to create a multitude of drugs that are specific and differentiable for patenting purposes and portfolio diversity for a
company. Creating a much more detailed drug leads to a more specific group of consumers that the drug must be targeted to, which
can lead to different techniques and marketing strategies to appeal to smaller target groups. [7] This was rarely the case before due
to the blockbuster drugs and the resulting companies’ single-drug portfolios, which required only a single market to focus onto.
The patent cliff in the upcoming years has implications on more than just the
pharmaceutical industry. Apart from drug discovery research and drug marketing, the
current healthcare system will also face new challenges in coverage, while physicians and
hospitals must provide adequate care with diminished specialty therapy. While these academic
institutions, hospitals, and corporations operate very differently, each institution has the same underlying mission of improving the
lives of people in need. With this mission statement in mind, the patent cliff provides an important opportunity for these health
systems to collaborate and reinvent the current model of drug research, development, and distribution for the future.
State marijuana reforms have drawn pharma’s interest—but the plan unlocks new
patent and research potential
Becker 14—Business Cheat Sheet
(Sam, “Is Big Pharma Ready to Jump Into the Marijuana Market?”, http://wallstcheatsheet.com/business/is-big-pharma-ready-tojump-into-the-marijuana-market.html/?a=viewall, dml)
The pharmaceutical market has become an ever-evolving industry that, at times, has a similar feeling
to the wild west. As biotech companies grow and manufacturers continue to find promising
treatments, a new market that may unlock a host of new possibilities has opened up . With much
fanfare from other industries, and with quiet curiosity from Big Pharma, the birth of the legal marijuana
market may yield a fertile new place to develop new commodities.
While the medicinal properties of marijuana have thus far been commoditized by small
operations, usually operating in some sort of gray legal area, the new legal markets and increased public
acceptance of cannabis are offering bigger companies an opportunity to take a serious look into the possibilities
marijuana offer. With a myriad of existing products, from topical treatments to oil capsules, the medical marijuana industry has
already been a source of incredible innovation and research. Cannabis has been shown to
successful treat ailments as diverse as multiple sclerosis to nausea experienced by cancer patients going through chemotherapy.
So what interest do pharmaceutical companies like AstraZeneca (NYSE:AZN) or Pfizer Inc. (NYSE:PFE) have in
an opening legal cannabis market? For starters, it has patents that are set to expire in the near future.
With the long list of treatable ailments by marijuana, the answer is fairly obvious.
The adoption of cannabis-based medications and products could be the future
of the pharmaceutical industry . While marijuana has been designated as a Schedule 1 controlled
substance at the federal level, many
states have gone ahead to pass bills making medical marijuana use
legal for certain ailments. Now with two states passing legislation enabling full legalization,
entrepreneurs have the chance to jump into the new industry. The problem for many national and
international companies is
that it does not want to be exposed to legal backlash in areas where
prohibition is still in place.
Companies like Novartis have started divesting in reaction to the rapid changes in the biotech
industry. With businesses willing to take aggressive moves like this, seeking out new avenues to invest in is most
likely in the industry’s best interest . One example of a company taking the leap is Earth Science Tech, Inc.
(QB:UNOV.PK), who recently announced its entrance into a variety of different cannabis-based industries, including legal medical
marijuana, cannabinoid and legal hemp.
Earth Science Tech, Inc.’s CEO Dr. Harvey Katz laid out his company’s reasoning behind the move, with perfectly sound reasoning.
“We’re a health and wellness company, and we will continue to be a health and wellness company with our new entry into the Legal
Cannabis and Medical Marijuana Industry. A growing proportion of the medical community believes that
Medical Marijuana and, more specifically cannabinoids, have the potential to help patients who are
suffering from a variety of conditions and disorders,” he said.
What future does cannabis have in pharmaceuticals? It will depend on when and how it is
adopted by Big Pharma. In the meantime, small businesses and science-savvy entrepreneurs will
continue to drive innovation and introduce new products and medications to the market. Some
companies, like Earth Science Tech, Inc. are putting its foresight to work, and it will probably pay off.
In a turbulent industry, pharmaceutical heavy-hitters will do what it needs to stay afloat.
If embracing cannabis as a new source of revenue and innovation is the next step, expect to
see some big names throwing money toward the battle to end prohibition.
The plan is key—
---one, federal prohibition tanks investor confidence—across-the-board
legalization’s key
Becker 14—Business Cheat Sheet (Sam, "Why Marijuana is the Most Innovative Market in
America". 8/2/14. wallstcheatsheet.com/business/why-marijuana-is-the-most-innovativemarket-in-america.html/?a=viewall, TD)
Despite heavy protests from lobbying groups and certain segments of big business (who feel threatened, more than anything),
marijuana looks like it will see sweeping regulatory changes around the country over the coming
years. Already made fully legal by voters in two states, medical marijuana markets have been alive and thriving for many years in
areas around the country. Inside of these secluded, often maligned industries , people have gotten
to work creating new products and devising new ways to use the cannabis plant.¶ ADVERTISEMENT¶ Learn about the
New AMEX Everyday Card¶ ¶ The results are already hitting the markets, in the form of more-refined concentrates, extensive lines of
edibles, and more targeted pharmaceutical uses. In fact, this is just the beginning. Wait until hemp makes a
comeback to the market. The industrial advantages will be immense.¶ Marijuana¶ The
world of marijuana can be
appropriately compared to the wild west; there is little in the way of infrastructure for entrepreneurs to lean on, and
the entire industry is being pretty much welded together as things progress. For those looking to break into the
industry at the ground level, it can be difficult. There are few — if any — banks or creditors
willing to work with those involved in the cannabis industry, as it is scared of opening itself up to
liability as dealing with the plant is still in breach of federal law (ironic, considering how many big
banks have been more than willing to launder money for drug cartels.) The same goes for many delivery services, like UPS or FedEx,
which risks violating drug trafficking laws by engaging with the industry.¶ Watch: Get Help to Avoid Bad Trades¶ ¶ Up until Colorado
and Washington passed voter-backed legalization initiatives, the entire industry had been operating in a sort of legal gray zone; in
many places, the medical marijuana guidelines were not clearly defined by state or local governments, and as a result, access points
and grow operations — although not operating outside of the law — were subject to raids and shutdowns by the Drug Enforcement
Agency or local police. Essentially, getting involved in cannabis put people at risk of being arrested, whether they actually use the
plant personally, or view it as a commodity.¶ But times are certainly changing. People are recognizing the immense profit potential in
the marijuana game, and even politicians and governments are starting to shift their thinking. Although there has been a longtime
social stigma against cannabis and its use, most of the common talking points — such as the inherent danger that comes along with
marijuana use or the fact that buying a bag of marijuana funds terrorist organizations — are simply falling flat. These and many
other moot points simply lack any kind of substance or merit, and they have for years.¶ As a result, the games have begun for those
willing to take the risk of jumping into the industry while it’s still in its infancy. The room for growth is truly huge, and the
applications are incredibly widespread.¶ Source: Chris Hondros/Getty Images¶ Chris Hondros/Getty Images¶ In addition to
marijuana-based products, like edibles, concentrates, and even new strains, entire support sectors are popping up to support the
industry. Marketing companies, businesses offering merchant services, even courier companies are all laying down its roots, so to
speak, in an effort to help propel the cannabis trade from the backwaters to the mainstream. These companies are being founded not
by some guy with dreadlocks and a Phish t-shirt, but by investors with big money — including former executives from giant tech
companies.¶ Businesses are even taking models from other areas and reapplying them to the marijuana market, as in the case of
websites like Leafly. The tech industry is ripe for a marijuana revolution as well, as the amount of mobile phone applications and
websites that can cater not only to marijuana users, but also businesses, is set to grow rapidly.¶ Of course, each state has their own
regulator pitfalls or advantages, depending on how you want to look at them. For instance, Colorado and Washington have taken
vastly different approaches to implementing the legal marijuana retail system, with Washington far-more focused on enacting stiff
regulations through licensing systems, and ensuring that any harvested product from approved growers is taxed in the appropriate
manner, and sold as such as well. Colorado has taken a less stiff approach, and the results have been quite impressive.¶ Colorado is
taking a more of a free market approach, and it is paying off in spades in the form of tax revenue and happy citizens. Others states
are taking notice, and watching closely at how both Colorado and Washington are handling things. So far, it seems that Colorado’s
‘free-er’ market stance is the superior method.¶ Of course, this is how things are supposed to work. In America, the system is
designed to foster new ideas, and promote the growth of new industries. Marijuana is in prime position to assume the mantle as the
next great American industry, and with proposed uses for recreation, medicine, the industrial sector and many other areas, it’ll be
hard to deny it.¶ Right now, the U.S. is seeing merely the tip of the proverbial iceberg when it comes
to cannabis. But as soon as legislators and investors starting coming on board en masse, the
free market will be awash in new innovation and ideas.
---two, hostile regulatory climate impedes cannabis research and patents
Armentano 08—deputy director of the National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana
Laws (Paul, "Big Pharma Is in a Frenzy to Bring Cannabis-Based Medicines to Market". 7/4/08.
AlterNet. www.alternet.org/story/90469/big_pharma_is_in_a_frenzy_to_bring_cannabisbased_medicines_to_market, TD)
One of the more popular theories seeking to explain the Feds' seemingly inexplicable ban on medical pot goes like this: Neither
the US government nor the pharmaceutical industry will allow for the use of medical marijuana
because they can't patent it or profit from it. ¶ It's an appealing theory, yet I've found it to be neither accurate
nor persuasive. Here's why.¶ First, let me state the obvious. Big Pharma is busily applying for -- and has already received -- multiple
patents for the medical properties of pot. These include patents for synthetic pot derivatives (such as the oral THC pill Marinol),
cannabinoid agonists (synthetic agents that bind to the brain's endocannabinoid receptors) like HU-210 and cannabis antagonists
such as Rimonabant. This trend was most recently summarized in the NIH paper (pdf), "The endocannabinoid system as an
emerging target of pharmacotherapy," which concluded, "The growing interest in the underlying science has been matched by a
growth in the number of cannabinoid drugs in pharmaceutical development from two in 1995 to 27 in 2004." In other words, at the
same time the American Medical Association is proclaiming that pot has no medical value, Big Pharma is in a frenzy to
bring dozens of new, cannabis-based medicines to market.¶ Not all of these medicines will be synthetic pills
either. Most notably, GW Pharmaceutical's oral marijuana spray, Sativex, is a patented standardized dose of natural cannabis
extracts. (The extracts, primarily THC and the non-psychoactive, anxiolytic compound CBD, are taken directly from marijuana
plants grown at an undisclosed, company warehouse.)¶ Does Big Pharma's sudden and growing interest in the research and
development of pot-based medicines mean that the industry is proactively supporting marijuana prohibition? Not if they know
what's good for them. Let me explain.¶ First, any and all cannabis-based medicines must be granted
approval from federal regulatory bodies such as the US Food and Drug Administration -- a
process that remains as much based on politics as it is on scientific merit. Chances
are that a government that is unreasonably hostile toward the marijuana plant will also be
unreasonably hostile toward sanctioning cannabis-based pharmaceuticals.
---three, only standardized regulations create an industry
Bostwick 12—Department of Psychiatry and Psychology, Mayo Clinic
(J. Michael, “Blurred Boundaries: The Therapeutics and Politics of Medical Marijuana”, Mayo Clin Proc. Feb 2012; 87(2): 172–186,
dml)
Meanwhile, in
the legal arena, the federal government pits itself against increasing numbers of
states—16 plus the District of Columbia—with regulations permitting botanical cannabis use for certain
chronically or critically ill patients that contradict federal law.10 A consequence of the discrepancies
between federal and state statutes is that users and purveyors of botanical cannabis for any
purpose can be arrested and charged with federal crimes, even in states where possessing small
quantities or growing one's own stash for medical use is legal. In the absence of an overarching
federal approach, these states lack consensus on what constitutes physician authorization, which
patients qualify for treatment, and how they can acquire their botanical cannabis, creating what
is essentially a “regulatory vacuum.”3,15 Possession limits, for example, range from 1 oz and 6 plants in Alaska
and Montana to 24 oz and 24 plants in Oregon.108 Some state laws are remarkably lax. For example, when California became the
first American state to legalize botanical cannabis in 1996, it allowed wide latitude for its use, permitting physicians to prescribe it
not only for serious medical illnesses but also “for any other illness for which marijuana provides relief,” including such emotional
conditions as depression and anxiety, a state of affairs that has “maximally broaden(ed) the range of allowable indications.”26
Moreover, no provision of the law defines what constitutes a bona fide patient-physician
relationship.15 An estimated 250,000 to 300,000 Californians have garnered physician approval, a number that belies
botanical cannabis being provided only to the seriously ill and dying. A new industry has arisen around cultivating
and dispensing medical marijuana to the hundreds of thousands of individuals authorized to use
it.
Organized medicine continuing to condemn the federal government for its stance toward
medical marijuana drives the ongoing legislative and scientific chaos. The American Medical Association,
the Institute of Medicine, and the American College of Physicians contend that the “patchwork of state laws” do little
to “establish clinical standards for marijuana use”3 and have called for reclassification of cannabis as a Schedule
II controlled substance so researchers can follow “the principles that are used to evaluate all other pharmacotherapies [that] have
largely been ignored for medical marijuana.” These principles include pharmaceutical companies petitioning
the FDA for the right to put new compounds through a battery of tests in animals and humans that ensure
that the drug's benefits outweigh its risks,79 determining precise dosing regimens, seeking FDA approval for the proposed new drug,
and manufacturing unadulterated active drug to high standards. Until this change occurs, a redesignation that would
acknowledge not only its abuse risks but also its therapeutic benefits, the
“rigorous scientific evaluation” that
underpins pharmaceutical regulation in the United States cannot proceed.3
Conclusions
Given cannabis' worldwide use for thousands of years for medical and spiritual purposes, the contemporary American tumult over medical marijuana seems peculiar and misguided. Despite cannabis being part of
the US pharmacopeia through much of the 19th and early 20th centuries, a federal government deeply suspicious of mind-altering substances began imposing restrictions on its prescription in the late 1930s,
culminating in 1970 when the US Congress classified it as a Schedule I substance, illegal, without redeeming qualities.
Despite its illegality, cannabis has in the latter half of the 20th century become the most abused illicit substance in the United States. For most individuals, recreational cannabis use is essentially harmless, a rite of
passage ending as young people settle into careers and adult intimate relationships.20,109,110 For 10%, however, the drug becomes addictive, its relaxing properties transforming into a constant need that
interferes with interpersonal and occupational advancement. For an even smaller proportion—those with a predisposition toward psychotic illness—it may abet the earlier emergence of psychosis and a rockier
illness course if use persists.
Prohibition notwithstanding, cannabis' recognized medical uses never went out of favor in alternative medicine circles. Its therapeutic properties have been particularly favored by former recreational users
familiar with its psychoactive effects, some of whom blur boundaries by continuing to use it recreationally. In the 1980s, it was found effective for treating severe nausea induced by cancer chemotherapy and
cachexia in AIDS patients. The first cannabinoid-based pharmaceuticals—dronabinol and nabilone—came into medical use in 1985. Without an understanding of how these medications worked, they were
prescribed empirically. As the mysteries of the endocannabinoid system were unraveled during ensuing decades, however, a rationale for both its recreational and sweeping medical effects has emerged.
The natural next step—pharmaceutical development—has been thwarted by the federal
government's seeming unwillingness to have new scientific discovery supplant long-standing
ideology. Bureaucratic hurdles not erected for other potential pharmaceuticals continue to
interfere with legitimate cannabis research. The federal government instituted its 1970 ban in the
absence of scientific evidence supporting its position. It maintains the ban, despite scientific
evidence suggesting that cannabis could have positive effects on the many organ systems
endocannabinoid activity modulates.
Although remaining at risk of arrest on federal charges, medical users have increasing latitude
as more and more states endorse botanical cannabis. In defiance of a federal ban that appears
increasingly irrational, 16 states and the District of Columbia have legalized botanical cannabis'
medical use. Without a federal umbrella, regulations lack any state-to-state uniformity about
what constitutes acceptable indications, appropriate prescriber-patient relationships, or
legitimate means of acquiring botanical cannabis. In such states, physicians who prescribe
medical marijuana are susceptible to prosecution under the same statutes as drug dealers.111 Public approval and
political expediency rather than scientific data drive the continued implementation of these state laws.
Like alcohol imbibers during the prohibition era in the United States, recreational users continue
to smoke
cannabis illicitly, as they have always done. Because of this modern-day prohibition, opportunities to further
study marijuana's risks and benefits and develop new pharmacotherapies are squandered. In
passing their own regulations endorsing medical marijuana use, states defy the federal
government. In each of these instances, boundaries among the legal, social, and medical realms
blur. Depending on context, marijuana can thus be panacea, scourge, or both.
Scenario 1 is the economy
Fixing the pharma crisis ensures sustainable growth in the US and prevents
collapse
Sullivan 11 (Thomas Sullivan, founder of Rockpointe Inc., former political consultant, “Study
Shows Importance of Biopharmaceutical Jobs For US Economy,” Policy and Medicine, July 12,
2011, http://www.policymed.com/2011/07/study-shows-importance-of-biopharmaceuticaljobs-for-us-economy-for-every-20-billion-loss-in-revenue.html)
Biopharmaceutical research companies produce the highest-value jobs, the types of jobs Americans want in the 21st
century economy, the kinds of jobs that can drive future economic growth. No other sector has the
ability to drive innovation, create high-quality jobs and provide new life-saving medicines for
patients. According to a recent report from the Battelle Technology Partnership Practice (TPP),
“nationwide, the biopharmaceutical sector supported a total of 4 million jobs in 2009, including nearly 675,000
direct jobs. Battelle is the world’s largest non‐profit independent research and development
organization, providing innovative solutions to the world’s most pressing needs through its four global businesses. TPP has
an established reputation in state‐by‐state assessment of the biopharmaceutical sector, and has recently undertaken
major impact assessment projects for the Human Genome Project, the nation’s biotechnology sector, and major bioscience
organizations such as Mayo Clinic. TPP has also been active in provision of analysis to industry organizations, including the Council
for American Medical Innovation, PhRMA and BIO‐the Biotechnology Industry Organization. Each job in a
biopharmaceutical research company supported almost 6 additional jobs in other sectors, ranging from
manufacturing jobs to construction and other building service jobs to contract researchers and child care providers. Together,
this biopharmaceutical sector‐related workforce received $258 billion in wages and benefits in
2009. “Battelle also found that across all occupations involved in the biopharmaceutical sector, the average wage is higher than
across all other private sector industries, due to the sector’s role as a ‘high value-added sector.” Specifically, the annual average
personal income of a biopharmaceutical worker was $118,690 in 2009 as compared to $64,278 in the overall economy. Additionally,
the biopharmaceutical sector’s total economic output (including direct, indirect and induced impacts) was
$918 billion in 2009. The sector generated an estimated $85 billion tax revenues in 2009—$33 billion in state and local and
more than $52 billion in federal. This impact comprises $382 billion in direct impact of biopharmaceutical businesses and $535
billion in indirect and induced impacts (an output multiplier of 2.4—meaning that every $1 dollar in output generated by
the biopharmaceutical sector generates another $1.4 in output in other sectors of the economy). To
put this export volume
into perspective, 2010’s total biopharmaceutical exports of $46.7 billion compares favorably to
other major U.S. exports including: automobiles ($38.4 billion in 2010 exports); plastics and rubber products ($25.9
billion); communications equipment ($27 billion) and computers ($12.5 billion). In addition, the U.S. Congressional Budget Office
noted that, “the
pharmaceutical industry is one of the most research‐intensive industries in the
United States and that pharmaceutical firms invest as much as five times more in research and
development, relative to their sales, than the average U.S. manufacturing firm.” At over $105,000 in biopharmaceutical R&D
per employee, the sector is way ahead of the average across all U.S. manufacturing which stands at about $10,000 per employee—
and is far ahead of the second and third ranked sectors of “communications equipment” and “semiconductors, which respectively
spend $63,000 and $40,000 per employee in R&D annually. PhRMA Statement on Battelle Report Consequently, Pharmaceutical Research and
Manufacturers of America (PhRMA) President and CEO John J. Castellani issued a statement discussing the results from this report and the biopharmaceutical research sector’s
impact on jobs and the American economy. Castellani asserted that, “at a time when the U.S. is facing a jobs crisis, evidenced by the terrible employment numbers from last
Friday, it is critical that our policymakers embrace dynamic and innovative business sectors such as the biopharmaceutical research sector and refrain from stifling job growth
through shortsighted proposals such as government-mandated price controls in Medicare Part D.” Specifically, the PhRMA CEO pointed to a new paper from the Battelle
Technology Partnership Practice, which underscored the pharmaceutical sector’s tremendous contribution to America’s economy. Castellani recognized that, “startling potential
job losses would result from undermining the business foundations of biopharmaceutical companies.” He noted that the Battelle report estimated “that a $20 billion per year
reduction in biopharmaceutical sector revenue would result in 260,000 job losses across the U.S. economy” and a $59 billion reduction in U.S. economic activity. As a result,
Castellani recognized that, “as the President and Congressional leaders negotiate an important agreement on the debt ceiling and the future of the nation’s economy, it is critical
that the jobs crisis is not exacerbated.” For example, Castellani noted how “the President and some in Congress have proposed including government-mandated rebates in
Medicare Part D as part of a debt ceiling agreement.” However, he recognized that “such a provision would have a dramatic negative effect on the economy and patients, and
could undermine the success of the Part D program, which has very high beneficiary satisfaction and has cost far less than original government projections.” He pointed to the
“Battelle numbers, which clearly demonstrated that reducing the biopharmaceutical sector’s annual revenue by $20 billion would be a serious blow to employment.” Castellani
added that, “while the research is not specific to any one policy or event, proposals being considered, such as government-mandated Part D rebates, would be expected to have
revenue impact of this magnitude.” Moreover, he noted that, “Part D is an unparalleled success, providing unprecedented access to life-saving medicines for seniors.”
