1NC

1NC T
United States is both federal and states.
McCurdy & Robinson 10 Director of civil litigation @ Fairfield and Woods & Of Counsel trial
attorney focusing on complex commercial and environmental litigation @ Fairfield and Woods [Michael R.
McCurdy & Jason B. Robinson, Tort Law in the United States, Fairfield and Woods, P.C., 2010, pg.
http://tinyurl.com/pbhmc4v

I. INTRODUCTION

The United States

of America

is unique in that it is comprised of a federal district

and fifty states . As a result, the legal system in the United States is divided into two separate
courts: federal and state courts. The differences between federal and state courts are defined
mainly by jurisdiction , which refers to the types of cases a court is allowed to decide.

AND, CSA defines US is all places under federal and state

jurisdictions
United States Code 12 [Title 21 US Code Control Substance Act (2012 Edition) pg.
http://tinyurl.com/bwg54pt

The term "United States", when used in a geographic sense, means all places
continental or insular, subject to the jurisdiction of the United States.
(28)

and waters,

Legalize means free of all legal sanctions.

Mikos 10 - Professor of Law @ Vanderbilt University [Robert A. Mikos (Director of the Program in Law and
Government @Vanderbilt University Law School.) On the Limits of Federal Supremacy When States Relax (or
Abandon) Marijuana Bans, Cato Institute Policy Analysis, #714, (December 12, 2012)

By legalize, I mean the state government permits some private conduct to occur free
of legal sanctions , both civil and criminal.
merely removes the threat of criminal sanctions. Pg. 27

It means something more than decriminalize, which

Violation
Altering the CSA doesnt legalize in all places. Marijuana
would still be federally illegal in the 48 states that currently
prohibit it
Altieri 13

- NORML Communications Director [Erik Altieri, Everything You Wanted to Know About the New
Federal Marijuana Legalization Measures, NORML, February 5, 2013, pg. http://tinyurl.com/ajbjpe9

Representative Polis legislation, The Ending Marijuana Prohibition Act of 2013, would remove
marijuana from the Controlled Substances Act, transfer the Drug Enforcement Administrations authority
to regulate marijuana to a newly renamed Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Marijuana and Firearms, require
commercial marijuana producers to purchase a permit, and ensure federal law distinguishes between individuals
who grow marijuana for personal use and those involved in commercial sale and distribution.

Speaking on the bill, Rep. Polis stated, This

legislation doesnt force any state to legalize

marijuana , but Colorado and the 18 other jurisdictions that have chosen to allow marijuana for medical or
recreational use deserve the certainty of knowing that federal agents wont raid state-legal businesses. Congress
should simply allow states to regulate marijuana as they see fit and stop wasting federal tax dollars on the failed
drug war.
Representative Blumenauers legislation is aimed at creating a federal tax structure which would allow for the
federal government to collect excise taxes on marijuana sales and businesses in states that have legalized its use.
The Marijuana Tax Equity Act, would impose an excise tax on the first sale of marijuana, from the producer to the
next stage of production, usually the processor. These regulations are similar to those that now exist for alcohol
and tobacco. The bill will also require the IRS to produce a study of the industry after two years, and every five
years after that, and to issue recommendations to Congress to continue improving the administration of the tax.
We are in the process of a dramatic shift in the marijuana policy landscape, said Rep. Blumenauer. Public
attitude, state law, and established practices are all creating irreconcilable difficulties for public officials at every
level of government. We want the federal government to be a responsible partner with the rest of the universe of
marijuana interests while we address what federal policy should be regarding drug taxation, classification, and
legality.
You can use NORMLs Take Action Center here to easily contact your elected officials and urge them to support
these measures.
These two pieces of legislation are historic in their scope and forward looking nature and it is likely you have
many unanswered questions. NORML has compiled the below FAQs to hopefully address many of these inquiries.
FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS
Q:

Would this make marijuana legal everywhere ?