Accordingly, Castellani asserted that PhRMA does not “believe policies that discourage R&D and cutting-edge science and that will inevitably slow the development of needed
The Battelle Report
quantifies the economic impact of the biopharmaceutical sector on the U.S. economy and jobs
using input/output analysis, measures the direct and indirect impacts of the biopharmaceutical sector, and
quantifies the economic impacts that would occur if biopharmaceutical revenues increase or
decrease from significant changes in the business operating environment. The report also highlights some of the
new medicines are fair for seniors waiting for new treatments against our most challenging and costly diseases.” Battelle Report
functional impacts of the sector—the wide‐ranging benefits provided through the biopharmaceutical sector’s contributions to
enhancing human health, improving life spans and sustaining the high quality‐of‐life that Americans enjoy—and assesses the
contributions of the biopharmaceutical sector to key areas of importance to our
economy— innovation, product exports and quality of jobs produced. The Battelle Report starts by
recognizing that the
biopharmaceutical sector has all of the characteristics for an ideal industry for
economic growth and sustainability in the U.S. Specifically, the biopharmaceutical sector:
Grows in output and employment even in tough economic times
Provides high wage, good quality jobs
Is innovative and deploys high‐technology to generate comparative advantage for U.S. companies
Generates significant exports that boost the U.S. economy
Has a strong supply chain that drives further economic growth across the economy
through “multiplier effects”
Builds on America’s long‐standing strengths and investment in fundamental and applied research
Encourages capital flows to sustain growth, and is profitable to provide funds for
reinvestment into the research and development (R&D) cycle;
Generates federal, state and local taxes and other economic contributions that support public services
Is sustainable and not a major drain on global resources
Is geographically dispersed, providing opportunities for job creation and economic growth
across many areas of the nation, not just a few selected places
Produces a product of value to society, something that improves the quality of life for humankind, including Improved
life spans (personal longevity) Improved productivity resulting from prevention and effective management
of disease and chronic conditions; and Reductions in unnecessary hospitalizations resulting in
potential cost‐offsets elsewhere in the health care system.
Fundamental to major progress in human longevity, reducing the marginalization of individuals from disease and disability, and
generally improving our quality‐of‐life, biopharmaceuticals are a unique contributor to societal and individual well‐being. Moreover,
the output of the biopharmaceutical sector is highly valued by society because the sector develops and manufactures a broad‐range
of unique products to treat disorders and diseases that, were they to go untreated, can ruin individual quality of life, personal
abilities and productivity. In many instances, biopharmaceuticals are central to helping to prevent and treat
a range of public health issues, address pandemic risk and thereby support national economic security. For example,
innovation in the biopharmaceutical sector, combined with the diagnostic and treatment skills of U.S. healthcare
professionals, has contributed to a lengthening of the average life span of Americans. In 1900, the expected life
span of an American at birth was just 47.3 years. With the advent of more modern medicines and advanced medical knowledge, life
expectancy at birth has seen a steady increase rising to 69.7 years in 1960, and 77.9 years in 2007. In fact, the National Bureau of
Economic Research reports that “there is a highly statistically significant relationship between the
number of new molecular entities [drugs] approved by the FDA and increased longevity.”
Furthermore, Lichtenberg found in a study of FDA data that "approval of priority‐review drugs—those considered by the FDA to
offer significant improvements in the treatment, diagnosis, or prevention of a disease—has a significant positive impact on
longevity.” Additionally, the American Hospital Association (AHA) notes that “advances in medicine contribute to
national economic growth by helping Americans recover more quickly from injury and illness,
avoid lost or ineffective work time due to flare‐ups of chronic conditions, and live longer with higher quality of
life.” Without effective medicines and treatments for illnesses, injuries, pain and chronic conditions, the
productivity of the U.S. economy would clearly be greatly impaired. Biopharmaceuticals are a
key contributor to a more productive and healthy America and U.S. economy. Beyond direct
employment in biopharmaceutical companies, the biopharmaceutical sector is the foundation upon which
one of the United States’ most dynamic innovation and business ecosystems is built. A large part of the
modern biomedical economy is built upon a robust foundation of biopharmaceutical companies that perform and
support advanced biomedical and technological R&D, and act as the funnel and distribution
engine for getting life‐saving and quality‐of‐life‐sustaining therapeutics to the marketplace. Providing R&D
impetus and funding, capital resources, technology licensing opportunities, and a sophisticated market
access and distribution system, the biopharmaceutical sector is of central importance to the
much broader biomedical and life sciences economy. Fueled by private investment capital, venture capital
investments, and public/private collaborations, and enabled by the U.S. open market system, the nation has been able to
advance biomedical innovation, which in turn has led to new start‐up companies, business
growth and exports across the world. Conclusion Despite the tremendous success in the biopharmaceutical industry,
emerging infectious diseases continue to present new challenges and a substantial volume of long‐standing diseases such as cancer,
diabetes, neurodegenerative diseases, psychiatric diseases, immunological diseases, etc. continue to demand novel treatments and
improved therapeutics. There are millions of people suffering from diseases and disorders for which a therapy has yet to be found.
The need for ongoing biopharmaceutical research and development is simply enormous. The only way the U.S. economy can stay
ahead of international competition is by using advanced R&D and innovation to drive the growth of high value‐added industries. By
leveraging investment in federal lab, university and industry R&D, our nation is able to produce high‐value, typically technologically
advanced products that the rest of the world values highly. In recent decades, life sciences have come to the fore as a
leading driver of U.S. technological innovation and competitive advantage, and the biopharmaceutical
sector is a key foundation of the life sciences innovation ecosystem. The Unites States’
biopharmaceutical industry produces products that save, sustain and improve lives, and the sector has a large and
significant economic impact, affecting many other key areas of the U.S. economy. Gains
or losses in biopharmaceutical sector revenues will be reflected in gains and losses across a
broad range of additionally important U.S. economic sectors that have robust supply
chain relationships with the biopharmaceutical sector.
Lagging industry strength ensures a downturn
Barnard 13—President of the Research Institute at Nationwide Children's Hospital (John,
"Thw United States at Risk of Losing Research Leadership". 10/20/13. The Columbus Dispatch.
www.dispatch.com/content/stories/science/2013/10/20/1-united-states-at-risk-of-losingresearch-leadership.html, TD)
One of Leshner’s major themes was the increasing globalization of research. The
epicenter of scientific research and
innovation used to be in North America and Europe, but it is steadily moving from the West to
Asia.¶ This movement can be quantified. For example, research-and-development expenditures in Asia now exceed spending in the
United States.¶ And the gap is widening. From 2012 to 2013, U.S. research-and-development
spending decreased by 5 percent while expenditures in China increased by 15 percent. The
annual number of research publications is growing faster in Asia than elsewhere in the world.¶
Simply put, U.S. dominance is fading after a decade of federal research funding stagnation. Growth of research funding
by the U.S. pharmaceutical industry also lags other countries.¶ With the national debate about the
government shutdown, these collective observations got me thinking about the implications if the United States loses its leadership
position in research. Is the loss of U.S. eminence, which will certainly happen if trends continue, so terribly bad?¶ Subra Suresh,
former director of the National Science Foundation, recently wrote that “good science anywhere is good for science everywhere.”
From a humanitarian viewpoint, this seems true. Humankind benefits from an expanding global-research enterprise.¶ In support of
this optimistic interpretation of trends, Leshner pointed out in his speech that authors of nearly half of the research published in the
journal Science are from more than one country. This implies that the world’s best research involves collaborative teams comprised
of the top scientific minds on the planet.¶ My view is this: Even though the world benefits from globalization of research and
development, there is certain harm in the United States’ losing its dominant position as a research-
and-development leader.¶ A significant fraction of the U.S. scientific work force includes trainees and career scientists from
the international community. Historically, these talented scientists come to the United States to train with the best and the brightest.
And they remain in U.S. industry and at our universities because our facilities and resources are currently the most advanced in the
world.¶ But
should recent trends continue, foreign scientists will not have to come to the
United States to realize their career dreams, and established American scientists will move
abroad. In fact, most of us know colleagues who have moved abroad or have strongly considered doing so. The result is a
vicious cycle of brain drain that will unwind a U.S. innovation economy that has
dominated the global scene for more than a century.¶ At the time this column was written, the National Institutes of Health, the
National Science Foundation and other federal research programs had been closed for more than two weeks. This adds insult to
injury and hardly seems the right path to restore U.S. global leadership in research and innovation.¶ As a society,
we should celebrate and embrace global progress in research. At the same time, Congress should aggressively reinvigorate our
country’s investment in research so that we lead the world as we have for so long.¶
Our economic future depends
on it.
Nuclear war
Lieberthal and O’Hanlon 12 - *Director of the John L. Thornton China Center at Brookings AND Director of Research and Senior
Fellow Foreign Policy (Kenneth and Michael, “The Real National Security Threat: America's Debt”, The Brookings Institute,
7/10,http://www.brookings.edu/research/opinions/2012/07/10-economy-foreign-policy-lieberthal-ohanlon) EL
Lastly, American
economic weakness undercuts U.S. leadership abroad. Other countries sense our
weakness and wonder about our purported decline. If this perception becomes more widespread, and the
case that we are in decline becomes more persuasive, countries will begin to take actions that reflect
their skepticism about America's future. Allies and friends will doubt our commitment and may pursue nuclear
weapons for their own security, for example; adversaries will sense opportunity and be less restrained in throwing
around their weight in their own neighborhoods. The crucial Persian Gulf and Western Pacific regions will likely
become less stable. Major war will become more likely.
scenario 2 is disease
pharmaceutical industry solves it
Lo, Progressive Media Reporter, 2014,
(Chris, "Drug prices: profits before patients?" Progressive Media, 6-9, PAS) Accessed on
LexisNexis 9-10-14
A new UCL report questioning the use of off-label drugs to save money has been criticised for propping up an unfair status quo in the pharma industry.
Pharma companies charge high premiums for patented medications to recover costs, maximise
profits and help fund new R&D, but is there another way of funding high-risk research while avoiding budget-busting prices at the
other end of the pipeline?¶ The pharmaceutical industry has been responsible for a host of medical
miracles over the past century, from disease-eradicating vaccines to revolutionary new
treatments for a wide range of cancers and long-term chronic conditions like diabetes. Research
undertaken by private pharmaceutical companies and bio-tech firms, alongside public research institutions, has
improved the length and quality of millions of lives.¶ In light of the industry's achievements, it's natural to think of it
as something of a sacred cow, a special case that should, to a certain extent, be given extra leeway to ensure it can continue bankrolling life-saving
medical innovations. That status also makes it easy to forget the price tag that comes with many of these innovations - a price tag that has been rising
steadily over time.¶ In the US, for example, annual cancer care costs are expected to rise from $104bn in 2006 to $173bn in 2020, according to the
American Society of Clinical Oncology. A major component of that increase is the rising number of cancer diagnoses along with other factors, but with
data from the Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center showing that 15 cancer treatments launched in the last five years cost more than $10,000 a
month, and many existing drugs getting pricier every year, the fact remains that the cost of innovative, patent-protected drugs is becoming increasingly
difficult for patients and cash-strapped health systems to cover.
Specifically cannabis solves drug-resistant diseases
Kusari et al 14—Department of Biochemical and Chemical Engineering, TU Dortmund
(Parijat, with Michael Spiteller, Oliver Kayser and Souvik Kusari, “Recent Advances in Research on Cannabis sativa L.
Endophytes and Their Prospect for the Pharmaceutical Industry”, R. N. Kharwar et al. (eds.), Microbial Diversity and
Biotechnology in Food Security, Springer, dml)
In the last decade, discovery
and intensive in- vestigation of plant-associated microorganisms, termed
endophytic microorganisms (or endophytes) have led to the possibility of exploring the potential benefits of
these promising organ- isms in agriculture, medicinal, and pharmaceuti- cal sectors. Endophytes can be
defined, in a gen- eralist manner, as a group of microorganisms that infect the internal tissues of plant without caus- ing any immediate symptom of
infection and/or visible manifestation of disease, and live in mu- tualistic association with plants for at least a part of their life cycle (Bacon and White
2000; Kusari and Spiteller 2011, 2012; Kusari et al. 2012c). Endophytes are ubiquitously existent in almost every plant tissue examined till date (Guerin
1898; Redecker et al. 2000; Strobel 2002; Stan- iek et al. 2008). With
the increasing enormity of global health
problems, and the incidence of drug- resistant microorganisms and new diseases, it has
become clear that faster and effective pursuits for drug discovery and sustainable production
must be made. This cumulative crisis has already led to the discovery and characterization of
potent endophytes which can produce bioactive natural products, occasionally mimetic to their associ- ated host plants (Puri et al. 2005,
2006; Eyberger et al. 2006; Kour et al. 2008; Kusari et al. 2008, 2009a, b, c, 2011, 2012b; Shweta et al. 2010). Endophytes are also known to produce a
diverse range of biologically active secondary metabo- lites (Strobel and Daisy 2003; Strobel et al. 2004; Zhang et al. 2006; Gunatilaka 2006; Staniek et
al. 2008; Suryanarayanana et al. 2009; Aly et al. 2010; Kharwar et al. 2011) that are known to contribute to host plant tolerance against vari- ous
environmental stress herbivory, heat, salt, disease, and drought (Stone et al. 2000; Redman et al. 2002; Arnold et al. 2003; Rodriguez et al. 2004,
Even with such colossal
amounts and breadth of successful discoveries of potentially beneficial endophytes, it has still
not been possible to utilize them commercially for the “sustained production” of the desired
phar- maceutically valuable compounds (Kusari et al. 2012c, 2013b). Therefore, understanding of the multitude of endophyte
2008; Waller et al. 2005; Márquez et al. 2007; Rodriguez and Redman 2008; Porras-Alfa- ro and Bayman 2011).
relationships with host plants needs more attention and investigation in various related aspects such as the endophyte– plant interactions, multispecies
crosstalk, and links with herbivores and predators.
Endophytic Microorganisms Associated with C. sativa L.
Our work on the investigation of endophytic mi- crobial community harbored in C. sativa L. was
based on the recent advancements made in devis- ing various strategies of discovering
endophytes based on the rationale of their cost–benefit rela- tionship with their hosts in order to exploit their potential
beneficial efficacies. Since this plant is protected by national and international legisla- tions and
regulations, we sampled and imported the C. sativa L. plants from the legal farmer Bedrocan BV Medicinal Cannabis (The Neth-
erlands) with the permission of the Federal In- stitute for Drugs and Medical Devices (Bundes- institutfür Arzneimittel und
Medizinprodukte, BfArM), Germany under the license number 458 49 89. Plant specimens have been depos- ited at the Bedrocan
BV with voucher numbers (A1)05.41.050710. We then isolated a plethora of endophytes (Fig. 1.2) and subjected
them to various culture conditions and parameters and even challenged them (dual-culture antagonistic assays of the fungal isolates) with two major phytopahogens of the Cannabis plant, namely B. cinerea and T. roseum,
which are potent green- house threats for the cultivars and known to cause disasters at epidemic scales (Barloy and Pelhate 1962;
Bush Doctor 1985). Our target was to evaluate the endophytes within the ecological and biochemical
contexts, especially focusing on their biocontrol potential to thwart the host- specific
phytopathogens. This led us towards the identification of potent endophytes that not only
proved to be promising biocontrol agents against the specific phytopathogens, but also
demonstrat- ed qualities of being a natural reservoir of bioac- tive secondary metabolites
(Kusari et al. 2013a). To the best of our knowledge, this work was the first to report the incidence, diversity
analysis, and qualitative biocontrol potential of endophyt- ic fungi harbored in C. sativa L.
plants. Eleven different kinds of antagonistic interactions are observed when the endophytes were challenged with the
phytopathogens in five different media, namely Sabouraud agar (SA), nutrient agar (NA), potato dextrose agar (PDA), malt extract
agar (MEA), and water agar (WA), respectively. This highlights the fact that endophytes are ca- pable of producing
different compounds under varying conditions which are otherwise “cryptic” metabolites . All the
endophyte isolates showed antagonistic potency to some extent against ei- ther one or both of the phytopathogens in vary- ing the
media, but three of the isolates proved to exhibit prominent complete inhibition (Kusari et al. 2013a). Many endophytes started
sporulat- ing in NA, as expected, revealing their response to the unfavorable condition while countering the confronting pathogen.
Interestingly, the same en- dophyte isolates showed various other interesting inhibition patterns such as formation of a clear halo
(inhibition zone), release of exudates with- out even physical contact of mycelia, and change of mycelia color among others, which
accompa- nied the inhibitions.
Plant–fungal associations are always accom- panied by various physical and chemical inter- actions thereby establishing them either
in a localized and/or systemic manner (Kusari et al. 2012c). The varying assortment of antagonisms demonstrated by the
endophytes against the host phytopathogens indicates that their efficacies are either due to the production of secondary metabolites
or the immediate intermediates in the biosynthetic pathway of those metabolites, triggered upon pathogen challenge. The interactions were in complete agreement with the well- known “one strain many compounds (OSMAC)” approach (Kusari et al. 2012c),
thereby revealing that endophytes are capable of producing cryptic metabolites when elicited under certain selec- tive interacting
conditions apart from the normal metabolites produced under normal fermentation conditions. Our work not only reports
endophytic fungi as potent biocontrol agents under suitable conditions but also provides a
platform to com- pare the endophytes of the same plant from dif- ferent wild populations and
collection centers (if accessible) for global-scale diversity analysis and the production of successive
bioactive secondary metabolites (target and/or nontarget) with strong therapeutic potential .
Outlook
The potential of inimitable fungal endophytes adept in biosynthesizing bioactive metabolites,
occasionally those imitative to their host plants, has irrefutably been recognized. Endophytes can be
accepted as new sources for gene- and drug discovery in medical sciences and will provide, by
distinct genomic blueprints, new insights in gene assembly and expression control. Nonethe- less, there is
still no known breakthrough in the biotechnological production of these bioactive natural
products using endophytes. It is imperious to expound the metabolome in endophytes corre- lating to their host plants on
a case-by-case basis to comprehend how the biogenetic gene clusters are regulated and their expression is affected in planta and ex
planta (i.e., by environmental changes and axenic culture conditions). Only a deeper understanding of the host–
endophyte re- lationship at the molecular level might
help to in- duce and optimize secondary metabolite
produc- tion under laboratory conditions to yield desired metabolites in a sustained manner
using endo- phytes. This can be achieved by challenging the endophytes by specific and nonspecific patho- gens, especially
those attacking their host plants, by devising suitable coculture and dual-culture setups (qualitative, followed by suitable quantitative experiments). The pathogens encountered can serve as an inducer that might trigger the pro- duction of defense secondary
metabolites with prodrug-like properties. Once the production of a target or nontarget natural product with a
desired biological activity has been achieved, techniques such as genome mining, metabolic
engineering, and metagenomics could be utilized to influence the manipulation of secondary
metabolite pro- duction by endophytic fungi or the plant itself by directed infection with beneficial
endophytes (Kusari et al. 2012c, d). Such directed investiga- tion with the scientific rationale of mimicking
the natural plant–endophyte–pathogen interactions should be pursued to warrant a virtually
incessant discovery and sustained supply of bioactive pro- drugs against the current
and emerging diseases.