No, but it would allow states who wish to pursue legalization to do so without
federal incursion. Currently, the federal government claims that state laws which have legalized medical
A:

and recreational marijuana use are in conflict with federal law. It is under this claim that they raid medical

marijuana law would be

the domain of the states. If a state choses to legalize and regulate its use, it can do
so in the way it would any other product and the federal government would issue permits to commercial growers
and sellers and collect tax revenue. If a state choses to retain marijuana prohibition, they
may as well, and the federal government would assist in stopping flow of
marijuana into the states borders, as transporting marijuana from a legalized state
into one retaining prohibition would still be illegal under this legislation.
marijuana dispensaries, arrest consumers, etc. If these measures were to pass,

1nc - Reg Spec

VOTE NEG. They make the debate pointless by failing to
specify a tax regulatory regime. A.) It is impossible to
evaluate the cost and benefits B.) It puts us at a competitive
disadvantage by restricting our to the most indefensible args
in the legalization debate
Kleiman 13 Professor of public policy @ UCLA [Mark Kleiman, How to Legalize Cannabis,
Washington Monthly, December 26, 2013 11:03 AM , pg. http://tinyurl.com/mc82k9y

Debating whether to legalize pot is

increasingly

pointless . Unless theres an unexpected shock

to public opinion, its going to happen, and sooner rather than later.

The important debate now is

how to legalize it . The results of legalization depend strongly on the details

of the post-prohibition tax and regulatory regimes . In the current situation, continued prohibition
might be the worst option. Full commercial legalization on the alcohol model might well be the secondworst. But that is the way were heading.
Im preparing an essay about designing a post-prohibition regime. After the jump is a set of topic sentences and
paragraphs for sections of that essay, not yet in a well-defined order.
Substantive comments are welcome. Rant and snark will be ruthlessly zapped.
We probably should legalize cannabis. Prohibition is now breaking down. $35B/yr. is a lot of money to give to
criminals, and no one has a plausible plan to shrink the illicit market under prohibition. Even where medical
marijuana has degenerated into system when anyone can buy a user license from a crooked doctor, the voters
still like it. Arguably, prohibition was worth trying. But its time to go home.

Everything has advantages and disadvantages. Cannabis legalization will reduce criminal
revenue, intrusive enforcement, arrest, incarceration, and disorder around illicit markets, and enhance personal
liberty, consumer choice, and respect for the law, and probably reduce bloodshed in Mexico. It might foster safer
and more beneficial practices of cannabis use.
Legalization will certainly increase drug abuse, including heavy use by minors. Every adult is a potential source of
leakage to minors. And if we insist on making minors consume illicitly-produced pot, we reserve 20-25% of the
market for criminals. Much better to tolerate leakage and have a grey-market supply to minors like the current
system that provides them with alcohol.

The polarized nature of the debate means that both sides wind up spending
lots of time denying the obvious .
Good design tries to get as much of the advantages, and as little of the disadvantages, as possible.
The policies most likely to help control increases in drug abuse are taxation and other efforts to keep prices high,
rules about consumer information (labeling and marketing), and nudge strategies to enhance consumer
mindfulness.
It matters a lot whether, under conditions of legality, cannabis turns out to be a substitute for alcohol or instead a
complement. Right now, no one knows the answer, which might not be the same for all parts of the population or
the same in the long run as in the short run.
Analysis can help, but theres no substitute for experience. The trick is not to get locked in to a set of bad policies.
We need a process designed to learn from mistakes.

Neither cannabis nor legalization names its object with enough

specificity . Lots of different things are legalization. Lots of different things are
cannabis.

1NC TPA
TPA will pass---Obama is ratcheting up pressure and Dems will
get on board---but political capital is key
Inside US Trade 1/16, WHITE HOUSE SETS UP WHIP OPERATION FOR TPA
INVOLVING SENIOR OFFICIALS, lexis
Under the leadership of National Economic Council Director Jeff Zients,

the White House has set

up an operation of senior officials seeking to garner

votes for a fast-track or Trade Promotion Authority (TPA) bill, according to informed sources. This operation, which began in December and is ongoing, involves Cabinet officials assigned
to reach out to Democratic lawmakers perceived as gettable votes, outside interest groups, and former government officials, they said. U.S. Trade Representative Michael Froman is
involved in the effort, but Zients' prominence is necessary because Froman is also focused on closing the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) deal, one source said. According to Sen. John
Cornyn (R-TX), Froman has indicated to senators that TPP could be wrapped up in two months (see related story). The administration has acquiesced to Republican demands that a fasttrack bill be passed before TPP is concluded, and congressional Republicans hope to release a bill in early February, sources said. Republicans are also setting a target for final
congressional passage by the end of March, but some sources caution that this is very ambitious and noted that no firm decision has been made on the timeline. A pro-TPA lobbyist
described the activity as

a "whip effort"

that

is targeting Democratic lawmakers who

realistically would vote for a TPA bill.