Extinction
Davies 8—Department of Microbiology and Immunology at the University of British Columbia
(Julian, “Resistance redux: Infectious diseases, antibiotic resistance and the future of mankind”, EMBO Rep. Jul 2008; 9(Suppl 1):
S18–S21, dml)
For many years, antibiotic-resistant
pathogens have been recognized as one of the main threats to
human survival, as some experts predict a return to the pre-antibiotic era. So far, national efforts to
exert strict control over the use of antibiotics have had limited success and it is not yet possible to achieve
worldwide concerted action to reduce the growing threat of multi-resistant pathogens: there are too many parties involved.
Furthermore, the problem has not yet really arrived on the radar screen of many physicians and
clinicians, as antimicrobials still work most of the time—apart from the occasional news headline that yet another nasty superbug
has emerged in the local hospital. Legislating the use of antibiotics for non-therapeutic applications and curtailing general public
access to them is conceivable, but legislating the medical profession is an entirely different matter.
In order to meet the growing problem of antibiotic resistance among pathogens, the discovery
and development of new antibiotics and alternative treatments for infectious diseases, together with
tools for rapid diagnosis that will ensure effective and appropriate use of existing antibiotics, are imperative. How the
health services, pharmaceutical industry and academia respond in the coming years will determine
the future of treating infectious diseases. This challenge is not to be underestimated: microbes
are formidable adversaries and, despite our best efforts, continue to exact a toll on the human
race.
1AC 3
Conention three is Cooperative federalism
Marijuana is a key battleground – policy divergence wrecks legal
certainty for a market
Chemerinsky, et al, 14 [Erwin Chemerinsky echemerinsky@law.uci.edu University of
California, Irvine ~ School of Law Jolene Forman jforman@aclunc.org American Civil Liberties
Union of Northern California Criminal Justice and Drug Policy Fellow Allen Hopper
ahopper@aclunc.org American Civil Liberties Union of Northern California Criminal Justice
and Drug Policy Director Sam Kamin skamin@law.du.edu University of Denver ~ Sturm College
of Law Professor and Director, Constitutional Rights and Remedies ProgramLegal Studies
Research Paper Series No. 2014-25 Cooperative Federalism and Marijuana Regulation, p. ssrn]
The struggle over marijuana
is one of the most important federalism conflicts
in a generation. Unprecedented public support for legalizing marijuana has
emboldened
experimentation across the country
regulation
Brandeisian
– since 1996 twenty states have legalized marijuana for medical purposes2 and, in November
2013, Colorado and Washington state went even further, legalizing marijuana for adult recreational use.3 And, while the Obama administration has thus far utilized its enforcement discretion to allow those state policy experiments to play out, marijuana remains a
The clash over marijuana laws raises questions of tension and
cooperation between state and federal governments
Divergent federal and state laws also create debilitating instability and uncertainty
prohibited substance under federal law.
ongoing
, and forces policy-makers and courts to address the preemptive power of federal drug laws.
on the
ground in those states pioneering new approaches to marijuana control. In the fall of 2013, the federal Department of Justice (“DOJ”) announced it will not prioritize enforcement of federal marijuana laws in states with their own robust marijuana regulations,
specifying eight federal enforcement priorities to help guide state lawmaking.4 This announcement has been widely interpreted to signal that the federal government will not enforce its stricter marijuana laws against those complying with the new Washington and
Colorado laws so long as the new state regulatory regimes effectively prevent the harms the DOJ has identified as federal priorities. Yet even if the federal government voluntarily refrains from enforcing its drug laws against those complying with robust state
regulatory regimes, the ancillary consequences flowing from the continuing federal prohibition remain profound. We suggest an incremental and effective solution that would allow willing states to experiment with novel regulatory approaches while leaving the
federal prohibition intact for the remaining states. The federal government should adopt a cooperative federalism approach th at allows states meeting specified federal criteria – criteria along the lines that the DOJ has already set forth – to opt out of the federal
Controlled Substances Act (“CSA”) provisions relating to marijuana. State law satisfying these federal guidelines would exclusively govern marijuana activities within those states opting out of the CSA while in those states content with the CSA’s terms nothing would
change. Our article proceeds as follows. We begin in Part II with a brief overview of the history of marijuana regulation from the 1930s to the present, explaining how the current tension over the appropriate roles of the state and federal government arose. We then
in spite of the DOJ’s announced enforcement
leniency the continuing prohibition significantly hampers new state laws.
Banks, attorneys, insurance companies, potential investors, and numerous others
justifiably concerned about breaking law – are reluctant to provide investment
capital, legal advice, or numerous other basic professional services necessary for
businesses to function and navigate
state and local regulations
catalog in Part III many of the problems flowing from the clash between federal and state laws, demonstrating that
,
federal
the
–
federal
complex
. Federal tax rules treat these marijuana business activities
like any other federal drug crime, which enormously increases tax liability by disallowing deductions for common business expenses. And those engaging in marijuana activity entirely legal under state law – whether recreational or medical – still risk losing their
jobs, parental rights, and many government benefits. Although President Obama has said state policy experiments in Washington and Colorado are “important” and should go forward,5 the continuing federal prohibition of marijuana substantially undermines these
new state laws. In Part IV we turn to a discussion of federal preemption law as it applies to the CSA. explain why, even if it wished to do so, the DOJ could not simply shut down all state marijuana legalization efforts using the federal government’s preemption power
under the Supremacy Clause. We explain that while the courts have yet to establish the precise contours of federal preemption doctrine in this context, the preemptive reach of the CSA is relatively modest. Recognition of this legal reality likely played a significant
role in the recent DOJ decision 6 not to bring preemption challenges against the Colorado and Washington State ballot initiatives.
The plan’s regulatory mechanism bolsters federalism and reconciles
policy divergence
Grabarsky, 13 [Todd, associate in O'Melveny's Los Angeles office and a member of the
Litigation Department. Professional Activities Law Clerk, Honorable Edward J. Davila, US
District Court, Northern District of California Author, “CONFLICTING FEDERAL AND STATE
MEDICAL MARIJUANA POLICIES: A THREAT TO COOPERATIVE FEDERALISM”, 116 W. Va.
L. Rev. 1]
When it comes to enforcement of the CSA the federal government has extremely limited resources. As noted, federal law enforcement only accounts for approximately one percent of all drug-related arrests in this
country. Therefore, as the Ogden Memo indicated, the federal executive must choose to allocate its resources with the understanding that it simply will not be able to arrest and prosecute all offenders of federal
drug laws. The federal government has already conceded this: In both the Ogden and Cole Memos the Department of Justice acknowledged that its “investigative and prosecutorial resources” are “limited” and it
The federal government, in essence, relies on
the states to assist in the execution of the CSA. Because of this, instead of
attempting to subvert the state medical marijuana schemes, the federal government
should be engaging in a more “cooperative federalism” system by working with the states to prioritize federal
enforcement resources in a manner consistent with state policy and regulations. In order to achieve this balance between the state and federal enforcement policies
and to restore cooperative federalism, the federal government needs to adopt an
enforcement policy with regards to medical marijuana that complies with the state laws and regulations. Calling for the federal
must therefore pick and choose which types of federal offenders are worth its resources.
executive may prove to be futile, considering that in prosecuting those who violate the CSA by cultivating, possessing or distributing marijuana for medical purposes—even in compliance with state laws and
regulations—federal law enforcement agents are acting wholly within the scope of their duties and obligation to enforce and uphold the federal CSA. After elaborating on the improbability of executive self-restraint
in Part V.A, Part V.B will propose that Congress acts to re-achieve the balance of cooperative federalism in the realm of nationwide drug enforcement. In order to do this, Congress needs to exempt the applicability
of the CSA’s proscription of medical marijuana to those acting in compliance with state laws and regulations like those in California. A. The Futility of Internal Executive Restraint The Ogden Memo–Cole Memo
shift is a poignant illustration of the problems of assigning the task of preservation of cooperative federalism—or federalism in general for that matter—to the Executive Branch of the federal government.
The
federal executive policy can be characterized as spottily inconsistent at best and
whimsical at worst. In addition to the recent crackdowns in California, federal medical marijuana enforcement policy in Colorado is illustrative of the uncertainty. In a December
Seemingly on a whim, the Department of Justice and various United States Attorneys can focus and re-focus efforts on medical marijuana distributors acting in full compliance with state laws.
2011 questioning by the House Judiciary Committee to Attorney General Eric Holder, Representative Jared Polis of Colorado asked Holder the following series of questions: Polis: I wanted to see if I can get your
assurance that our definition of “caregiver” in our state’s constitution will be given some deference in the Attorney General’s office. Holder: What we said in the [Ogden] Memo we still intend, which is that given
the limited resources that we have, and if there are states that have medical marijuana provisions . . . if in fact people are not using the policy decision that we have made to use marijuana in a way that is not
consistent with the state statute we will not use our limited resources in that way. Polis: [Referring to the recent crackdown in California] I’d like to ask whether our thoughtful state regulations . . . provide any
additional protection to Colorado from federalism intervention. Holder: Our thought was where a state has taken a position, as in passed a law, and people are acting in conformity with the law—not abusing the
law, but acting in conformity with it—and again given our limited resources that would not be an enforcement priority for the justice department. . . . Polis: Is there any intention of the DOJ to prosecute bankers
for doing business with licensed and regulated medical marijuana providers in the states? Holder: Again consistent with the notion on how we use our limited resources, again, if the bankers, the people seeking to
make the deposits are acting in conformity with state law would not be a priority for the Justice Department. Within three months after this direct assurance by the executive head of the Justice Department that
entities acting in compliance with state law would not be a federal law enforcement priority, a Colorado-based United States Attorney announced that there exists no “safe harbor” for medical marijuana
dispensaries acting in compliance with state law because their activities nonetheless remain illegal under federal law. While the issue being address concerned dispensaries located within 1,000 feet of schools, the
U.S. Attorney’s office stated that it is “not possible to answer whether a shop in compliance with state rules and regulations and not located near a school would still face any trouble.” At best, the shift from the
Holder questioning to the latest Colorado U.S. Attorney letter can be viewed as confusion or uncertainty among the federal executive law enforcement; at worst it can be viewed as a blatant attempt to subvert state
medical marijuana laws. At worst, it can be seen as an attempt by the federal government to undermine popular state policies. However, notwithstanding specific policy-based law enforcement decisions made by
the Obama administration, it still remains the duty of the federal executive branch to uphold federal law. Ultimately, the CSA remains the law of the land; and the executive branch has the constitutional duty to
uphold that law. As such, that same governmental branch simply cannot be left to its own devices to preserve federalism and resolve the threat to cooperative federalism posed by the federal-state dichotomy in
medical marijuana laws. The experience of the federal executive’s inconsistent policy in Colorado, California, and other states with medical marijuana exemptions is a testament to that. B. A Congressional
This
Article proposes that Congress Act to reconcile the state-federal conflict of laws
regarding medical marijuana by creating an exemption from the CSA for medical marijuana
usage and distribution in compliance with approved state laws and regulatory scheme. At the
Exemption for Medical Marijuana in Compliance with State Law Because it appears that the federal executive could not viably preserve the federalism balance, this Article turns to Congress.
most, Congress could amend the CSA to expressly provide the exemption, or at least pass an act prohibiting the Executive from enforcing the CSA’s medical marijuana proscription in states that permit it.
Such an exemption would allow states to proceed with their medical marijuana
programs while at the same time keeping the drug illegal at the federal level. The result would be that medical marijuana would be presumptively prohibited nationwide, except in states that take
affirmative legislative and administrative steps (as some have already done) to legalize it. It is extremely important to note that this proposal does not call for a federal exemption to the CSA for medical marijuana.
the proposed exemption would allow those states’
legislation and regulation to operate unimpeded by federal disruption. This will also allow these states
On one hand, in states like California that elect to legalize medical marijuana,
to work with the federal authorities in focusing on the state-federal unity of interests in drug enforcement; for example California state agents will still be able and encouraged to work with their federal
counterparts to curb the distribution and possession of drugs that remain illegal on both the federal and California law books. On the other hand, in states that wish to keep medical marijuana prohibited, state
The reason why this compromise is
necessary stems from the so-called “laboratories of experimentation” notion of
federalism that a one-size-fits-all fix is not a viable or practicable solution to
address an issue that affects over 300 million people with hundreds if not
thousands of diverse values, principles, and beliefs. As mentioned supra, this Article does not purport to opine on the policy values
authorities will continue to cooperate with the federal government to execute the CSA and its state law counter.
of the legalization of medical marijuana. Rather, this Article argues that if the people or legislature of a state decide on a social issue like medical marijuana, then the federal should give some deference to those
When it comes to social issues, the state lawmaking process—especially in
states that pass laws through popular referendum—is arguably better at achieving
the will of the people than is the federal government. State governments are more
localized, and thus more apt at deciding how to specifically address a problem that
is affective its citizens. The very existence of federalism acknowledges that one solution in one state might not be
best for another state let alone the rest of the country. A potential hurdle to this proposal would be the argument that this would
decisions.
create a federal scheme that would have different consequences in different states. For example, a medical marijuana dispensary in California would not be subject to federal prosecution as would its counterpart
such a
Congressional exemption to federal law where states adopt relevant programs of
their own design has been constitutionally implemented has been seen before,
namely in the realm of social security. In Charles C. Steward Machine Co. v. Davis, the U.S. Supreme Court, in an opinion by Justice Benjamin N.
(if such a thing exists) in, say, New York. This would, it can be argued, undermine the notion that federal laws are to be uniformly applied across the several states. However,
Cardozo, upheld a federal tax and spending unemployment compensation program to be applied across the nation as part of the Social Security Act. Built into the federal program was an exception for states that
adopted unemployment compensation programs of their own: employers in these states would receive a ninety percent federal tax credit; employers in states without such comparable programs would not. In
upholding the state-specific exemption program as constitutional, Justice Cardozo mused on the importance of having local solutions to local problems. The state-by-state exemption to the Social Security Act—an
early example of cooperative federalism, perhaps—showed that “Congress believed that the general welfare would better be promoted by relief through local units than by the system then in vogue . . . .” If a state—
Alabama, as was the case in Steward Machine Co.—created an unemployment tax and spending scheme that was better tailored to fit the needs of its citizens, then Congress could very well have that program take
the place of the broader federal one. The cooperative federalism principles from the Steward Machine Co. opinion are easily applicable to the medical marijuana conflict and the state-specific Congressional
just like the Social Security Act, the CSA was meant to be a
cooperative effort between the federal government and the states. If various states
wish to experiment in unique ways to solve the problem of drugs yet fit the specific
needs of their citizens, then Congress indeed can and should defer to those states, just
exemption to the CSA that this Article proposes. Generally,
like Congress did with the unemployment tax exemptions at issue in Steward Machine Co. Such an exemption to the CSA will allow states to work with the federal government yet promote the general welfare
through “local units.” Such a proposal may already be gaining traction among circles of the federal legislature, especially in the aftermath of the 2012 election. Senator Patrick Leahy of Vermont and Chairman of
the Senate Judiciary Committee has announced that he will hold a hearing on how to reconcile the CSA with the various state medical and recreational marijuana allowances early in the term of the 113th Congress.
Among the avenues Senator Leahy has already suggested is the following, which essentially mirrors this Article’s federal exception proposal: “One option would be to amend the Federal Controlled Substances Act
to allow possession of up to one ounce of marijuana, at least in jurisdictions where it is legal under state law.” In addition, Congresswoman Diana DeGette of Colorado has introduced a bipartisan bill which hints at
a similar exemption. The proposed Respect States’ and Citizens’ Rights Act of 2012 would amend the CSA to “provide that federal law shall not preempt State law.” While this bill would not affirmatively carve out
an exception to the CSA in states that have allowances for medical and recreational marijuana usage, it would definitively resolve a lingering preemption question. Interestingly, the bipartisan bill has received
support and sponsorship from Congressman Mike Coffman who was a staunch opponent of Amendment 64. “I strongly oppose the legalization of marijuana, but I also have an obligation to respect the will of the
voters given the passage of this initiative, and so I feel obligated to support this legislation.” This line of reasoning is one happily endorsed by this Article, which, as Rep. Coffman appears to do, does not place a
policy-judgment on state marijuana laws when analyzing the federalism concerns and quandaries they raise, and offering solutions as to how to reconcile the federal-state conflict. CONCLUSION: THE VIABILITY
OF A STATE-SPECIFIC FEDERAL EXEMPTION The idea of an exemption from enforcement of the CSA in states that allow for the limited usage of medical marijuana may not be so far-fetched. The expansion of
state-by-state medical marijuana exemptions—about one-third of the states have legalized medical marijuana — supports the notion that the national tide on the issue is shifting. Additionally, since the passage of
the CSA in the 1970s, popular support for medical marijuana exemptions has grown considerably: in several national polls, a strong majority of respondents support the legalization of marijuana for medical
purposes. Furthermore, it should be noted that in 2010 the District of Columbia Council approved a measure that that would allow patients to receive medical marijuana from state-regulated dispensaries. After
being signed into law by the District’s mayor, Congress did not exercise its power to block the law from taking effect as it had done after a similar measure was passed via referendum by sixty-nine percent of the
voters in 1998. On January 1, 2011, the District’s medical marijuana law went into effect. Since then, the District’s Health Department has selected and approved locations for the medical marijuana dispensaries.
From a cynical standpoint, the legality of medical marijuana in the seat of the federal government can be viewed as hypocritical: that Congress and the various executive law enforcement agencies that continue to
assert the illegality of the medical marijuana are turning a blind eye to its usage in its backyard. However, this Article takes that position that the District’s medical marijuana law illustrates a changing of the
mindset of Congress to one of cooperative federalism for drug regulation. Congress’ implicit approval of the District’s law—indeed, Congress had full authority to legitimately block it, like it did in 1998—evinces a
recognition that a uniform drug policy that applies to each and every semi-autonomous subdivision of the United States may not be what’s best for the “general welfare.” Hopefully, for indeed, Congress had full
authority to legitimately block it, like it did in 1998—evinces a recognition that a uniform drug policy that applies to each and every semi-autonomous subdivision of the United States may not be what’s best for the
for the sake of cooperative federalism, the next step will be for Congress to
officially make this recognition and enact an exemption to the federal ban on medical marijuana in states where its usage is
“general welfare.” Hopefully,
legal and regulated.
Plan spills over to all federalism disputes—alt causes don’t apply
Rauch 13—guest scholar in Governance Studies at Brookings
(Jonathan, “”Washington Versus Washington (and Colorado): Why the States Should Lead on Marijuana Policy”,
http://www.brookings.edu/~/media/Research/Files/Papers/2013/3/26%20marijuana%20legalization%20localism%20rauch/Was
hington%20Versus%20Washington%20and%20Colorado_Rauch_v17.pdf, dml)
In short, there
is no alternative to the exercise of political judgment. Mature people will have to make
conscious choices about how to manage social change and conflict with a minimum of unnecessary pain and disruption. The
stakes transcend drug policy proper: marijuana legalization, far from standing alone, is an
installment in a series . In the past several years, state-federal conflict has become a running theme
of the national debate, on multiple hot-button issues and in multiple permutations:
• On immigration, the federal government demanded that the states follow federal policy. Arizona claimed a right to
independently enforce federal law, even if its enforcement priorities differed from those of the federal government. It also asserted a
right to supplement federal policies with its own more stringent ones. The federal government objected, and the Supreme Court
delivered a mixed ruling which mostly favored the federal government.
• On Obamacare (the 2010 Affordable Care Act), states demanded the right not to follow federal policy. They challenged the
law’s expansion of Medicaid and its mandate to buy health insurance. The Supreme Court again delivered a mixed ruling, this time
leaning toward the states.
• On gay marriage, states demanded that the federal government follow state policy. In suing to overturn the U.S. Defense of
Marriage Act, they claimed that Washington, D.C., had to follow states’ definitions of marriage rather than establish a separate
definition of its own. The Supreme Court, at this writing, has yet to rule.
Unlike the cases of immigration and Obamacare and the Defense of Marriage Act, marijuana involves not merely
friction between state and federal policy but something closer to outright defiance. Even in a context
of growing agitation in federal-state relations, this was putting a cat among the pigeons.