In late July, President Obama discussed his trade agenda with a group of 12 pro-trade

this operation
fast-track bill approved, particularly since it is a

House Democrats that are seen as gettable TPA votes, the majority of whom are members of the New Democrat Coalition. The source noted that

shows the administration really wants

to see a

departure from its otherwise hands-off legislative approach . Cabinet-level officials are
attending bi-weekly meetings along with White House advisers like Valerie Jarrett, while deputies meet weekly on the TPA effort. Cabinet officials involved in this operation have been
assigned certain lawmakers or groups to whom they are to reach out to on TPA. The specific assignment can depend on a given lawmaker's interest in trade, or on an existing
relationship between an official and a lawmaker. For instance, Secretary of State John Kerry could reach out to a Democratic lawmaker who has an interest in foreign policy. Multiple

there is a good
chance that the Senate Finance Committee will kick off the action with a markup. That
would be followed by a House Ways & Means Committee markup, House floor action, and Senate floor action. This scenario, which has long been floated by TPA advocates,
would be beneficial to supporters because a fast-track bill is expected to garner
sources said the sequencing of which chamber will move first on a TPA bill has not yet been decided, although one informed source said

more Democratic support in Finance

than in Ways & Means. As a result,

having Finance go first

would build more momentum for passage while also providing political cover for
House Democrats to support a TPA bill. One possible scenario would then be for Ways & Means and the House as whole to pass a clean
TPA bill that would be amended in the Senate with other trade legislation such as the Generalized System of Preferences and potentially Trade Adjustment Assistance (TAA). Then the
House and Senate would hold a conference to hammer out a compromise version, which as a conference report would have to be approved by both chambers in an up-or-down vote.

This approach could reduce divisiveness in the House GOP because it

would avoid a contentious floor debate over TAA, since the House would never consider TAA in an amendable
trade bill, but only as part of a conference report. But it could also cause a backlash from the GOP ranks who might resent not having the chance to amend TAA, sources speculated.

The White House push could ratchet up in the near future , such as in Obama's State of the Union
address on Jan. 20. One industry source speculated that the administration has kept this operation quiet so as not to preempt a possible announcement on TPA by Obama during the
address. "They don't want to steal the president's thunder," he said. He said he expected to hear more about the White House effort publicly after the State of the Union, and that
Obama would subsequently ratchet up his public support of TPA. Rep. Kevin Brady (R-TX) said more important than what Obama says in the State of the Union are what actions he takes
to lobby Congressional Democrats on TPA. White House Press Secretary Josh Earnest hinted that

the administration would be

making a bigger push for trade , when asked by a reporter during the Jan. 13 daily press briefing on how hard the president is willing to
push Democrats to keep them from blocking an agreement on trade. "The President will make a forceful case

Republicans

to both Democrats and

that what he is doing [on trade] is clearly in the best interest of the American economy," he said. Separately, Brady told Inside U.S. Trade after a Jan. 13

House Ways & Means Committee hearing on U.S. economic growth that he had begun to hear about the Obama administration's efforts to press congressional Democrats in order to pass

It's
going to require his leadership to get this done. His personal leadership and political capital.
But I'm absolutely confident we can get this done." Asked to elaborate on what these whispers were, Brady emphasized that
Froman can't advocate for TPA on his own. "I think it's going to take an all-hands-on-deck approach by
a TPA bill. "We're hopeful that the president weighs in, and we start to hear some whispers that he is -- with some Democrats both in the House and the Senate," he said. "

the president

and the Cabinet.

And if they do that, there's actually no question that this

will succeed ," he added. U.S. Chamber of Commerce President Thomas Donohue also pinned his hopes on Obama being "very aggressive" on TPA in the State of the

Union address. Speaking at a Jan. 14 press conference, Donohue said the president has "begun to make it clear, first of all, to his own team that he wants the Cabinet and others up
there working on this. I'm hopeful that he'll be very aggressive on it at the State of the Union."

" really fight for [TPA],

Donohue called on Obama to

especially before members of his own party" during the Chamber's annual State of American Business address. But he added

Obama will have to "spend some time assuring Republicans of what

[TPA] is going to lead to." But Obama's task of wrangling Democrats to support TPA will not be easy, according to Bruce Josten, the Chamber's
that

executive vice president of government affairs. He estimated that there are "200 good Republican votes for this, but you want some balance [in the final vote count]." He added that
both House and Senate Republican leaderships are determined to renew TPA. At the same time, however, Donohue insisted during the press conference following his speech that

there are enough votes in Congress to get TPA passed.

"We believe there are plenty, plenty of votes to

get this done. I believe we will get it done," he said.

Dems are resistant to legalizing---soft on drugs

Adam Nagourney 14, 4/5/2014, Despite Support in Party, Democratic
Governors Resist Legalizing Marijuana,
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/04/06/us/politics/despite-support-in-party-democraticgovernors-resist-legalizing-marijuana.html?_r=0, JMP)
Even with Democrats and younger voters leading the wave of the prolegalization shift, these governors are standing back, supporting much
more limited medical-marijuana proposals or invoking the kind of law-andorder and public-health arguments more commonly heard from
Republicans. While 17 more states most of them leaning Democratic have seen
bills introduced this year to follow Colorado and Washington in approving
recreational marijuana, no sitting governor or member of the Senate has
offered a full-out endorsement of legalization . Only Gov. Peter Shumlin, a Democrat in
Vermont, which is struggling with a heroin problem, said he was open to the idea. Quite frankly, I dont think we
are ready, or want to go down that road, Dannel P. Malloy, the Democratic governor of Connecticut, which has
legalized medical marijuana and decriminalized possession of small amounts of marijuana, said in an interview.
Perhaps the best way to handle this is to watch those experiments that are underway. I dont think its necessary,
and I dont think its appropriate. The

hesitance expressed by these governors

reflects not only governing concerns but also, several analysts said, a historically rooted political
wariness of being portrayed as soft on crime by Republicans. In particular, Mr.
Brown, who is 75, lived through the culture wars of the 1960s, when Democrats suffered from being seen as
permissive on issues like this. Either they dont care about it as passionately or they feel embarrassed or

They fear the judgment, said Ethan Nadelmann, the founder of the
Drug Policy Alliance, an organization that favors decriminalization of marijuana. The fear of
being soft on drugs, soft on marijuana, soft on crime is woven into the
vulnerable.

DNA of American politicians, especially Democrats. He described that

sentiment as, Do not let yourself be outflanked by Republicans when it
comes to being tough on crime and tough on drugs. You will lose.

Solves global trade collapse

Kati Suominen 14, Visiting Assistant Adjunct Professor at UCLA Anderson School
of Management, Adjunct Fellow at CSIS, Ph.D. Political Economy from UC San Diego,
Aug 4 2014, Coming Apart: WTO fiasco highlights urgency for the U.S. to lead the
global trading system, katisuominen.wordpress.com/2014/08/04/coming-apart
threats are
disintegration of the trading system
WTO is utterly dysfunctional: deals require unanimity
Two

emerging. The first is

the
making any

. The core of the system until the mid-1990s,

among 160 members,

cantankerous

player

like India

a veto.

Aligning interests has been impossible, turning all action in global trade policymaking to free trade agreements (FTAs), first kicked off by the North American Free

Trade Agreement (NAFTA) in 1994. By now, 400 FTAs are in place or under negotiation. FTAs have been good cholesterol for trade, but the overlapping deals and rules also complicate life for U.S. companies doing global business.

The U.S.-led
talks for mega-regional agreements
TTIP)
and
TPP), are the best solution yet to these problems . They free
One single deal among all countries would be much preferable to the spaghetti bowl of FTAs, but it is but a pie in the sky. So is deeper liberalization by protectionist countries like India.

with Europe and Asia-Pacific nations, the Trans-Atlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (

Trans-Pacific Partnership (

trade and create uniform rules among

economy

. Incidentally, they would create a million jobs in America. Yet

Capitol Hill to pass

Party line up in opposition.

countries making up

two-thirds of the world

both hang in balance thanks to inaction on

the Trade Promotion Authority (

TPA

), the key piece of legislation for approving the mega-deals, now stuck in a bitter political fight as several Democrats and Tea