Avoiding conflict or even chaos is not going to be easy, and the outcome will affect not only drug
the way in which the country handles other federal-state
conflicts sure to emerge.
policy but
Federalism solves effective global engagement
Pietro S. Nivola, 2007; Vice President and Director of Governance Studies
at The Brookings Institution. Issues in
Governance Studies, July 2007, Rediscovering Federalism, http://mavdisk.mnsu.edu/parsnk/2011-12/Pol680fall11/POL%20680%20readings/federalism-wk%202/07governance_nivola.pdf
This paper stipulates that federalism
can offer government a helpful division of labor. The essay argues that
the central government in the United States has grown inordinately preoccupied with concerns
better left to local authorities. The result is an overextended government, too often distracted
from higher priorities. To restore some semblance of so-called “subsidiarity”—that is, a more suitable delineation of
competences among levels of government—the essay takes up basic principles that ought to guide that quest. Finally, the paper
advances several suggestions for how particular policy pursuits might be devolved. Whatever else it is supposed to do, a federal
system of government should offer policy-makers a division of labor.1 Perhaps the first to fully
appreciate that benefit was Alexis de Tocqueville. He admired the federated regime of the United States because,
among other virtues, it enabled its central government to focus on primary public obligations (“a small
number of objects,” he stressed, “sufficiently prominent to attract its attention”), leaving what he called society’s
countless “secondary affairs” to lower levels of administration.2 Such a system, in other words,
could help officials in Washington keep their priorities straight. It is this potential advantage, above all
others, that warrants renewed emphasis today. America’s national government has its hands full coping with
global, security responsibilities, and cannot keep expanding a domestic
policy agenda that injudiciously dabbles in too many duties best consigned to local authorities.
its continental, indeed
Indeed, in the habit of attempting to do a little of everything, rather than a few important things well, our overstretched
government suffers a kind of attention deficit disorder. Although this state of overload and distraction obviously is not a cause of
catastrophes such as the successful surprise attacks of September 11, 2001, the ferocity of the insurgency in Iraq, or the
submersion of a historic American city inundated by a hurricane in 2005, it may render such tragedies harder to prevent or
mitigate.
That is good
Ikenberry, et al 13 [Stephen, Associate Professor of Government at Dartmouth College, John
Ikenberry is the Albert G. Milbank Professor of Politics and International Affairs at Princeton
University in the Department of Politics and the Woodrow Wilson School of Public and
International Affairs, William C. Wohlforth is the Daniel Webster Professor in the Department
of Government at Dartmouth College “Don’t Come Home America: The Case Against
Retrenchment,” International Security, Vol. 37, No. 3 (Winter 2012/13), pp. 7–51]
A core premise of deep engagement is that it prevents the emergence of a far more dangerous global security environment.
For one thing, as noted above, the United States’ overseas presence gives it the leverage to restrain partners from taking
provocative action. Perhaps more important, its core alliance commitments also deter states with aspirations to regional hegemony
from contemplating expansion and make its partners more secure, reducing their incentive to adopt solutions to their security problems that threaten
others and thus stoke security dilemmas. The contention that engaged U.S. power dampens the baleful effects of anarchy is consistent with
influential variants of realist theory. Indeed, arguably the scariest portrayal of the war-prone world that would emerge absent the “American Pacifier” is provided in the works of
Mearsheimer, who forecasts dangerous multipolar regions replete with security competition,
arms races, nuclear proliferation and associated preventive war temptations, regional rivalries, and even runs at regional hegemony and full-scale great
power war. 72 How do retrenchment advocates, the bulk of whom are realists, discount this benefit? Their arguments are complicated, but two capture most of the
John
variation: (1) U.S. security guarantees are not necessary to prevent dangerous rivalries and conflict in Eurasia; or (2) prevention of rivalry and conflict in Eurasia is not a U.S.
interest. Each response is connected to a different theory or set of theories, which makes sense given that the whole debate hinges on a complex future counterfactual (what
would happen to Eurasia’s security setting if the United States truly disengaged?). Although a certain answer is impossible, each of these responses is nonetheless a weaker
argument for retrenchment than advocates acknowledge. The first response flows from defensive realism as well as other international relations theories that discount the
conflict-generating potential of anarchy under contemporary conditions. 73 Defensive realists maintain that the high expected costs of territorial conquest, defense dominance,
and an array of policies and practices that can be used credibly to signal benign intent, mean that Eurasia’s major states could manage regional multipolarity peacefully without
the American pacifier. Retrenchment would be a bet on this scholarship, particularly in regions where the kinds of stabilizers that nonrealist theories point to—such as
democratic governance or dense institutional linkages—are either absent or weakly present. There are three other major bodies of scholarship, however, that might give decisionmakers pause before
making this bet. First is regional expertise. Needless to say, there is no consensus on the net security effects of U.S. withdrawal. Regarding each region, there are optimists and pessimists. Few experts expect a
return of intense great power competition in a post-American Europe, but many doubt European governments will pay the political costs of increased EU defense cooperation and the budgetary costs of increasing
Europe that is incapable of securing itself from various threats that could be
destabilizing within the region and beyond (e.g., a regional conflict akin to the 1990s Balkan wars), lacks capacity for global security missions in which U.S. leaders
military outlays. 74 The result might be a
might want European participation, and is vulnerable to the influence of outside rising powers. What about the other parts of Eurasia where the United States has a substantial
Israel,
Egypt, and Saudi Arabia—might take actions upon U.S. retrenchment that would intensify security
dilemmas. And concerning East Asia, pessimism regarding the region’s prospects without the American pacifier is pronounced. Arguably the principal concern
expressed by area experts is that Japan and South Korea are likely to obtain a nuclear capacity and increase their military commitments,
which could stoke a destabilizing reaction from China. It is notable that during the Cold War, both South Korea and Taiwan moved
military presence? Regarding the Middle East, the balance begins to swing toward pessimists concerned that states currently backed by Washington— notably
to obtain a nuclear weapons capacity and were only constrained from doing so by a still-engaged United States. 75 The second body of scholarship casting doubt on the bet on
defensive realism’s sanguine portrayal is all of the research that undermines its conception of state preferences. Defensive realism’s optimism about what would happen if the United
States retrenched is very much dependent on its particular—and highly restrictive—assumption about state preferences; once we relax this assumption, then much of its basis for optimism vanishes.
Specifically, the prediction of post-American tranquility throughout Eurasia rests on the assumption that security is the only relevant state preference, with security defined
narrowly in terms of protection from violent external attacks on the homeland. Under that assumption, the security problem is largely solved as soon as offense and defense are
Burgeoning research across the social and other sciences,
undermines that core assumption: states have preferences not only for security but also for prestige,
status, and other aims, and they engage in trade-offs among the various objectives. 76 In addition, they define security not just in terms of territorial
clearly distinguishable, and offense is extremely expensive relative to defense.
however,
protection but in view of many and varied milieu goals. It follows that even states that are relatively secure may nevertheless engage in highly competitive behavior. Empirical
studies show that this is indeed sometimes the case. 77 In sum, a bet on a benign postretrenchment Eurasia is a bet that leaders of major countries will never allow these
nonsecurity preferences to influence their strategic choices. To the degree that these bodies of scholarly knowledge have predictive leverage, U.S. retrenchment would result in a
significant deterioration in the security environment in at least some of the world’s key regions. We have already mentioned the third, even more alarming body of scholarship.
the withdrawal of the American pacifier will yield either a competitive regional multipolarity
complete with associated insecurity, arms racing, crisis instability, nuclear proliferation, and the like, or bids for regional
Offensive realism predicts that
hegemony, which may be beyond the capacity of local great powers to contain (and which in any case would generate intensely competitive behavior, possibly including regional
great power war). Hence it is unsurprising that retrenchment advocates are prone to focus on the second argument noted above: that avoiding wars and security
dilemmas in the world’s core regions is not a U.S. national interest. Few doubt that the United States could survive the return of insecurity and conflict among Eurasian powers,
but at what cost? Much of the work in this area has focused on the economic externalities of a renewed threat of insecurity and war, which we discuss below. Focusing on the
pure security ramifications, there are two main reasons why decisionmakers may be rationally reluctant to run the retrenchment experiment. First, overall higher levels of
one would see overall higher levels of
proxy wars and arming of client states—all of which would be
conflict make the world a more dangerous place. Were Eurasia to return to higher levels of interstate military competition,
military spending and innovation and a higher likelihood of competitive regional
concerning, in part because it would promote a faster diffusion of military power away from the United States. Greater regional insecurity could well feed proliferation cascades,
Egypt, Japan, South Korea, Taiwan, and Saudi Arabia all might choose to create nuclear
forces. 78 It is unlikely that proliferation decisions by any of these actors would be the end of the game: they would likely generate pressure locally for more proliferation. Following
Kenneth Waltz, many retrenchment advocates are proliferation optimists, assuming that nuclear deterrence solves the security problem. 79 Usually carried out in dyadic terms, the debate
over the stability of proliferatio changes as the numbers go up. Proliferation optimism rests on
assumptions of rationality and narrow security preferences. In social science, however, such assumptions are inevitably
probabilistic. Optimists assume that most states are led by rational leaders, most will overcome organizational problems and resist the temptation to preempt before
feared neighbors nuclearize, and most pursue only security and are risk averse. Confidence in such probabilistic assumptions declines if the world
were to move from nine to twenty, thirty, or forty nuclear states. In addition, many of the other dangers noted by analysts who are
concerned about the destabilizing effects of nuclear proliferation—including the risk of accidents and the prospects that some new nuclear
powers will not have truly survivable forces—seem prone to go up as the number of nuclear powers grows. 80 Moreover, the risk of
“unforeseen crisis dynamics” that could spin out of control is also higher as the number of nuclear powers increases. Finally, add to these
as states such as
concerns the enhanced danger of nuclear leakage, and a world with overall higher levels of security competition becomes yet more worrisome. The argument that maintaining
Eurasian peace is not a U.S. interest faces a second problem. On widely accepted realist assumptions, acknowledging that U.S. engagement preserves peace dramatically narrows
the difference between retrenchment and deep engagement. For many supporters of retrenchment, the optimal strategy for a power such as the United States, which has
attained regional hegemony and is separated from other great powers by oceans, is offshore balancing: stay over the horizon and “pass the buck” to local powers to do the
dangerous work of counterbalancing any local rising power. The United States should commit to onshore balancing only when local balancing is likely to fail and a great power
appears to be a credible contender for regional hegemony, as in the cases of Germany, Japan, and the Soviet Union in the midtwentieth century. The problem is that China’s rise
The United States will have to play
a key role in countering China, because its Asian neighbors are not strong enough to do it by themselves.” 81 Therefore, unless China’s rise stalls, “the
puts the possibility of its attaining regional hegemony on the table, at least in the medium to long term. As Mearsheimer notes, “
United States is likely to act toward China similar to the way it behaved toward the Soviet Union during the Cold War.” 82 It follows that the United States should take no action
that would compromise its capacity to move to onshore balancing in the future. It will need to maintain key alliance relationships in Asia as well as the formidably expensive
military capacity to intervene there. The implication is to get out of Iraq and Afghanistan, reduce the presence in Europe, and pivot to Asia— just what the United States is doing.
the argument that U.S. security commitments are unnecessary for peace is countered by a lot of
scholarship, including highly influential realist scholarship. In addition, the argument that Eurasian peace is unnecessary for U.S. security is weakened by the potential
83 In sum,
for a large number of nasty security consequences as well as the need to retain a latent onshore balancing capacity that dramatically reduces the savings retrenchment might
bring. Moreover, switching between offshore and onshore balancing could well be difªcult. Bringing together the thrust of many of the arguments discussed so far underlines the
the case for retrenchment misses the underlying logic of the deep engagement strategy. By supplying
the United States lowers security competition in the world’s key regions, thereby
preventing the emergence of a hothouse atmosphere for growing new military capabilities. Alliance ties dissuade partners
degree to which
reassurance, deterrence, and active management,
from ramping up and also provide leverage to prevent military transfers to potential rivals. On top of all this, the United States’ formidable military machine may deter entry by
potential rivals. Current great power military expenditures as a percentage of GDP are at historical lows, and thus far other major powers have shied away from seeking to match
top-end U.S. military capabilities. In addition, they have so far been careful to avoid attracting the “focused enmity” of the United States. 84 All of the world’s most modern
militaries are U.S. allies (America’s alliance system of more than sixty countries now accounts for some 80 percent of global military spending), and the gap between the U.S.
military capability and that of potential rivals is by many measures growing rather than shrinking. 85
It filters probability for every impact—and solves China war
Keck 14—Managing Editor of The Diplomat
(Zachary, “America’s Relative Decline: Should We Panic?”, http://thediplomat.com/2014/01/americas-relative-decline-should-wepanic/, dml)
on balance, the U.S. has been a positive force in the world, especially for a unipolar power. Certainly,
it’s hard to imagine many other countries acting as benignly if they possessed the amount of relative power
Still,
America had at the end of the Cold War. Indeed, the British were not nearly as powerful as the U.S. in the 19th Century and they
incorporated most of the globe in their colonial empire. Even when it had to contend with another superpower, Russia occupied half
a continent by brutally suppressing its populace. Had the U.S. collapsed and the Soviet Union emerged as the Cold War victor,
Western Europe would likely be speaking Russian by now. It’s
difficult to imagine China defending a rulebased, open international order if it were a unipolar power, much less making an effort to
uphold a minimum level of human rights in the world.
Regardless of your opinion on U.S. global leadership over the last two decades, however, there is good reason to fear its
relative decline compared with China and other emerging nations. To begin with, hegemonic transition
periods have historically been the most destabilizing eras in history . This is not
only because of the malign intentions of the rising and established power(s). Even if all the parties have benign,
peaceful intentions, the rise of new global powers necessitates revisions to the “rules of the
road.” This is nearly impossible to do in any organized fashion given the anarchic nature of
the international system, where there is no central authority that can govern interactions between states.
We are already starting to see the potential dangers of hegemonic transition periods in the AsiaPacific (and arguably the Middle East). As China grows more economically and militarily powerful, it has
unsurprisingly sought to expand its influence in East Asia. This necessarily has to come at the expense
of other powers, which so far has primarily meant the U.S., Japan, Vietnam and the Philippines. Naturally, these powers
have sought to resist Chinese encroachments on their territory and influence, and the situation
grows more tense with each passing day. Should China eventually emerge as a global power, or should nations in
other regions enjoy a similar rise as Kenny suggests, this situation will play itself out elsewhere in the years and decades ahead.
All of this highlights some of the advantages of a unipolar system. Namely, although the U.S. has
asserted military force quite frequently in the post-Cold War era, it has only fought weak powers and thus
its wars have been fairly limited in terms of the number of casualties involved. At the same time,
America’s preponderance of power has prevented a great power war , and even
restrained major regional powers from coming to blows. For instance, the past 25 years
haven’t seen any conflicts on par with the Israeli-Arab or Iran-Iraq wars of the Cold War. As the
unipolar era comes to a close, the possibility of great power conflict and especially major
regional wars rises dramatically . The world will also have to contend with
conventionally inferior powers like Japan acquiring nuclear weapons to protect their interests against
their newly empowered rivals.
But even if the transitions caused by China’s and potentially other nations’ rises are
managed successfully, there
are still likely to be significant negative effects on international relations. In today’s “globalized” world, it
is commonly asserted that many of the defining challenges of our era can only be solved through
multilateral cooperation. Examples of this include climate change, health pandemics, organized crime and
terrorism, global financial crises, and the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction,
among many others.
A unipolar system, for all its limitations, is uniquely suited for organizing effective global action on
these transnational issues. This is because there is a clear global leader who can take the initiative
and, to some degree, compel others to fall in line. In addition, the unipole’s preponderance of power
lessens the intensity of competition among the global players involved. Thus, while there are no
shortages of complaints about the limitations of global governance today, there is no question that global governance has
been many times more effective in the last 25 years than it was during the Cold War.
The rise of China and potentially other powers will create a new bipolar or multipolar order. This, in
turn, will make solving these transnational issues much more difficult. Despite the optimistic
rhetoric that emanates from official U.S.-China meetings, the reality is that Sino-American competition is
likely to overshadow an increasing number of global issues in the years ahead. If other countries
like India, Turkey, and Brazil also become significant global powers, this will only further dampen
the prospects for effective global governance.
China war goes nuclear
Goldstein, 13 – Avery, David M. Knott Professor of Global Politics and International Relations, Director of the Center for the
Study of Contemporary China, and Associate Director of the Christopher H. Browne Center for International Politics at the
University of Pennsylvania (“First Things First: The Pressing Danger of Crisis Instability in U.S.-China Relations,” International
Security, vol. 37, no. 4, Spring 2013, Muse //Red)
Two concerns have driven much of the debate about international security in the post-Cold War era. The first is the potentially deadly mix of nuclear
proliferation, rogue states, and international terrorists, a worry that became dominant after the terrorist attacks against the United States on September
11, 2001.1 The second concern, one whose prominence has waxed and waned since the mid-1990s, is the potentially disruptive impact that China will
have if it emerges as a peer competitor of the United States, challenging an international order established during the era of U.S. preponderance.2
Reflecting this second concern, some analysts have expressed reservations about the dominant post-September 11 security agenda, arguing that China
could challenge U.S. global interests in ways that terrorists and rogue states cannot. In this article, I raise a more pressing issue, one to which not
enough attention has been paid. For
at least the next decade, while China remains relatively weak, the gravest danger in
Sino-American relations is the possibility the two countries will find themselves in a crisis that
could escalate to open military conflict. In contrast to the long-term prospect of a new great power rivalry between the
United States and China, which ultimately rests on debatable claims about the intentions of the two countries and uncertain forecasts about big shifts in
their national capabilities, the
danger of instability in a crisis involving these two nuclear-armed states is a
tangible, near-term concern.3 Even if the probability of such a war-threatening crisis and its escalation to the use of significant military
force is low, the potentially catastrophic consequences of this scenario provide good reason for
analysts to better understand its dynamics and for policymakers to fully consider its implications. Moreover, events since
2010—especially those relevant to disputes in the East and South China Seas—suggest that the danger
of a military confrontation in the Western Pacific that could lead to a U.S.-China standoff
may be on the rise. In what follows, I identify not just pressures to use force preemptively that pose the most serious risk should a SinoAmerican confrontation unfold, but also related, if slightly less dramatic, incentives to initiate the limited use of force to gain bargaining leverage—a
second trigger for potentially devastating instability during a crisis.4 My discussion proceeds in three sections. The first section explains why, during
the next decade or two, a serious U.S.-China crisis may be more likely than is currently recognized. The
second section examines the features of plausible Sino-American crises that may make them so dangerous. The third section considers general features
of crisis stability in asymmetric dyads such as the one in which a U.S. superpower would confront an increasingly capable but still thoroughly
overmatched China—the asymmetry that will prevail for at least the next decade. This more stylized discussion clarifies the inadequacy of focusing onesidedly on conventional forces, as has much of the current commentary about the modernization of China's military and the implications this has for
potential conflicts with the United States in the Western Pacific,5 or of focusing one-sidedly on China's nuclear forces, as a smaller slice of the
commentary has.6 An
assessment considering the interaction of conventional and nuclear forces
indicates why escalation resulting from crisis instability remains a devastating
possibility. Before proceeding, however, I would like to clarify my use of the terms "crisis" and "instability." For the purposes of this article, I
define a crisis as a confrontation between states involving a serious threat to vital national interests for both sides, in which there is the expectation of a
short time for resolution, and in which there is understood to be a sharply increased risk of war.7 This definition distinguishes crises from many
situations to which the label is sometimes applied, such as more protracted confrontations; sharp disagreements over important matters that are not
vital interests and in which military force seems irrelevant; and political disputes involving vital interests, even those with military components, that
present little immediate risk of war.8 I define instability as the temptation to resort to force in a crisis.9 Crisis stability is greatest when both sides
strongly prefer to continue bargaining; instability is greatest when they are strongly tempted to resort to the use of military force. Stability, then,
describes a spectrum—from one extreme in which neither side sees much advantage to using force, through a range of situations in which the balance of
costs and benefits of using force varies for each side, to the other extreme in which the benefits of using force so greatly exceed the costs that striking
first looks nearly irresistible to both sides. Although the incentives to initiate the use of force may not reach this extreme level in a U.S. China crisis,
the capabilities that the two countries possess raise concerns that escalation pressures will exist
and that they may be highest early in a crisis, compressing the time frame for diplomacy to
avert military conflict.
2AC
PHARMA
The domestic pharmaceutical industry is in rapid decline—more private investment is key
Kristiansen 14— Health Editor for the Fograty International Center (Cathy, "America is Losing
Biomedical Research Leadership to Asia". NIH. February 2014.
www.fic.nih.gov/News/GlobalHealthMatters/january-february-2014/Pages/spending-investmentbiomedical-research-development.aspx)
The U.S., which has long led the world in biomedical research and development (R&D) spending, is slowly
reducing its investments while other countries - particularly in Asia - are boosting theirs, according to an analysis by experts from
health care agencies, universities and research groups.¶ Bar graph showing biomedical R&D spending by country or region, long description
below at #chartdescription¶ Compound annual growth rate of biomedical R&D expenditures by¶ country, inflation adjusted, in percentages,
2007-2012. See chart ¶ description below. (NEJM)¶ Their report, "Asia's Ascent - Global Trends in Biomedical R&D Expenditures," was published
recently in the New England Journal of Medicine. In the 2007-2012 period studied, the
U.S. share of global public and private
biomedical R&D investments slumped from 51 to 45 percent, a change the authors term "remarkable,"
especially given that the U.S. not so long ago funded as much as 80 percent of the global activity. ¶ Meanwhile, many Asian countries
raised their investments in the same period with double-digit annual growth rates, topped by China's hefty 33
percent. Japan's total spending expanded by the biggest absolute dollar amount of any country: $9 billion.¶ In the year since the study's cutoff
date, the situation has continued to deteriorate for the U.S. as government budget cuts curbed biomedical research funds further. "We are at a
crisis point," said NIH Director Dr. Francis S. Collins in a recent C-SPAN TV broadcast. "In terms of our ability to do research, NIH has received a
25 percent cut, all told, in the past 10 years."¶ Related news¶ US as a global health leader: Q and A with Dr J Stephen Morrison of CSIS¶
Response to a congressman: Opinion by Fogarty Dir Dr Roger I Glass¶ Collins has underscored to Congress the importance of NIH-funded
research to overall U.S. economic activity. It advances scientific products and technologies, creates economic growth, supports high-paying jobs
and enhances health and quality of life.¶ "Across the board we need to turn this around," Collins said, according to a report in
The Atlantic. "You look at what a country invests in research and development as part of GDP, as an indicator of the health of the [nation's
seriousness]. Right now we are at 2.6 percent. Many other countries are at 3 percent or above - they're basically out to eat our lunch."¶ Most
alarming, Collins warned, is the prospect that some lost ground cannot be recovered. NIH now funds only about 15 percent of grant
applications, whereas it traditionally funded about a third, leaving burgeoning numbers of scientists discouraged and more likely to change
careers or take their skills overseas. "Research
isn't like a spigot that you turn on and off at will," he said in his C-SPAN
comments. "If we lose scientists, they're not coming back when things get better."¶ Woman in white lab coat
surrounded by bottles and containers tops on concentrates as she put a sample in a container¶ Photo courtesy of NovoNordisk R&D Center
China¶ The U.S. is losing its leadership in biomedical R&D ¶ spending and its ability to compete globally, as it ¶ cuts its investments and Asian
countries expand ¶ theirs.¶ Damage is also being done to mid-career scientists whose funding is not being renewed, he noted, which means NIH
is losing the impact of its previous research investments as well.¶ Although the NEJM report showed the
U.S. combined private and
public biomedical R&D spending in 2012 still dwarfed that of any other individual country, the speed of
change is dramatic . Asia-Oceania's total R&D spending surged by a half between 2007 and 2012.
FISM
Drezner IN THEIR CARD says the impact’s true
Drezner 13—professor of international politics at Tufts University's Fletcher School
(Daniel, “The Year of Living Hegemonically”,
http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2013/12/27/the_year_of_living_hegemonically, dml)
These sorts of trends tend to give U.S. strategists the heebie-jeebies. A staple of international relations thinking for decades has been
that U.S. hegemony is the mainstay of global order. According to this "theory of hegemonic
stability," peace and prosperity are only likely to persist when a liberal superpower is prepared
to act to keep markets open and stamp out brewing conflict. If Mead or Robert Kagan are correct, then a
United States that is both unwilling and unable to stabilize the rest of the world really should be
a source of concern.
T
legalization authorizes possession, production and sale—includes regulation and
taxation
Murray et al 11—Elliott School of International Affairs/Inter-American Drug Abuse Control
Commission
(Chad, with Ashlee Jackson, Amanda Miralrio and Nicolas Eiden, “Mexican Drug Trafficking Organizations and Marijuana: The
Potential Effects of U.S. Legalization”, https://elliott.gwu.edu/sites/elliott.gwu.edu/files/downloads/acad/lahs/mexico-marijuana071111.pdf, dml)
Any white paper that includes a policy review of drug legislation must include key term definitions
that are clear, accurate, and coherent . Thus, there are various definitions of “legalization” of
marijuana use and commerce strewn across countless reports, papers and analyses of drug
policy. It is critical to note that legalization and decriminalization are terms for very different proposals
even though they are sometimes conflated. Decriminalization proposes the removal of the criminal penalty
for possession of marijuana, but not for its trafficking and production. “Legalization” authorizes the
possession, production and trafficking of marijuana, and therefore enables the state to
tax and regulate its sale and consumption.4
CP
No big tobacco repeat --- regulations solve and no chance of an oligopoly due to
widespread production
Jon Gettman 14, Ph.D. in public policy, teaching undergraduate criminal justice and graduate
level management courses, "Why Reefer Madness Mania is Failing”, March 12,
http://www.hightimes.com/read/why-reefer-madness-mania-failing
Case #2: Kevin Sabet is a former advisor to the Office of National Drug Control Policy who now teaches at the University of Florida College of
Medicine. Dr. Sabet
is an outspoken critic of marijuana’s legalization and has published several op-ed pieces on the
of Sabet’s common themes is that contemporary marijuana reform measures are
contributing to the creation of “Big Cannabis,” which is following the “Big Tobacco” model of lying to the public about the
subject. One
harm caused by its products in order to seek billions of dollars in profits. Sabet thinks we need a new and improved approach to drug policy in which
marijuana is illegal but people aren’t sent to jail or prison over it. He
overlooks the resulting costs to society due to an
unregulated illegal market, including, for example, the profit potential that attracts hundreds of thousands of teenagers to selling
marijuana to their friends and contributing to pot’s under-age availability. ¶ The “Big Cannabis” reference, though, raises an
interesting contrast with tobacco that is really not as useful as Sabet believes. There are several reasons this
analogy breaks down on closer examination .¶ First, the health effects of marijuana are
widely documented, much more so than the effects of tobacco ever have been. If anything, Americans
are overwhelmed with information about the health effects of marijuana and have observed the
impact of marijuana use for generations. Much of the public has decided the concerns Sabet and
other have are reasons why marijuana should be regulated and controlled in a legal market.¶ Second,
the tobacco market is an oligopoly, a market controlled by a few number of firms (two companies – Philip
Morris and RJ Reynolds – control almost 75% of the market) and it is a market desperate for new customers – it targets the
young because most adults are too well educated to use its products. The emerging marijuana market is a wide-open
competitive market with no problem attracting adult users. Indeed, teenage users are a small and insignificant
segment of marijuana user (about 10%). Tobacco is a product that is dependent on numerous additives to make
it flavorful and pleasant to consume. Marijuana is a generic product, in which the natural product is what is
brought to market (and this holds despite the emergence of edible products.) In fact, generic tobacco is a competitive threat to most tobacco companies.
The biggest flaw in Sabet’s central argument is that current laws have utterly failed to
control the cultivation of marijuana. Prohibition only works when the government can
control the technology of production (policy wonks should look up what John Kaplan explained about this as far back as 1974 – an
Oxford grad like Sabet ought to know this stuff). Marijuana is grown all over the United States; this is why prohibition
is a failure and this is why using criminal law to control or reduce marijuana use is a failure.
Additionally, this is why a regulated market is a better tool to address and minimize
whatever harmful effects result from marijuana’s widespread use in American society. And this
is why there will not be “Big Cannabis” similar to “Big Tobacco.” Production is, and
will continue to be, so widespread that no monopoly, or oligopoly, can be formed.
¶
Legalization solves sustainable AG
Grover, 13 [Sami, November 13th, “Why the legalization of marijuana may be good for agriculture”,
http://www.mnn.com/earth-matters/politics/stories/why-the-legalization-of-marijuana-may-be-goodfor-agriculture]
The growing availability of legalized (and semi-legalized) marijuana may have implications for all of us — from a
massive increase in tax revenues to new employment opportunities. Take sustainable farming , for instance. Traditionally, covert
marijuana growers have earned themselves a bad rap, at least environmentally speaking. From indoor
growers' massive consumption of electricity to deforestation and agricultural pollution, a lack of
regulation — combined with the promise of massive cash rewards — have led to an "anything goes" mentality, which has
resulted in significant harm in the past. But growers have also learned to be resourceful, and The Guardian reports that their
use of energy-efficient LED grow lights in particular is getting attention from mainstream farmers:
Cary Mitchell, a professor of horticulture at Purdue University, thinks the marijuana industry's work with LED
technology might have practical applications in mainstream commercial agriculture. [...] "They've
undoubtedly been doing this for years and years," Mitchell says about the cannabis growers' use of LEDs. "Since they
don't publish their research , we don't really know how far they've taken the optimization. They
probably are ahead of the specialty crop commercial production industry." Energy-efficiency isn't the
only benefit that may come with legalization. From better management of irrigation to monitoring of
fertilizer runoff, bringing the industry out in the open has the potential to greatly mitigate the
harmful impacts of cultivation . As I've speculated before, marijuana growing may also provide a gateway for
some young people into horticulture as a profession.
Extinction
Ronnie Cummins, International Director of the Organic Consumers Association, 10/7/10 (Agriculture
and Human Survival: The Road Beyond 10/10/10, http://www.commondreams.org/view/2010/10/07-9)
Despite decades of deception and mystification, a critical mass at the grassroots is waking up. A new generation of food and climate activists
understands that greenhouse gas-belching fossil fuels, industrial
food and farming, and our entire global economy pose a
mortal threat , not just to our present health and well being, but also to human survival . Given the severity of
the Crisis, we have little choice but to step up our efforts. As 35,000 climate activists at the historic global climate summit in April of 2010 in Cochabamba, Bolivia shouted, “We must change
the System, not the climate.” “Changing the System,” means defending our selves, the future generations, and the biological carrying capacity of the planet from the ravages of “profit at any
cost” capitalism. “Changing the System,” means safeguarding our delicately balanced climate, soils, oceans, and atmosphere from the fatal consequences of fossil fuel-induced climate change.
“Changing the System” means exposing, dismantling, and replacing, not just individual out-of-control corporations like Monsanto, Halliburton, and British Petroleum, and out-of-control
technologies like gene-altered crops and mountaintop removal; but our entire chemical and energy-intensive industrial economy, starting, at least for many of us, with Food Inc.’s destructive
system of industrial food and farming. “Changing the system,” means going on the offensive and dismantling the most controversial and vulnerable flanks of our suicide economy: coal plants,
gas guzzlers, the military-industrial complex, and industrial agriculture’s Genetically Modified Organisms (GMOs) and factory farms. Frankenfoods and Industrial Agriculture Highly subsidized
GM crops - comprising 40% of U.S. cropland, and 10% of global crops - and the junk food and unhealthy processed foods and beverages derived from them, are the most profitable and
strategically important components of industrial agriculture. Taxpayer subsidized GMOs and factory farms allow Food Inc. (corporate agribusiness) to poison the public and pollute the
atmosphere and environment. Subsidized GM and monoculture crops - along with cheap soy, corn, and chemical additives - allow the McDonald’s, Cargills and Wal-Marts of the world to sell
pesticides and chemical fertilizers are
the cash cows and vanguard of a global farming and food distribution system that consumes
prodigious amounts of fossil fuels and emits tremendous amount of climate-destabilizing greenhouse
gases. GMOs provide the ideological and technological foundation for the factory farms and mono-crop plantations that are
destroying the climate, the soils, and the planet. Either we bring them down, or they will bring us
down. According to Monsanto and the global war on bugs, war on biodiversity, chemical farming lobby, patented GMO seeds, crops, biofuels, animals, and trees can miraculously kill
junk food, meat, and beverages at much lower prices than healthy, non-chemical foods. GMO crops and their companion
pests, reduce pesticide use, boost yields, alleviate world hunger, reduce petroleum use, and help farmers adapt to drought, pestilence, and global warming. As a growing "Millions Against
Monsanto" corps understand, the Biotech Bullies are dangerous liars. Industrial agriculture, GMOs, and so-called cheap food have destroyed public health and wrecked the environment.
Genetically Modified (GM) crops have neither reduced pesticide use, nor chemical fertilizer use. They kill pests, but they also give rise to superweeds and superpests. GM crops, like all
industrial monoculture crops, use vast amounts of fossil fuel and water. GMO and their companion chemicals (pesticides and chemical fertilizers) destroy the greenhouse gas sequestering
capacity of living soils and kill off non-patented plants, trees, and animals. Most GM crops, 90% of which are derived from Monsanto’s patented seeds, are genetically engineered to boost the
sales of toxic pesticides such as Roundup, and thereby increase toxic pesticide residues in foods. GM crops do not produce higher yields, nor provide more nutritious foods. GM soybeans, the
most important industrial agriculture crop, along with corn, consistently have lower yields, while chemical-intensive GM food crops contain far fewer vitamins and essential trace minerals than
organic foods. Nor has gene-splicing (unlike organic farming) produced plant or tree varieties that can adapt to global warming. Nonetheless GM crops remain Food Inc.’s propaganda “poster
child.” The unfortunate bottom line is that 65 years of chemical and GM agriculture, a literal World War Three on public health, rural communities, and the environment, have nearly killed us.
Humans and our living environment have been poisoned, not only by pesticides, nitrate fertilizers, greenhouse gas pollution, and contaminated factory-farmed food, but also by the mutant
organisms and patented chemical residues that accompany these genetically modified foods and crops. Either we make the Great Transition to a relocalized economy whose foundation is
renewable energy and solar-based (as opposed to GMO and petroleum-based) organic food and fiber production, or else we are destined to burn up the planet and destroy ourselves. Despite
mass media brainwashing (“Better living through chemistry… Monsanto can feed the world… GMO crops and trees can reduce fossil fuel use and climate-destabilizing greenhouse gases…”),
consumers and farmers are seeing through the lies. Defying the efforts of the powerful industrial agriculture/biotech lobby, a growing number of activists and concerned citizens are
connecting the dots and taking action. As a consequence Monsanto has become one of the most hated corporations on earth. A critical mass of research reveals that genetically engineered
crops, now covering almost 40% of U.S. cropland (173 million acres of GM crops) and 10% of global farm acreage (321 million acres), pollute the environment, kill essential soil microorganisms, generate superweeds and pests, decrease biodiversity, aid and abet seed monopolization, encourage massive use of toxic pesticides and chemical fertilizer, spew out massive
amounts of climate-destabilizing greenhouse gases, and seriously damage animal and human health. Injecting genetically engineered hormones into dairy cows to force them to give more milk
is reckless and dangerous. Monsanto’s genetically engineered Bovine Growth Hormone rBGH, now marketed by Eli Lilly, increases the risks of breast, prostate, and colon cancer for those who
consume the milk. It also severely damages the health of the cows. Residue levels of Monsanto’s toxic herbicide, Roundup, found routinely in non-organic foods, destroy animal and human
reproductive systems. Haphazardly ramming indeterminate amounts of patented foreign DNA, bacteria, and antibiotic-resistant genes into the genomes of already non-sustainable energy and
pesticide-intensive crops and foods (corn, soy, cotton, canola, sugar beets, alfalfa) in order to increase the sales of Monsanto or Bayer's GMO companion herbicides or to facilitate monopoly
control over seeds by the Gene Giants is not only non-sustainable, but criminal. Rejection of this out-of-control GM technology is a major driving force in the rapid growth of organic food and
farming, as well as the growing demand for mandatory safety testing and labeling of GMOs. In the EU, where GM-tainted foods must be labeled, GMO crops are almost non-existent (although
Local and organic food production is now
fossil fuel use and
greenhouse gas pollution, sequestering billions of tons of CO2 in the soil (up to seven tons of CO2 per acre per
year), and providing economic survival for a growing number of the world’s 2.8 billion small farmers and rural villagers. The growth of
organic agriculture and relocalized food and farming systems are encouraging, but obviously organics
large quantities of GM animal feed are still being imported into the EU from the U.S., Canada, Brazil, and Argentina).
growing faster than GMO/industrial food and farming; improving public health and nutrition, reducing
are still the alternative, rather than the norm. As we enter into the Brave New World of global warming and climate chaos,
many organic advocates are starting to realize that we need to put more emphasis, not just on the health and pollution hazards of GMOs; but
rather we need to broaden our efforts and mobilize to abolish the entire system of industrial food and farming. As we are now learning,
industrial agriculture and factory farming are in fact a primary (if not the primary ) cause of global warming
and deforestation . Even if were able to rip up all of Monsanto’s GMO crops tomorrow, business as usual, chemical-intensive,
energy-intensive industrial agriculture is enough to kill us all. On the other hand, if we’re going to take down industrial agriculture, one of
the best ways to leverage our efforts is to target the most hated corporation in the world, Monsanto. Besides contaminating our food, destroying the environment and moving, by any means
necessary, to gain monopoly control over seeds and biodiversity, Monsanto and their Food Inc. collaborators are guilty of major “climate crimes.” These crimes include: confusing the public
about the real causes of (and solutions to) global warming; killing the soil’s ability to sequester greenhouse gases; releasing massive amounts of greenhouse gases (CO2, methane and nitrous
oxide) into the atmosphere; promoting bogus industrial corn and soy-derived biofuels (which use just as many fossil fuel, and release just as many greenhouse gases as conventional fuels);
monopolizing seed stocks and taking climate-friendly varieties off the market; promoting genetically engineered trees; and last but not least, advocating dangerous geoengineering schemes
such as massive GM plantations of trees or plants than reflect sunlight. The negotiators and heads of state at the December 2009 Copenhagen Climate negotiations abandoned the summit
with literally no binding agreement on meaningful greenhouse gas (carbon dioxide, nitrous oxide, methane, and black carbon) reduction, and little or no acknowledgement of the major role
that industrial food and farming practices play in global warming. Lulled by the world’s leaders vague promises to reduce global warming, and still believing that new technological
breakthroughs can save us, the average citizen has no idea how serious the present climate crisis actually is. A close look at present (non-legally binding) pledges by the Obama Administration
and other governments to reduce GHG pollution shows that their proposed, slightly modified “business as usual” practices will still result in a disastrous global average temperature increase of
3.5 to 3.9 C by 2100, according to recent studies. This will not only burn up the Amazon, the lungs of the planet, but also transform the Arctic into a region that is 10 to 16 degrees C warmer,
releasing most of the region’s permafrost carbon and methane and unknown quantities of methane hydrates, in the process basically putting an end to human beings’ ability to live on the
planet. We are literally staring disaster in the face. In the follow up to the Copenhagen Climate Summit this year, which is to be held in Cancun, Mexico (Nov. 29-Dec. 10) we, as members of
global civil society, must raise our voices loud and clear. We must make it clear that we are years, not decades away, from detonating runaway feedback mechanisms (heating up and burning
up the Amazon and melting the Arctic permafrost) that can doom us all. Industrial Food and Farming: A Deadly Root of Global Warming
Although transportation,
industry, and energy producers are obviously major fossil fuel users and greenhouse gas polluters, not enough people
understand that the worst U.S. and global greenhouse gas emitter is “Food Incorporated,” transnational industrial food
and farming , of which Monsanto and GMOs constitute a major part. Industrial farming, including 173 million acres of GE soybeans, corn,
cotton, canola, and sugar beets, accounts for at least 35% of U.S. greenhouse gas emissions (EPA’s ridiculously low estimates range from 7% to
12%, while some climate scientists feel the figure could be as high as 50% or more). Industrial agriculture, biofuels, and non-sustainable
cattle grazing - including cutting down the last remaining tropical rainforests in Latin America and Asia for GMO and chemical-intensive animal
feed and biofuels - are
also the main driving forces in global deforestation and wetlands destruction, which
generate an additional 20% of all climate destabilizing GHGs. In other words the direct (food, fiber, and biofuels
production, food processing, food distribution) and indirect damage (deforestation and destruction of wetlands) of industrial
agriculture, GMOs, and the food industry are the major cause of global warming. Unless we take down Monsanto and
Food Inc. and make the Great Transition to a relocalized system of organic food and farming, we and our
children are doomed to reside in Climate Hell.