TPA is key for the Obama administration to conclude TPP and

TTIP talks Europeans and Asians are unwilling to negotiate the thorniest
:

topics before they know TPA is in place

to constrain U.S. Congress to voting up or down on these deals, rather than amending freshly negotiated

texts. The second threat in world trade is the absence of common rules of the game for the 21st century global digital economy. As 3D printing, Internet of Things, and cross-border ecommerce, and other disruptive technologies
expand trade in digital goods and services, intellectual property will be fair game why couldnt a company around the world simply replicate 3D printable products and designs Made in the USA? Another problem is

protectionism

data

rules on access and transport of data across borders. Europeans are imposing limits on companies access to consumer data, complicating U.S. businesses customer service and

marketing; emerging markets such as Brazil and Vietnam are forcing foreign IT companies to locate servers and build data centers as a condition for market access, measure that costs companies millions in inefficiencies. A growing
number of countries claim limits on access to data on the grounds of national security and public safety, familiar code words for protectionism.

balkanizing the global virtual economy

Digital protectionism risks

just as tariffs siloed national markets in the 19th century when countries set out to collect revenue and

digital
Trade policymakers
lag far behind
todays trade, which requires sophisticated rules
The mega-regionals, especially the TTIP, are a perfect to
start this
. Disintegration of trade policies risk disintegrating world
promote infant industries a self-defeating approach that took well over a century to undo, and is still alive and well in countries like India. The biggest losers of
consumers leveraging their laptops, iPads and smart phones to buy and sell goods and services around the planet.

protectionism are American small businesses and

however

on IP, piracy, copyrights, patents and trademarks, ecommerce, data flows,

virtual currencies, and dispute settlement.

venue

process

markets
the global trading system rests in Americas hands

approval of TPA unshackles U.S. negotiators to finalize TPP and

TTIP
TPP and TTIP will be giant
magnetic docking stations to outsiders; China and Brazil
are
interested
the TTIP-TPP superdeal will cover 80 percent of worlds
output and approximate a multilateral agreement
. Just as after World War II,

needed.

The first is the

. Three things are

, which

. Most interesting for U.S. exporters, TPP and TTIP almost de facto merge into a superdeal: the United States and EU already have bilateral FTAs with several common partners belonging in TPP Peru, Colombia, Chile,

Australia, Singapore, Canada, and Mexico to name a few. Whats more, gatekeepers to markets with two-thirds of global spending power,

, aiming to revive sagging growth,

. Once this happens,

and have cutting-edge common trade rules that could never be agreed in

one Big Bang at the WTO.

Causes global hotspot escalation---trade solves

Miriam Sapiro 14, Visiting Fellow in the Global Economy and Development
program at Brookings, former Deputy US Trade Representative, former Director of
European Affairs at the National Security Council, Why Trade Matters, September
2014, http://www.brookings.edu/~/media/research/files/papers/2014/09/why
%20trade%20matters/trade%20global%20views_final.pdf
This policy brief explores the economic rationale and strategic imperative of an ambitious domestic and global trade agenda from the perspective of the United States. International
trade is often viewed through the relatively narrow prism of trade-offs that might be made among domestic sectors or between trading partners, but it is important to consider also the

With that context in mind, this paper assesses the implications of the
Asia-Pacific and European trade negotiations underway , including for countries that are not
impact that increased trade has on global growth, development and security.

participating but aspire to join. It outlines some of the challenges that stand in the way of completion and ways in which they can be addressed. It examines whether the focus on megaregional trade agreements comes at the expense of broader liberalization or acts as a catalyst to develop higher standards than might otherwise be possible. It concludes with policy
recommendations for action by governments, legislators and stakeholders to address concerns that have been raised and create greater domestic support. It is fair to ask whether we

dire developments are threatening the security

interests of the United States and its partners in the Middle East, Asia, Africa and Europe. In the Middle East, significant areas of Iraq
have been overrun by a toxic offshoot of Al-Qaeda, civil war in Syria rages with no end in sight, and the Israelishould be concerned about the future of international trade policy when