Prohibition results in cartel grow ops that destroys biodiversity -- legalization solves
Merchant 09 (Brian is a freelance writer and editor that covers politics with a focus on climate and
energy issues, http://www.treehugger.com/corporate-responsibility/drug-cartels-turning-us-forestsinto-marijuana-plantations-toxic-messes.html, “Drug Cartels Turning US Forests into Marijuana
Plantations, Toxic Messes”)
When I argued a few months back that legalizing marijuana would be good for the environment, my main point was that illegal marijuana
plantations endanger forests by operating under the radar--and unregulated--in some of our most pristine
natural areas . They contaminate water supplies , result in deforestation, and threaten indigenous
species . But I had no idea how widespread the destruction really was--just recently, the "Save our Sierras"
campaign uncovered 69 marijuana plantations run by Mexican drug cartels and seized over a billion dollars worth of
plants in California national forests. According to a report in Greenwire, "Mexican drug trafficking organizations have been
operating on public lands to cultivate marijuana, with serious consequences for the environment and
public safety," said Gil Kerlikowske, chief of the White House's Office of National Drug Control Policy. In creating, and eventually
abandoning, vast marijuana plantations the cartels are leaving heaps of trash , slaughtered animals ,
copious amounts of pesticides , and dangerous spilled fuels in their wake. Essentially, each plantation results in an
environmental disaster . But the campaign to stop them is vigorous, and is already seeing encouraging results: The massive operation
that began in February has already seized about 318,000 marijuana plants worth an estimated $1.1 billion, officials announced last week. In
addition to 82 arrests, the multi-jurisdictional federal, state and local operation netted 42 pounds of processed marijuana, more than $40,000
in cash, 25 weapons and three vehicles. But there
are still believed to be many plantations still in operation, and the
cartels aren't slowing down . They've realized that it's cheaper and easier to fund the plantations from
below the border and grow the marijuana closer to prime US markets--eliminating the need to smuggle
the drugs across the border. Instead, US forests are suffering . The pesticides are perhaps the worst byproduct
of the operations: Growers in Fresno County used a cocktail of pesticides and fertilizers many times stronger than
what is used on residential lawns to cultivate their crop . . . While the chemical pesticides kill insects and other
organisms directly, fertilizer runoff contaminates local waterways and aids in the growth of algae and
weeds. The vegetation in turn impedes water flows that are critical to frogs, toads and salamanders in the
Kings and San Joaquin rivers. As a response to the issue, California is hiring more forest service law enforcement, and expanding their efforts.
But it seems to me that the surest way to prevent such destruction in the forests is to legalize the growing of
marijuana , and thus removing the incentives to operate recklessly and clandestinely--and allowing for
regulation of pesticide and fertilizer use. For now, however, I wish the Save our Sierras program continued luck in their good
work.
POLITICS
Nothing will pass and Obama’s PC is ineffective
Feehery, 10/15/14 --- president of QGA Public Affairs and a former spokesman for then-House Speaker
Dennis Hastert (John, “Low Expectations for Congress’s Lame-Duck Session,”
http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2014/10/15/low-expectations-for-congresss-lame-duck-session/, JMP)
The Optimist School believes that Congress will work on a whole slew of must-pass legislation, including
an omnibus appropriations bill, a host of tax extenders, terrorism risk insurance, perhaps some trade
bills, and other cats and dogs.
The optimists are all about scoring last-minute touchdowns.
The Pessimist School believes that nothing will get done during the lame duck, with the possible
exception of a continuing resolution that has some agreed-upon updated spending bills attached to it.
The pessimists are all about punting. Over and over again.
The optimists think that the new Republican Senate majority would want to get several things off the
docket so it can start fresh in the president’s final two years in office.
The pessimists think that Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid would burn up most of the time in the lame
duck pushing through nominations and judicial appointments, including the replacement for Attorney
General Eric Holder.
My heart aligns me with the optimists, because I want to see Congress actually do its job. My head,
however, has learned to be realistic about the dysfunction that now rules the United States Senate.
President Barack Obama should want Congress to get the mundane stuff finished so that he can focus
on his legacy in his final years in office. But he is so ineffectual, beleaguered, and disengaged that his
opinions are unlikely to matter much.
With so much in the world going to pieces these days, it’s hard to be optimistic about anything–
especially the coming lame duck.
Plan’s irrelevant --- Obama’s got ZERO PC on foreign policy issues
JT Young 9/11, The American Spectator, "Obama, Woodrow Wilson, and Foreign Policy Failure", 2014,
spectator.org/articles/60395/obama-woodrow-wilson-and-foreign-policy-failure
Finally, foreign policy destroyed Wilson’s presidency and now similarly threatens Obama’s .¶ Foreign policy thrust
itself on both presidents, but from different angles. Wilson, for all his faults, staked everything he had on a vision. He lost, but not for want of political capital, but
because he refused to compromise with Republicans on his vision. ¶ Contrastingly, Obama
cannot even afford the foreign policy “ante”
expected of the free world’s leader. Even the most basic moves are beyond his depleted political
capital . Nor are these moves part of a larger vision. From the conflict between Russia and Ukraine, to the Arab Spring, to
the Syrian civil war, Iraq, and the Israel-Palestine conflict, there is nothing that links this administration’s
actions.¶ Obama cannot afford any of his foreign policy moves because he has expended his political
capital .¶ Legislatively, after almost six years in office he has not forged a relationship with Congress — not even with
Democrats, and certainly not with Republicans. Policy-wise and politically, Obama has no support on the
right and only a minority of it in America’s center — having lost it on health care, the economy, and
various other issues. Obama is wholly dependent on the left — and it is here where his foreign policy
responses are now eroding even this residual support. As his administration has looked adrift abroad, the left’s support has begun to drift from it.¶
Obama’s real problem is not a partisan one, as Wilson’s was, but an ideological one, arising from within his own base. Within the left on which he is
entirely dependent is a sizable contingent for whom U.S. engagement — especially militarily — is never
legitimate. So, even as Obama is forced to take reasonable stances abroad, he loses support within his
shrinking base.¶ As Obama erodes his base on the left, he also emboldens the right. As he weakens his
presidency, he prompts Congress to fill the void. He finds himself in a strikingly similar position to that of Wilson. ¶ There is an over-
arching foreign policy similarity between these two administrations a hundred years apart, but they come to the same point from opposite directions. Wilson lost
his presidency on a foreign policy in pursuit of a vision. He staked everything on it and refused to compromise to cut his losses in the end.¶ Obama
is
threatened with losing his presidency on a foreign policy in the absence of a vision. Having eroded his support over
almost six years, he cannot afford Wilson’s big gamble on a vision — even if he had one. He finds himself paying an increasingly costly
foreign policy price, just to stay in the game. In such straits, he finds himself where Wilson was, facing the ultimate
risk, but with no prospect of a visionary reward. He is instead merely playing for his political survival.
Number of issues thump the link
Lee, 10/15/14 (Carol E., “Battle for Senate Puts White House Agenda on Hold,”
http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2014/10/15/battle-for-senate-puts-white-house-agenda-on-hold/, JMP)
The decision to punt contentions issues underscores how concerned Democrats are about losing control
of the Senate, and how much of a sideline role Mr. Obama is playing in helping determine the outcome.
The delays also put a series of politically fraught issues on Mr. Obama’s plate during the lame-duck
session.
In addition to immigration, Keystone XL and the attorney general, Mr. Obama faces a Nov. 24 deadline
for a nuclear deal with Iran. The White House would also like to move forward on trade pacts that divide
Mr. Obama’s own party and that Democrats pressed Mr. Obama to set aside until after the elections.
Some White House officials say Mr. Obama will jam through his attorney general nominee in the lameduck session if Democrats lose control of the Senate, a move that would generate backlash among
Republicans.
The president is considering several candidates to replace Mr. Holder, including his former legal counsel
Kathryn Ruemmler, who could face a tough confirmation hearing given her central role in key White
House decisions from 2011 to 2014.
Midterm runoffs will wreck the midterm agenda
Ballhaus & Mullins, 10/3/14 (Rebecca & Brody, Dow Jones Top Global Market Stories, “Democrats,
Republicans Ready For Likely Senate Runoffs,” Factiva, JMP)
Political parties and their allies, anticipating that the Nov. 4 balloting won't decide control of the Senate,
have started to buy television airtime and take other steps in case races in Louisiana and Georgia are
forced into runoff elections.
Under rules in both states, another round of voting is required if no candidate wins more than 50% of
the vote. The scenario could materialize in Louisiana and Georgia, where multiple candidates are on the
ballot who could keep any contender from reaching a majority.
That possibility has prompted big election spenders, including the National Rifle Association's political
wing and Senate Republicans" campaign arm, to begin snapping up television advertising time for the
period after Nov. 4 and making other plans for what could be weeks of additional frantic campaigning-possibly with control of the Senate hanging in the balance.
If runoffs are needed, Louisiana would hold one on Dec. 6 and Georgia on Jan. 6.
"There is more than one important Election Day this cycle," said Nathan Gonzales, deputy editor of the
nonpartisan Rothenberg Political Report. "If people are looking for a clear Senate majority winner on
Nov. 4, I think they will be very disappointed."
Last month, the National Republican Senatorial Committee reserved $3.4 million in Louisiana airtime in
the month before the state's potential December runoff, a spokesman said.
The NRA's political arm has set aside more than $1 million in advertising time after Nov. 4 in Louisiana
on behalf of Republican Rep. Bill Cassidy, said Andrew Arulanandam, an NRA spokesman. Mr. Cassidy is
challenging Democratic Sen. Mary Landrieu .
A conservative group called Ending Spending, backed by hedge-fund founder Ken Griffin, on Thursday
reserved $2.5 million of postelection airtime in Louisiana and would launch a voter-contact campaign
after Nov. 4 in the event of a runoff, said Brian Baker, the group's president. The organization hasn't
spent any money in the race so far, calculating that the outcome will be decided in a runoff, Mr. Baker
said.
Freedom Partners, a group backed by the industrialist Koch brothers, has reserved $1.5 million in airtime
in Louisiana following the general election, a spokesman said.
Several other organizations said they are prepared to be active players in any Georgia or Louisiana
runoff, among them pro-Democratic groups Senate Majority PAC and the Service Employees
International Union, and the conservative FreedomWorks.
"If both of these go to a runoff, we absolutely will be involved to a heavy, heavy degree," said Ty
Matsdorf, campaigns director for Senate Majority PAC.
Louisiana doesn't hold primary elections, instead placing every candidate on the November ballot and
calling for a runoff if none of them wins 50% or more of the vote.
Ms. Landrieu and Mr. Cassidy are the race's front-runners. Recent polling shows Mr. Cassidy with a slight
edge in a head-to-head matchup. But the Nov. 4 election will be complicated by multiple candidates,
including Republican Rep. Rob Maness, a tea party-aligned conservative who is being backed by the
Senate Conservatives Fund.
A CNN/Opinion Research Corporation poll of likely voters taken last month showed Mr. Maness
capturing 9% of the vote--making it difficult for either Ms. Landrieu or Mr. Cassidy to win 50%.
Georgia's runoff election would be held Jan. 6--a day after the new Congress convenes. Polling shows
libertarian Amanda Swafford capturing a small percentage of the vote--but an amount that could
prevent Republican nominee David Perdue or Democratic nominee Michelle Nunn from reaching 50%.
If those races go to runoffs, the uncertainty would shadow Congress when it returns on Nov. 12 for a
postelection lame-duck session to handle unfinished legislative business. Already, senior Senate aides
say that their ability to plan for the lame-duck session has been frozen until after the election.
"If you have two outstanding races, everything slows to a crawl," a senior Senate Democratic aide said.
The two parties" willingness to compromise could be affected by their expectations of controlling the
chamber in January as they address must-pass legislative items, such as a bill extending funding for the
government after a stopgap measure expires on Dec. 11.
Senate Democrats, who now control the chamber, have been expected to advance legislation to extend
funding through the rest of the 2015 fiscal year. But Republicans, if they expect to take the majority,
might push for a shorter extension so they could have more say in spending priorities early next year.
Attorney general confirmation fight makes link inevitable
Sargent, 9/26/14 (Greg, “Morning Plum: Senate Democrats hanging on by their fingernails,”
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-line/wp/2014/09/26/morning-plum-senate-democratshanging-on-by-their-fingernails/, JMP)
* GOP SPOILING FOR FIGHT OVER HOLDER SUCCESSOR: The Post reports that Republicans, and
especially conservatives, are demanding that Dems refrain from confirmation hearings for Eric Holder’s
successor during the lame duck session. Ted Cruz refers to that prospect as an “abuse of power.”
It’s an “abuse of power” not to wait until Republicans control the Senate (probably a certainty in Cruz’s
mind) to have this fight? Either way, it will be epic.
Plan’s bipartisan---no capital loss
Tom Hoff 14, Columnist at Students for Sensible Drug Policy, "Marijuana Legalization Seemingly the Only
Bipartisan Issue in Congress," http://ssdp.org/news/blog/marijuana-legalization-seemingly-the-onlybipartisan-issue-in-congress/
Today, the United States Judiciary Committee passed legislation reforming federal drug sentencing, as the Drug Policy Alliance reported, that was almost as
surprising — at least in terms of who combined to pass it — as it is significant. The Smarter Sentencing Act will cut minimum mandatory minimum sentencing for
drug offenses, reform the sentencing disparity between those convicted of crack cocaine offenses vs. powder cocaine, and expand a judge’s ability to use his/her
own discretion in each individual case. The
senators that combined to create the bill include Mike Lee (R-Utah), Rand Paul (R-
Kentucky), Jeff Flake (R-Arizona), Ted Cruz (R-TX), Patrick Leahy (D-VT), Dick Durbin (D-IL), Carl Levin (D-MI) and Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI).
Yes, Dick Durbin,
the Senate Majority Whip for the Democratic Party, and three other democrats from
consistently blue states have combined with Ted Cruz and Rand Paul, among others. You’re reading that right. How did this
happen? No one here at SSDP is anything but overjoyed at this news, but it still leads us to wonder just how this breakthrough took place, especially given the
reform of drug laws, is one of the few issues that is
this is especially true as it relates to marijuana laws . Missouri recently became
bipartisan nature of it. But, when we look at it further, it seems that
crossing party lines in 2014.
And
the newest state to introduce a cannabis legalization bill, and even Governor Rick Perry of Texas said that the plant should be decriminalized. (By only supporting
decriminalization, he didn’t go far enough, but even supporting decriminalization is a big step for Texas.) The House of Reps in New Hampshire, the only New
England state that hasn’t decriminalized marijuana yet and the most conservative of the six states, looked at its New England counterparts and said, “You know
what? Let’s one up them. We’re voting for full blown legalization.” Most would assume that marijuana legalization, whether medical or recreational, would be an
issue supported by far more democrats than republicans. So why are some red states beginning to see the light faster than many blue ones, and why
is
marijuana legalization seemingly the only issue that brings liberals and conservatives together these
days? Well, for one, marijuana legalization might be an easier concept for republican leaders than we would
assume. If Ted Cruz or Rand Paul can turn to their supporters and say, “I realized just how much marijuana prohibition
cost the United States taxpayers, and I viewed this legislation as a way to put more money back in your
pockets,” that might be a relatively easy sell to their bases. Or maybe the US Judiciary Committee got wind of our very own Devon
Tackels cross-examining the Drug Czar in 2012 on National TV. But if I had to guess the most important reason that party lines are
being crossed in the matter of marijuana legalization, it’s this: No fingers have been pointed so far . What I
mean is that politicians around the country have not turned this issue into one that is overly-partisan. We’ve had many a
liberal blame other side and say to our senior citizens “These guys wanna take away your medicare,” and we’ve had many a conservative yell “These guys are
socialists” about liberals on the issue of taxing the rich. We haven’t had that level of finger-pointing about marijuana. If there’s one thing we know about our
congress that had its lowest number of bills passed last year in our country’s 237 year history, it’s that, when the argument becomes even slightly personal, they can
resemble spiteful eighth graders and refuse to work together on an issue, no matter how important it might be.
Extension is inevitable --- congress can include it in the CR if it is running out of
time
Postal, 10/1/14 (Arthur D., PropertyCasualty360, “This is what the likely path for TRIA
renewal looks like,” Factiva, JMP)
WASHINGTON—The most likely path to enactment of legislation reauthorizing a federal
backstop for terrorism risk insurance that insurers can live with is House de facto acceptance of
the preferable Senate bill, through inclusion of it in a must-pass congressional resolution (CR)
needed to keep the government running through the transition to a new Congress.
“I am not sure there will be negotiations [between conflicting Senate and House versions of the
Terrorism Risk Insurance Act (TRIA) reauthorization) bill,” said Jimi Grande, senior vice
president of federal and political affairs for the National Association of Mutual Insurance
Companies. “This maintains the $100 million trigger, but also includes significant reforms to the
program.”
“We expect TRIA to be reauthorized before Congress adjourns sine die in December,” added Nat
Wienecke, senior vice president, federal government relations at the Property Casualty Insurers
Association of America (PCI). “It is possible that TRIA is attached to a CR if they run out of
time, though there are many that would like to see it go through regular order.”
Uniqueness overwhelms – TRIA already passed the Senate, and it’s an internal
House GOP dispute that will be resolved
Karol, 10/16/14 (Gabrielle, Fox Business, “With Global Threats on the Rise, Terrorism Risk
Insurance Act Up in the Air” http://www.foxbusiness.com/economy-policy/2014/10/16/withglobal-threats-on-rise-terrorism-risk-insurance-act-up-in-air/)
TRIA was initially intended as a temporary fix that would help stabilize the insurance market. It
first came up for renewal in 2005, then 2007, and now again in 2014, with tweaks made along
the way.
Earlier this year, the Senate passed a bill extending TRIA, but the House of Representatives has
not yet followed suit. There’s been disagreement – particularly between members of the
Republican Party -- as to whether insurers are shouldering enough responsibility, and some
have argued to increase the financial threshold in which TRIA kicks in. Currently, the
government would step in only if the insured losses for a certified terrorism act exceed $100
million.
“Each time, Congress does what it should do: look at the program and review it for market
changes, and make sure it accomplishes the goals it should address,” DeBoer said.
TRIA’s previous extensions occurred late in the year as well. Though the clock may be ticking,
most of the experts that spoke with FOXBusiness.com were confident that the program would be
reauthorized in some form during the lame-duck period following the mid-term elections.
“I am highly confident that there is broad bipartisan support for a long-term TRIA
reauthorization in the House,” said Wienecke. “The question is, how does the process start to get
Congress to compromise on the bill?”
No impact – the private insurance market will adapt
Lerner, 10/12/14 (Matthew, “Terrorism insurance rates decrease as demand for coverage
increases”
http://www.businessinsurance.com/article/20141012/NEWS04/310129942?tags=%7C306%7C
76%7C88)
Congress is expected to consider the reauthorization of the program, which is scheduled to
expire Dec. 31, during a lame duck session following the November midterm elections.
Should Congress not act by the deadline, sources said the private market likely would see
disruption as buyers rush to secure affordable private-market terrorism coverage following
expiration of the federal backstop.
Despite the uncertainty, new capacity has entered the stand-alone market this year. That
has created competition and softer pricing outside of peak peril zones, where capacity continues
to be tight in so-called tier 1 cities such as New York, Chicago and San Francisco.
In addition, some companies in the Atlanta and Washington areas also are considered high
risks.
Ironshore Inc. is offering $300 million in limits, said James Dover, who joined the insurer in
February as senior vice president of the terrorism and sabotage insurance practice in New York.
“We came into the market with $300 million in single-risk capacity and we've used that,” Mr.
Dover said. “There's definitely competition for business, and that has definitely led to pricing
reductions” in lower-risk areas, where pricing has gotten “very aggressive” and resulted in
reductions of 10% to 20% in some cases, he said.
Pricing competition also has led to new buyer interest, said David Eliot, who specializes in the
stand-alone terrorism market at London-based broker Miller Insurance Services L.L.P.
“We have seen more activity,” Mr. Eliot said.
Interest is coming from buyers who previously bought terrorism coverage backed by the U.S.
backstop, as well as clients buying private coverage for the first time, both lured by more
competitive rates, he said.
“It's become even a more competitive marketplace,” said Mary Pat Thurston, a partner at
managing general agent Global Excess Partners L.L.C. in New York.
“The stand-alone product is now even a better option for people because it's gotten more
competitive. The prices have gone down significantly,” Ms. Thurston said.
Legalization creates new opportunities for innovation and spurs growth in other
industries which locks in resilience
Cassillas 14 (Cassandra, reporter, quoting Charles Arnold, business development and
investment consultant, 6-13-14, "Charles S. Arnold Claims Marijuana Could Save U.S. Economy"
Opposing Views) www.opposingviews.com/i/society/drug-law/charles-s-arnold-claimsmarijuana-could-save-us-economy
The United States economy has had a rough few years. Inequality has been rising. The
middle class is squeezed harder and harder with each passing year. Innovation is falling off.
Outsourcing has become a regular part of doing business for major corporations. A fresh
industry of some sort needed to come along and, fortunately for the economy, it has. Reports
from across the board suggest that the “green rush,” or legalization of recreational marijuana,
may be exactly what the doctor ordered. By now, everyone has heard about the
impressive $2 million in taxes Colorado collected within the first month of recreational
marijuana being legalized, but that is actually just the cherry on top. Tax revenue from
marijuana legalization is easy to compute, which is why it is such a popular talking point. The
real benefit of legalization is something else entirely: it opens the doors to a slew of ancillary
businesses, investment opportunities and even stock options. The weed market is relatively
untapped and provides entrepreneurs with nearly endless opportunities. Where there is
marijuana, there is also a simultaneous need for pipes, bongs, containers, growing apparatuses,
and everything in between. And this isn’t just the opinion of optimistic, pro-pot activists. The
business community agrees. Chuck S. Arnold, a long time business development and investment
consultant who has worked in a variety of industries, is constantly on the lookout for the most
innovative new areas to build businesses. Arnold believes the future is looking bright for
people who are willing to bet on legal marijuana. “Marijuana legalization is spurring growth
in other industries,” Chuck S. Arnold claims. “From industrial lights to smoking apparatus,
the legalization of marijuana is blazing a trail for future businesses to not only be see moderate
success, but thrive ostensibly well in an often turbulent contemporary fiscal environment.”
Plan reinvigorates Latin American relations—legalizing is key
Peter Hakim 14, President emeritus and Cameron Combs is program associate at the Inter-American
Dialogue, “Why the U.S. should legalize marijuana”, 1/26,
http://www.miamiherald.com/2014/01/26/3891371/why-the-us-should-legalize-marijuana.html
Tiny Uruguay made waves a month ago by becoming the first nation anywhere to fully legalize the sale and use
of recreational marijuana. Colorado and Washington, however, had already beaten them to the punch, and a handful of other states are expected soon to
follow suit.¶ In addition, 18 states and the District of Columbia permit marijuana for medical purposes. A proposal to legalize medical marijuana could appear on
the U nited S tates is without a national policy toward marijuana .
Although legally banned throughout the country by federal law, cannabis use is, in practice, governed by an
incoherent patchwork of state regulations, and further muddled by staggering disparities in
enforcement and punishment.¶ Legalizing cannabis , a step most Americans now favor, is the only way out of this
jumble , particularly after President Obama made clear that he would not enforce a federal ban on marijuana use in those states where it was now lawful. “We
have other fish to fry,” he said. In another interview, he said marijuana is no more harmful than alcohol. ¶ Legalization should also contribute to
Florida’s ballot in November.¶ What this all means is that
easier relations with Mexico and other neighbors to the south on issues of public security.¶ To be sure, legal
marijuana comes with costs and risks. The American Medical Association considers cannabis a “ dangerous drug” while the American Psychiatric Association asserts
that its use impedes neurological development in adolescents and can cause the “onset of psychiatric disorders.” ¶ Some studies suggest it interferes with learning
and motivation. It should be anticipated that legalization will lead to greater use, at all ages, as marijuana becomes more accessible and less expensive, and the
cultural and social stigmas surrounding its consumption literally go up in smoke. Abuse and addiction — including among juveniles — will rise as well.¶ But
keeping marijuana illegal also carries a high price tag. Particularly devastating are the human costs of arresting
and jailing thousands upon thousands of young Americans each year. Roughly one-third of all U.S. citizens are arrested by age 23.
Racial and ethnic minorities are most vulnerable. African-American marijuana users are over three times more likely to be arrested and
imprisoned than whites, even though the two groups consume the drug at virtually the same levels. ¶ With cannabis accounting for roughly
half of total drug arrests, legalization would sharply reduce this egregious disparity. It would also save
money b
y reducing the U.S. prison population. A half a million people were incarcerated for drug offenses in 2011, a ten-fold
jump since 1980 — at an average annual cost per prisoner of more than $20,000 in a minimum-security federal facility.¶ Cannabis legalization would
also help to lift an unneeded burden from U.S. foreign policy in Latin America, where Washington’s drug
war has long strained diplomatic relations .¶ Most governments in the hemisphere have concluded that
U.S. anti-drug policies are just not working and, in many places, are actually contributing to mounting levels of
crime, violence and corruption. Colombia has been a notable exception. With U.S. support of nearly $10 billion, the country has become far more
secure in the past dozen years.¶ Yet Juan Manuel Santos, Colombia’s president and arguably Washington’s closest ally in the region, is now a leading advocate of
alternative drug strategies. In an exhaustive report last year, prompted by President Santos, the Organization of American States analyzed a range of alternative
policy approaches, including cannabis legalization. ¶ Few Latin American countries are actively contemplating legalization a la uruguaya. But many have stopped
arrests for use and possession of marijuana, and virtually all are keeping a close watch on developments in Uruguay. Nowhere
is there much
enthusiasm for cooperating with the United States in its continuing efforts to eradicate drug crops and
interrupt drug flows.¶ A decision by the U.S. government to legalize marijuana would be a bold step toward
breaking today’s bureaucratic and political inertia and opening the way for a genuine hemisphere-wide
search for alternative strategies .
Relations are key to solve a laundry list of existential threats
Shifter 12 Michael is the President of Inter-American Dialogue. “Remaking the Relationship: The United
States and Latin America,” April, IAD Policy Report,
http://www.thedialogue.org/PublicationFiles/IAD2012PolicyReportFINAL.pdf
There are compelling reasons for the United States and Latin America to pursue more robust ties. Every
country in the Americas would benefit from strengthened and expanded economic relations, with improved
access to each other’s markets, investment capital, and energy resources. Even with its current economic problems, the
United States’ $16-trillion economy is a vital market and source of capital (including remittances) and
technology for Latin America, and it could contribute more to the region’s economic performance. For its part,
Latin America’s rising economies will inevitably become more and more crucial to the United States’
economic future. The United States and many nations of Latin America and the Caribbean would also gain a great deal by more
cooperation on such global matters as climate change, nuclear non-proliferation, and democracy and human rights.
With a rapidly expanding US Hispanic population of more than 50 million, the cultural and demographic integration of the United States and Latin America is proceeding at an accelerating
relations between the United States and Latin America remain
disappointing . If new opportunities are not seized, relations will likely continue to drift apart . The
longer the current situation persists, the harder it will be to reverse course and rebuild vigorous
cooperation . Hemispheric affairs require urgent attention —both from the United States and from Latin America and the Caribbean.
pace, setting a firmer basis for hemispheric partnership Despite the multiple opportunities and potential benefits,
1AR
PHARMA
Burnout is wrong
Kerscher 14—Professor, unclear where because every website about him is in German
(Karl-Heinz, “Space Education”, Wissenschaftliche Studie, 2014, 92 Seiten, dml)
The death toll for a pandemic is equal to the virulence, the deadliness of the pathogen or pathogens,
multiplied by the number of people eventually infected. It has been hypothesized that there is an
upper limit to the virulence of naturally evolved pathogens. This is because a pathogen that quickly
kills its hosts might not have enough time to spread to new ones, while one that kills its hosts
more slowly or not at all will allow carriers more time to spread the infection, and thus likely out-compete a
more lethal species or strain. This simple model predicts that if virulence and transmission are not
linked in any way, pathogens will evolve towards low virulence and rapid transmission. However, this
assumption is not always valid and in more complex models, where the level of virulence and the
rate of transmission are related, high levels of virulence can evolve. The level of virulence that is
possible is instead limited by the existence of complex populations of hosts, with different susceptibilities to
infection, or by some hosts being geographically isolated. The size of the host population and competition between different strains
of pathogens can also alter virulence. There are numerous historical examples of pandemics that have had
a devastating effect on a large number of people, which makes the possibility of global pandemic
a realistic threat to human civilization.
CP
Strict uniform regs solve impact, state legalization thumps it, and the CP links to
itself—this card crushes them
Kleiman 14—professor of public policy at UCLA
(Mark, “How Not to Make a Hash Out of Cannabis Legalization”,
http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/magazine/march_april_may_2014/features/how_not_to_make_a_hash_out_of049291.php
?page=all#, dml)
But letting
legalization unfold state by state, with the federal government a mostly helpless
bystander, risks creating a monstrosity ; Dr. Frankenstein also had a laboratory. Right now, officials in
Washington and Colorado are busy issuing state licenses to cannabis growers and retailers to do things
that remain drug-dealing felonies under federal law. The Justice Department could have shut down
the process by going after all the license applicants. But doing so would have run the risk of having the two
states drop their own enforcement efforts and challenge the feds to do the job alone, something
the DEA simply doesn’t have the bodies to handle: Washington and Colorado alone have about four times as
many state and local police as there are DEA agents worldwide. Faced with that risk, and with its statutory
obligation to cooperate with the states on drug enforcement, Justice chose accommodation.
In August, the deputy U.S. attorney general issued a formal—though nonbinding—assurance that the
feds would take a mostly hands-off approach. The memo says that as long as state governments
pursue “strong and effective” regulation to prevent activities such as distribution to minors, dealing by gangs and
cartels, dealing other drugs, selling across state lines, possession of weapons and use of violence, and drugged driving, and as
long as marijuana growing and selling doesn’t take place on public lands or federal property,
enforcement against state-licensed cannabis activity will rank low on the federal priority list. Justice has even
announced that it is working with the Treasury Department to reinterpret the banking laws to allow state-licensed cannabis
businesses to have checking accounts and take credit cards, avoiding the robbery risks incident to all-cash businesses.
That leaves the brand-new cannabis businesses in Colorado and Washington in statutory limbo.
They’re quasi-pseudo-hemi-demi-legal: permitted under state law, but forbidden under
a federal law that might not be enforced—until, say, the inauguration of President Huckabee, at
which point growers and vendors, as well as their lawyers, accountants, and bankers, could go to
prison for the things they’re doing openly today.
But even if the federal-state legal issues get resolved, the state-level tax and regulation systems
likely to emerge will be far from ideal . While they will probably do a good job of eliminating the illicit
cannabis markets in those states, they’ll be mediocre to lousy at preventing an upsurge of drug abuse
as cheap, quality-tested, easily available legal pot replaces the more expensive, unreliable, and harderto-find material the black market offers.
The systems being put into place in Washington and Colorado roughly resemble those imposed
on alcohol after Prohibition ended in 1933. A set of competitive commercial enterprises produce the pot, and a set of competitive
commercial enterprises sell it, under modest regulations: a limited number of licenses, no direct sales to minors, no marketing
obviously directed at minors, purity/potency testing and labeling, security rules. The post-Prohibition restrictions on
alcohol worked reasonably well for a while, but have been substantially undermined over the years
as the beer and liquor industries consolidated and used their economies of scale to lower
production costs and their lobbying muscle to loosen regulations and keep taxes low
(see Tim Heffernan, “Last Call”).
The same will likely happen with cannabis . As more and more states begin
to legalize marijuana over the next few years, the cannabis industry will begin to get richer—and that
means it will start to wield considerably more political power, not only over the states but
over national policy, too.
That’s how we could get locked into a bad system in which the primary downside of legalizing
pot—increased drug abuse, especially by minors—will be greater than it needs to be, and the benefits,
including tax revenues, smaller than they could be . It’s easy to imagine the cannabis
equivalent of an Anheuser-Busch InBev peddling low-cost, high-octane cannabis in Super Bowl
commercials. We can do better than that, but only if Congress takes action —
and soon.
DA
Yes warming impact
Sharp and Kennedy, 14 – is an associate professor on the faculty of the Near East South Asia Center for Strategic Studies (NESA). A former British
Army Colonel he retired in 2006 and emigrated to the U.S. Since joining NESA in 2010, he has focused on Yemen and Lebanon, and also supported NESA events into
Afghanistan, Turkey, Egypt, Israel, Palestine and Qatar. He is the faculty lead for NESA’s work supporting theUAE National Defense College through an ongoing Foreign
Military Sales (FMS) case. He also directs the Network of Defense and Staff Colleges (NDSC) which aims to provide best practice support to regional professional military and
security sector education development and reform. Prior to joining NESA, he served for 4 years as an assistant professor at the College of International Security Affairs (CISA) at
National Defense University where he wrote and taught a Masters' Degree syllabus for a program concentration in Conflict Management of Stability Operations and also taught
strategy, counterterrorism, counterinsurgency, and also created an International Homeland Defense Fellowship program. At CISA he also designed, wrote and taught courses
supporting the State Department's Civilian Response Corps utilizing conflict management approaches. Bob served 25 years in the British Army and was personally decorated by
Her Majesty the Queen twice. Aftergraduating from the Royal Military Academy, Sandhurst in 1981, he served in command and staff roles on operations in Northern Ireland,
Kosovo, Gulf War 1, Afghanistan, and Cyprus. He has worked in policy and technical staff appointments in the UK Ministry of Defense and also UK Defense Intelligence plus
several multi-national organizations including the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE). In his later career, he specialized in intelligence. He is a 2004
distinguished graduate of the National War College and holds a masters degree in National Security Strategy from National Defense University, Washington, D.C. AND is a
renewable energy and climate change specialist who has worked for the World Bank and the Spanish Electric Utility ENDESA on carbon policy and markets (Robert and
Edward, 8-22, “Climate Change and Implications for National Security” http://www.internationalpolicydigest.org/2014/08/22/climate-change-implications-nationalsecurity/)djm
Our planet is 4.5 billion years old. If that whole time was to be reflected on a single one-year calendar then the dinosaurs died off
sometime late in the afternoon of December 27th and modern humans emerged 200,000 years ago, or at around lunchtime on
December 28th. Therefore, human life on earth is very recent. Sometime on December 28th humans made the first fires – wood fires
– neutral in the carbon balance. Now reflect on those most recent 200,000 years again on a single one-year calendar and you might
be surprised to learn that the industrial revolution began only a few hours ago during the middle of the afternoon on December 31st,
250 years ago, coinciding with the discovery of underground carbon fuels. Over the 250 years carbon fuels have enabled tremendous
technological advances including a population growth from about 800 million then to 7.5 billion today and the consequent demand
to extract even more carbon. This has occurred during a handful of generations, which is hardly noticeable on our imaginary oneyear calendar. The
release of this carbon – however – is changing our climate at such a rapid rate that it
threatens our survival and presence on earth. It defies imagination that so much damage has been done
in such a relatively short time. The implications of climate change are the single most significant
threat to life on earth and, put simply, we are not doing enough to rectify the damage. This relatively
very recent ability to change our climate is an inconvenient truth; the science is sound. We know of the complex set of
interrelated national and global security risks that are a result of global warming and the velocity at
which climate change is occurring. We worry it may already be too late. Climate change writ large has informed few, interested some,
confused many, and polarized politics. It has already led to an increase in natural disasters including but not
limited to droughts, storms, floods, fires etc. The year 2012 was among the 10 warmest years on record according to an American
Meteorological Society (AMS) report. Research suggests that climate change is already affecting human
displacement; reportedly 36 million people were displaced in 2008 alone because of sudden natural disasters. Figures for 2010
and 2011 paint a grimmer picture of people displaced because of rising sea levels, heat and storms. Climate
change affects all natural systems . It impacts temperature and consequently it affects water and
weather patterns . It contributes to desertification, deforestation and acidification of the
oceans . Changes in weather patterns may mean droughts in one area and floods in another. Counter-intuitively, perhaps, sea
levels rise but perennial river water supplies are reduced because glaciers are retreating. As glaciers
and polar ice caps melt, there is an albedo effect, which is a double whammy of less
temperature regulation because of less surface area of ice present. This means that less absorption occurs and
also there is less reflection of the sun’s light. A potentially critical wild card could be runaway climate change due to
the release of methane from melting tundra. Worldwide permafrost soils contain about 1,700 Giga Tons of carbon, which is about
four times more than all the carbon released through human activity thus far. The planet has already adapted itself to
dramatic climate
change including a wide range of distinct geologic periods and multiple extinctions, and at a pace that it
can be managed. It is human intervention that has accelerated the pace dramatically : An
increased surface temperature, coupled with more severe weather and changes in water distribution
will create uneven threats to our agricultural systems and will foster and support the spread of
insect borne diseases like Malaria, Dengue and the West Nile virus. Rising sea levels will increasingly
threaten our coastal population and infrastructure centers and with more than 3.5 billion people – half the planet –
depending on the ocean for their primary source of food, ocean acidification may dangerously undercut critical natural food systems
which would result in reduced rations. Climate change also carries significant inertia. Even if emissions were completely halted
the impact is not only to the environment,
water, coastal homes, agriculture and fisheries as mentioned, but also would lead to conflict and
thus impact national security . Resource wars are inevitable as countries respond,
adapt and compete for the shrinking set of those available resources . These wars have arguably
today, temperature increases would continue for some time. Thus
already started and will continue in the future because climate
change will force countries to act for national
survival; the so-called Climate Wars. As early as 2003 Greenpeace alluded to a report which it claimed was commissioned by the
Pentagon titled: An Abrupt Climate Change Scenario and Its Implications for U.S. National Security. It painted
a picture of a world in turmoil because global warming had accelerated. The scenario outlined was both abrupt
and alarming. The report offered recommendations but backed away from declaring climate change an immediate problem,
concluding that it would actually be more incremental and measured; as such it would be an irritant, not a shock for national
security systems. In 2006 the Center for Naval Analyses (CNA) – Institute of Public Research – convened a board of
11
and admirals to assess National Security and the Threat to Climate Change.
Their initial report was published in April 2007 and made no mention of the potential acceleration of climate change. The team
found that climate change was a serious threat to national security and that it was: “most likely to
senior retired generals
happen in regions of the world that are already fertile ground for extremism.” The team made recommendations from their analysis
Europe would experience some fracturing because of
border migration. Africa would need more stability and humanitarian operations provided by
the United States. The Middle East would experience a “loss of food and water security (which) will
increase pressure to emigrate across borders.” Asia would suffer from “threats to water and the
spread of infectious disease.” In 2009 the CIA opened a Center on Climate Change and National Security to coordinate
across the intelligence community and to focus policy. In May 2014, CNA again convened a Military Advisory
Board but this time to assess National Security and the Accelerating Risk of Climate Change. The
report concludes that climate change is no longer a future threat but occurring right now and
the authors appeal to the security community, the entire government and the American people to not only build
resilience against projected climate change impacts but to form agreements to stabilize climate change and also to
integrate climate change across all strategy and planning . The calm of the 2007 report is replaced
of regional impacts which suggested the following.
by a tone of anxiety concerning the future coupled with calls for public discourse and debate because “time and tide wait for no
man.” The report notes a key distinction between resilience (mitigating the impact of climate change) and agreements (ways to
stabilize climate change) and states that: Actions by the United States and the international community have been
insufficient to adapt to the challenges associated with projected climate change. Strengthening resilience to climate
impacts already locked into the system is critical, but this will reduce long-term risk only if
improvements in resilience are accompanied by actionable agreements on ways to stabilize climate
change. The 9/11 Report framed the terrorist attacks as less of a failure of intelligence than a failure of imagination. Greenpeace’s
2003 account of the Pentagon’s alleged report describes a coming climate Armageddon which to readers
was unimaginable and hence the report was not really taken seriously. It described: A world thrown into turmoil
by drought, floods, typhoons . Whole countries rendered uninhabitable . The capital of the
Netherlands submerged. The borders of the U.S. and Australia patrolled by armies firing into waves of starving
boat people desperate to find a new home. Fishing boats armed with cannon to drive off competitors. Demands
for access to water and farmland backed up with nuclear weapons . The CNA and
Greenpeace/Pentagon reports are both mirrored by similar analysis by the World Bank which highlighted not only the
physical manifestations of climate change, but also the significant human impacts that threaten to unravel
decades of economic development , which will ultimately foster conflict . Climate change
is the quintessential “Tragedy of the Commons,” where the cumulative impact of many individual actions (carbon emission in this
case) is not seen as linked to the marginal gains available to each individual action and not seen as cause and effect. It is
simultaneously huge, yet amorphous and nearly invisible from day to day. It is occurring very fast in geologic time terms, but in
human time it is (was) slow and incremental. Among environmental problems, it is uniquely global. With our planet and culture
figuratively and literally honeycombed with a reliance on fossil fuels, we face systemic challenges in changing the reliance across
multiple layers of consumption, investment patterns, and political decisions; it will be hard to fix!
Warming is real, anthropogenic, and accelerating – scientific analysis
Braganza 11 (Karl, Manager, Climate Monitor at the Bureau of Meteorology in Australia, The Bureau presently operates
under the authority of the Meteorology Act 1955, which requires it to report on the state of the atmosphere and oceans in support of
Australia's social, economic, cultural and environmental goals. His salary is not funded from any external sources or dependent on
specially funded government climate change projects. Karl Braganza does not consult to, own shares in or receive funding from any
company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has no relevant affiliations “The greenhouse effect is real:
here’s why
,” http://theconversation.edu.au/the-greenhouse-effect-is-real-heres-why-1515)
In public discussions of climate change, the full range and weight of evidence underpinning the current science can be difficult to
find. A good example of this is the role of observations of the climate system over the past one hundred years or more. In the
current public discourse, the focus has been mostly on changes in global mean temperature. It
would be easy to form the opinion that everything we know about climate change is based upon the observed rise in global
temperatures and observed increase in carbon dioxide emissions since the industrial revolution. In other words, one could
have the mistaken impression that the entirety of climate science is based upon a single
correlation study. In reality, the correlation between global mean temperature and carbon dioxide
over the 20th century forms an important, but very small part of the evidence for a
human role in climate change. Our assessment of the future risk from the continued build up of greenhouse gases
in the atmosphere is even less informed by 20th century changes in global mean temperature. For example, our
understanding of the greenhouse effect – the link between greenhouse gas concentrations and global surface air
temperature – is based primarily on our fundamental understanding of mathematics,
physics, astronomy and chemistry. Much of this science is textbook material that is
at least a century old and does not rely on the recent climate record. For example, it is a
scientific fact that Venus, the planet most similar to Earth in our solar system, experiences surface temperatures of nearly 500
degrees Celsius due to its atmosphere being heavily laden with greenhouse gases. Back on Earth, that fundamental
understanding of the physics of radiation, combined with our understanding of climate change
from the geological record, clearly demonstrates that increasing greenhouse gas concentrations
will inevitably drive global warming. The observations we have taken since the start of 20th century have confirmed
our fundamental understanding of the climate system. While the climate system is very complex, observations
have shown that our formulation of the physics of the atmosphere and oceans is largely correct,
and ever improving. Most importantly, the observations have confirmed that human activities, in
particular a 40% increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations since the late 19th century, have had a discernible
and significant impact on the climate system already. In the field known as detection and attribution of climate
change, scientists use indicators known as of climate change. These fingerprints show the entire climate system
has changed in ways that are consistent with increasing greenhouse gases and an enhanced
greenhouse effect. They also show that recent, long term changes are inconsistent with a range of
natural causes. A warming world is obviously the most profound piece of evidence. Here in Australia, the decade ending
in 2010 has easily been the warmest since record keeping began, and continues a trend of each
decade being warmer than the previous, that extends back 70 years. Globally, significant warming
and other changes have been observed across a range of different indicators and through a
number of different recording instruments, and a consistent picture has now emerged. Scientists
have observed increases in continental temperatures and increases in the temperature of the lower atmosphere. In the oceans,
we have seen increases in sea-surface temperatures as well as increases in deep-ocean heat
content. That increased heat has expanded the volume of the oceans and has been recorded as a
rise in sea-level. Scientists have also observed decreases in sea-ice, a general retreat of glaciers and decreases in snow cover.
Changes in atmospheric pressure and rainfall have also occurred in patterns that we would
expect due to increased greenhouse gases. There is also emerging evidence that some, though not all,
types of extreme weather have become more frequent around the planet. These changes are again
consistent with our expectations for increasing atmospheric carbon dioxide. Patterns of temperature change that are uniquely
associated with the enhanced greenhouse effect, and which have been observed in the real world include: greater warming in polar
regions than tropical regions greater warming over the continents than the oceans greater warming of night time temperatures than
daytime temperatures greater warming in winter compared with summer a pattern of cooling in the high atmosphere (stratosphere)
with simultaneous warming in the lower atmosphere (troposphere). By way of brief explanation, if the warming over the
20th century were due to some deep ocean process, we would not expect to see continents
warming more rapidly than the oceans, or the oceans warming from the top down. For increases
in solar radiation, we would expect to see warming of the stratosphere rather than the observed
cooling trend. Similarly, greater global warming at night and during winter is more typical of
increased greenhouse gases, rather than an increase in solar radiation. There is a range of other
observations that show the enhanced greenhouse effect is real. The additional carbon dioxide in the atmosphere
has been identified through its isotopic signature as being fossil fuel in origin. The increased
carbon dioxide absorbed by the oceans is being recorded as a measured decrease in ocean
alkalinity. Satellite measurements of outgoing long-wave radiation from the planet reveal
increased absorption of energy in the spectral bands corresponding to carbon dioxide, exactly as
expected from fundamental physics . It is important to remember that the enhanced greenhouse effect is not the only
factor acting on the climate system. In the short term, the influence of greenhouse gases can be obscured by other competing forces.
These include other anthropogenic factors such as increased industrial aerosols and ozone depletion, as well as natural changes in
solar radiation and volcanic aerosols, and the cycle of El Niño and La Niña events. By choosing a range of indicators, by averaging
over decades rather than years, and by looking at the pattern of change through the entire climate system, scientists are able to
clearly discern the fingerprint of human-induced change. The climate of Earth is now a closely monitored thing; from instruments in
space, in the deep ocean, in the atmosphere and across the surface of both land and sea. It’s now practically certain that
increasing greenhouse gases have already warmed the climate system. That continued rapid
increases in greenhouse gases will cause rapid future warming is irrefutable
Warming causes an ice age—ocean conveyor
Waterman 11. (6/30/11. Melissa, a freelance writer who specializes in science and the marine environment. “Marine
Matters: Hot? Cold? Check the Ocean Conveyor Belt” The Free Press.
http://freepressonline.com/main.asp?SectionID=50&SubSectionID=72&ArticleID=13520)
Our earth is a watery world. The deep currents moving slowly within the world's oceans are powered not by the wind but by
differences in temperature and salinity. These currents transfer heat from equatorial regions to the north.
Cold winds off Canada begin this process, cooling North Atlantic water east of Greenland and in the Labrador Sea and increasing its
salinity through evaporation. The dense cold water sinks and begins moving southward along the very depths of the Atlantic.
Meanwhile, warmer water moves north to replace the North Atlantic water that has sunk. This is just the beginning of the great
ocean conveyor belt, a system of deep currents that recirculate heat and water through all the world's oceans. What's
important about this conveyor system is that by moving heat around, it keeps the next ice age at
bay. The earth has undergone numerous ice ages in the past. These mammoth shifts in the world's climate
occur every 100,000 years or so and are separated by relatively brief periods of warmth, lasting about 10,000 to 15,000 years. We
are at the end of just such a warm period now. Just a decade ago, scientists thought that each ice age crept up on
the world with gradual cooling of summer temperatures. Recent research indicates the contrary, that the ice ages did not
come in gently over time but rather occurred abruptly, popping up within a matter of centuries or even decades.
And the reason for these huge changes in the climate? The ocean conveyor belt. The key to the ocean
conveyor belt is that dense water sinking in the Arctic. The reason the water sinks at all is because it is both cold and very salty,
hence heavy. However, if you dilute the salinity of that water, it won't sink. If it doesn't sink, the
conveyor belt effectively shuts down. Once, long ago, a great lake formed by the glaciers called Lake Aggasiz dumped
its entire basin of freshwater into the North Atlantic, allegedly within a matter of days. This tremendous influx of freshwater so
reduced the salinity of the North Atlantic surface water that the water failed to sink. This caused a severe dip in northern hemisphere
temperatures, which scientists found recorded in the ice sheets of Greenland. Massive volumes of saltwater, an amount estimated
to be equivalent to the outfall of 30 Amazon rivers, sink each winter just east of Greenland. So much water sinking causes warm
water from the equator to flow much farther north than it might otherwise do. As a result, the Gulf Stream brings warm water north
and east along the U.S. coast, merges into the warm North Atlantic Current to cross the Atlantic, and then flows north along the
Norwegian coast. As a result, Europe is a lot warmer than it ought to be, about nine to 18 degrees F warmer. Look at a map of the
globe; compare major cities in the United States with major cities in Europe. Rome lies near the same latitude, 42°N, as Chicago.
London and Paris, fairly temperate cities in the winter, are close to the 49°N latitude line that, west of the Great Lakes, separates the
United States from Canada. Berlin is up at 52°, Copenhagen and Moscow at about 56°. Oslo is nearly at 60°N, at the same latitude as
Anchorage, Alaska, but considerably warmer in the winter. If the ocean conveyor belt shuts down
because the ice sheets of the north begin to melt due to global warming, Europe, as
well as the rest of the world, is in trouble. Turn off the Gulf Stream and Iceland would
become one large ice cap. Ireland's climate would be transformed to that of Spitzbergen. Winters in Scandinavia
would become so cold that tundra would replace forests. The Baltic Sea would be permanently
ice covered, as would much of the ocean between Greenland and Scandinavia. The climate effect would be felt throughout the
world, not just in Europe. Rainfall patterns would dramatically shift. Temperatures would fall. The
atmosphere would become dustier. And this shift to a new and cold world could occur
within decades.
No risk of oxygen fluctuations
Spencer 8 (Dr. Roy, University of Alabama, Huntsville, “Oxygen Scarcity Threatens
Humankind”, Climate Change Fraud, 8-18,
http://www.climatechangefraud.com/content/view/2010/240/)
The scare: As the peer-reviewed literature is filled with a growing proportion of learned papers
demolishing the imagined "consensus" that anthropogenic "global warming" will prove
"catastrophic", the less serious newspapers are looking for new scares to peddle to the feebleminded. In mid-August 2008, The Guardian, Britain’s silliest newspaper, printed an article by
Peter Tatchell suggesting that the world’s oxygen is running out because of humankind’s use of
fossil fuels. Atmospheric oxygen trend from Cape Grim, Tasmania. Tatchell says: “Little or no
attention is being paid to the long-term fall in oxygen concentrations and its knock-on effects.
Compared to prehistoric times, the level of oxygen in the Earth’s atmosphere has declined by
over a third and in polluted cities the decline may be more than 50%. … Much of this recent,
accelerated change is down to human activity, notably the industrial revolution and the burning
of fossil fuels. … This change in the makeup of the air we breathe has potentially serious
implications for our health. Indeed, it could ultimately threaten the survival of human life on
earth. …” The truth: Dr. Roy Spencer, of the University of Alabama at Huntsville, says: “The O2
concentration of the atmosphere has been measured off and on for about 100 years now, and the
concentration, at 20.95%, has not varied within the accuracy of the measurements. Only in
recent years have more precise measurement techniques been developed, and the tiny decrease
in O2 with increasing CO2 has been actually measured. But I believe the O2 concentration is still
close to 20.95%. There is so much O2 in the atmosphere, it is believed not to be substantially
affected by vegetation, but it is the result of geochemistry in deep-ocean sediments. No one
really knows for sure. Since too much O2 is not good for humans, the human body keeps O2
concentrations down to around 5% in our major organs. Extra O2 can give you a burst of energy,
but it will harm you (or kill you) if the exposure is too long. It has been estimated that global
wildfire risk would increase greatly if O2 concentrations were much more than they are now. To
say that there is an impending ‘oxygen crisis’ on Earth is the epitome of fear- mongering.”
Democracy checks all their impacts—no leader would hurt their people
McGinnis and Somin, 7 (Professor of Law @ NU and Georgetown Respectively John and
Ilya, Should International Law Be Part of Our Law?, Stanford Law Review, Questia)
Finally, democratic accountability also plays a crucial role in preventing major
public policy disasters, since elected leaders know that a highly visible
catastrophic failure is likely to lead to punishment at the polls. For example, it is striking
that no democratic nation, no matter how poor, has ever had a mass famine within its borders, (96) whereas such events are
common in authoritarian and totalitarian states. (97) More generally, democracy serves as a check on self-
dealing by political elites and helps ensure, at least to some extent, that leaders
enact policies that serve the interests of their people.
No empirics for their argument – our evidence assumes the best possible
measurements
Narang and Nelson, 09 (Vipin, research fellow @ the International Security Program @
Harvard, and Rebecca, research fellow @ International Security Program @ Harvard,
International Organizations, Spring)
Based on Mansfield and Snyder’s chosen measures for regime change and war, we therefore argue that there is no
empirical basis for the claim that incomplete democratizations systematically
unleash a wave of belligerent nationalism that results in external war . Not only is there a
severe dearth of observations involving incomplete democratization, weak institutions, and war, but we find that the main
results hinge entirely on several unrepresentative observations clustered around the
dismemberment of the Ottoman Empire. Partly as a result, when we compare the full Mansfield and Snyder
model to a parsimonious controls model, we find that the former adds no predictive power over the latter. We note that
it is entirely possible that the indicators that Mansfield and Snyder employ do not exactly operationalize the logic of the theory.
Certainly, changes in the various Polity measures may not capture what they consider to be incomplete democratization, and the
Correlates of War data set may be a blunt measure for “belligerence,” especially when the chosen measurement is simply war
given the best available measures for the phenomena of interest, we find no
systematic empirical support for the theory that incomplete democratizers with weak
institutions are more war-prone toward other states.
participation. But
2AR?!
WARMING
Carbon dioxide doesn’t solve Ice age—it causes rapid global cooling
Astrobiology Magazine 11. (6/22/11. “Ocean Causes Abrupt Climate Change”
http://www.astrobio.net/pressrelease/4045/ocean-causes-abrupt-climate-change)
There have been instances in Earth history when average temperatures have changed rapidly, as
much as 10 degrees Celsius (18 degrees Fahrenheit) over a few decades, and some have speculated the same could
happen again as the atmosphere becomes overloaded with carbon dioxide. New research lends support to
evidence from numerous recent studies that suggest abrupt climate change appears to be the result of
alterations in ocean circulation uniquely associated with ice ages. "There might be other mechanisms by which
greenhouse gases may cause an abrupt climate change, but we know of no such mechanism from the geological record," said David
Battisti, a University of Washington atmospheric sciences professor. Battisti was part of a team that used a numerical climate model
coupled with an oxygen-isotope model to determine what caused climate shifts in a computer-generated episode that mimicked
Heinrich events during the last ice age, from 110,000 to 10,000 years ago. Heinrich events produced huge numbers of North Atlantic
Ocean icebergs that had broken off from glaciers. The simulations showed the sudden increase in North
Atlantic sea ice cooled the Northern Hemisphere, including the surface of the Indian Ocean,
which reduced rainfall over India and weakened the Indian monsoon. Battisti noted that while carbon
dioxide-induced climate change is unlikely to be abrupt, the impacts of changing climate could be. "When you lose a
keystone species, ecosystems can change very rapidly," he said. "Smoothly retreating sea ice will
cause fast warming if you live within a thousand kilometers of the ice. If warming slowly dries
already semi-arid places, fires are going to be more likely."
Ice Age won’t be here for a half a million years and Carbon emissions push it back
Brock 11. (3/19/11. Chris, staff writer. “Taking long, long view on climate change” Watertown Daily Times.
http://www.watertowndailytimes.com/article/20110319/CURR04/303199998/?loc=interstitialskip)
Mr. Stager writes that most climate models predict another ice age at the year 50,000. Humans,
he said,
have stopped that "in its tracks" because of carbon dioxide emissions. The next ice age will arrive
around the year 130,000. But not if "we burn through all our remaining coal reserves during the
next century or so," Mr. Stager writes. If we do that, he said, the next ice age won't hit for the next half
million years.
No extinction from ice age—technology solves
Croatian Times 10. (10/02/10. “Croat scientist warns ice age could start in five years”
http://www.croatiantimes.com/news/General_News/2010-0210/8836/Croat_scientist_warns_ice_age_could_start_in_five_years) *quoting Vladimir Paar—physicist at Croatia’s Zagreb
University. **This card has been gender modified
The Zagreb based scientist says it will still be possible for humans to survive in the ice age, but
the spending on energy will be enormous. "Food production also might be a problem. It would
need to be produced in greenhouses with a lot of energy spent to heat it", commented the
professor, who remains optimistic despite his predictions. He said: "The nuclear energy we
know today will not last longer than 100 years as we simply do not have enough uranium in the
world to match the needs in an ice age. But I'm still optimistic. There is the process of nuclear
fusion happening on the Sun. The fuel for that process is hydrogen and such a power plant is
already worked on in France as a consortium involving firms from Marseille and the European
Union, the US, Russia, China, Japan and South Korea. The head of the project is a Japanese
expert, and former Japanese ambassador in Croatia", Vladimir Paar revealed. He said the
building of the new technology power plant will take at least another 10 years. "In 40 years we'll
know how it functions. That would be a solution that could last for thousands of years. We have
a lot of hydrogen and the method is an ecological one", the professor concluded.
DEMOCRACY
Democratic transition decreases war – best models
Ward and Gleditsch 98 (Michael D., Professor of Political Science – University of
Washington and Kristian S., Graduate Research Trainee in the Globalization and
Democratization Program – University of Colorado, Boulder, American Political Science Review,
March)
As Figure 1 details, democratization-whether in mild or strong degrees-is accompanied by
reduction, not increase, in the risk of war. Though we do not present graphs of the converse, changes
toward autocracy and reversals of democratization are accompanied by increased risks of
war involvement. These risks are proportionally greater than the decline or
benefits of further democratization. Thus, there is strong evidence that democratization has a monadic effect:
It reduces the probability that a country will be involved in a war. Although the probability of war involvement does not decrease
linearly, it does decrease monotonically, so that over the entire range of democracy minus autocracy values, there is a
reduction of about 50%. During the democratic transition, at every point along the way as
well as at the end points, there is an attendant reduction in the probability of a polity being at
war. We also find that reversals toward greater levels of autocracy (not shown) not only increase the probability of war
involvement. Apparently, it is more dangerous to be at a given level of democracy if that represents an increase in the level of
authoritarianism than it is to be at the same level of democracy if that represents a decrease in the authoritarian character of the
regime. Stated differently, reversals are riskier than progress. It has been argued that institutional constraints
are theoretically important in translating the effect of democracy into foreign policy (Bueno de Mesquita, Siverson, and Woller 1992;
Siverson 1995). If the idea of democracy is separated into its major components, then the degree of executive constraints empirically
dominates the democracy and autocracy scales (Gleditsch and Ward 1997). Accordingly, we demonstrate that moving toward
stronger executive constraints also yields a visible reduction in the risk of war. [Continues] CONCLUSION Our results
show that the process of democratization is accompanied by a decrease in the
probability of a country being involved in a war, either as a target or as an initiator. These
results were obtained with a more current (and corrected) database than was used
in earlier work, and our analyses also focus more clearly on the process of transition. In comparison to
studies that look only at the existence of change in authority characteristics, we examine
the direction, magnitude, and smoothness of the transition process.
Last 3 decades prove there’s no violence – only a 16% risk
McFaul, 07 (Michael, professor of political science @ Stanford, quoting Mansfeld and Snyder’s
book, Journal of Democracy. Baltimore: Apr 2007. Vol. 18, Iss. 2; pg. 160, “Are New
Democracies War-Prone?”)
The results would be even more meager if the analysis focused on the latest wave of democratization. In the "third wave" of
democratization, from 1973 to 2004, there were 179 instances of democratization, defined as countries
moving from either Not Free to Free (25 cases) or Not Free to Partly Free (154 cases), as determined by Freedom House rankings.
(This set of cases includes countries that experienced democratization more than once, after regressing from democracy earlier
during this period.) Between 1973 and 2004, there
were only 30 instances of a democratizing state
experiencing political violence-civil war or interstate war- within five years after
democratization. (The data set for political violence I use here comes from the Center for Systemic Peace, http://
members.aol.com/cspmgm/warlist.htm.) In other words, during the third wave conflict occurred after
democratization only 16 percent of the time, and most of these conflicts were internal rather
than interstate wars. During the third wave, emerging democracies have rarely gone to war.