Palestinian peace process is in tatters. Nuclear negotiations with Iran

have run into trouble, while Libya and Egypt face continuing instability and domestic challenges. In Asia, historic rivalries and
disputes over territory have heightened tensions across the region, most acutely by Chinas aggressive
moves in the S outh C hina S ea towards Vietnam, Japan and the Philippines. Nuclear-armed North
Korea remains isolated, reckless and unpredictable. In Africa, countries are struggling with rising terrorism, violence and corruption. In Europe,
Russia continues to foment instability and destruction in eastern Ukraine. And within the European Union, lagging
economic recovery and the surge in support for extremist parties have left people fearful of increasing violence against immigrants and minority groups and skeptical of further
integration. It is tempting to focus solely on these pressing problems and defer less urgent issuessuch as forging new disciplines for international tradeto another day, especially
when such issues pose challenges of their own. But that would be a mistake. A key motivation in building greater domestic and international consensus for

trade liberalization

now is precisely the role that greater economic integration can play in opening up new avenues of opportunity for promoting

development and increasing economic prosperity. Such initiatives

security

advancing

can help stabilize key regions and strengthen

of the United States and its partners. The last century provides a powerful example of how

can help reduce global tensions

and raise living standards.

the

expanding trade relations

Following World War II, building stronger economic

cooperation was a centerpiece of allied efforts to erase battle scars and embrace former enemies. In defeat, the economies of Germany, Italy and Japan faced ruin and people were on

A key element of the Marshall Plan, which established the

foundation for unprecedented growth and the level of European integration that exists today, was to revive trade by reducing tariffs.1 Russia, and the
the verge of starvation. The United States led efforts to rebuild Europe and to repair Japans economy.

eastern part of Europe that it controlled, refused to participate or receive such assistance. Decades later, as the Cold War ended, the United States and Western Europe sought to make
up for lost time by providing significant technical and financial assistance to help integrate central and eastern European countries with the rest of Europe and the global economy.
There have been subsequent calls for a Marshall Plan for other parts of the world,2 although the confluence of dedicated resources, coordinated support and existing capacity has been
difficult to replicate. Nonetheless, important lessons have been learned about the valuable role

economic development can play in

defusing tensions , and how opening markets can hasten growth. There is again a growing recognition that economic security and national security are two
sides of the same coin. General Carter Ham, who stepped down as head of U.S. Africa Command last year, observed the close connection between increasing prosperity and bolstering
stability. During his time in Africa he had seen that security and stability in many ways depends a lot more on economic growth and opportunity than it does on military strength.3
Where people have opportunities for themselves and their children, he found, the result was better governance, increased respect for human rights and lower levels of conflict. During
his confirmation hearing last year, Secretary John Kerry stressed the link between economic and national security in the context of the competitiveness of the United States but the point
also has broader application. Our nation cannot be strong abroad, he argued, if it is not strong at home, including by putting its own fiscal house in order. He assertedrightly sothat

Every day, he said, that

goes by where America is uncertain about engaging in that arena, or unwilling to put our best foot forward and win, unwilling to
more than ever foreign policy is economic policy, particularly in light of increasing competition for global resources and markets.

demonstrate our resolve to lead , is a day in which we weaken our nation itself.4
Strengthening Americas economic security by cementing
not simply an option, but an

its

economic alliances is

imperative . A strong nation needs a strong economy that can generate growth, spur innovation and create jobs. This is true, of course, not

only for the United States but also for its key partners and the rest of the global trading system. Much as the United States led the way in forging strong military alliances after World War
II to discourage a resurgence of militant nationalism in Europe or Asia, now is the time to place equal emphasis on shoring up our collective economic security. A

act now could undermine

international security and place

stability in key regions

failure to

in further jeopardy.

1NC CP
The Food and Drug Administration should reclassify marijuana
to allow scientific research.
The President of the United States should publicly announce
that the official policy of the executive branch is to respect the
rights of states to establish marijuana policy.
The Treasury Department should eliminates rules that fail to
accommodate legal marijuana businesses
State governments in the United States other than Oklahoma
and Nebraska should legalize and regulate the cultivation,
possession, consumption and distribution of marihuana.
The Supreme Court should grant Nebraska and Oklahoma
permission to sue Colorado on the basis that its laws
regulating marihuana are a violation of the Controlled
Substance Act.
The Supreme Court should issue an expedited ruling on the
case and award damages if Nebraska and Oklahoma prevail.

These executive actions solve their federal signal links and set
the table for more extensive federal reforms
Weiner 1/20/15 Former US Representative [Anthony Weiner, Now Is The Time For Obama To Make
A Move On Marijuana, The Business Insider, Jan. 20, 2015, 5:07 PM, pg. http://tinyurl.com/qgpeql6

Some issues advance because of forceful and unifying leadership from politicians,
but more often progress happens and politicians take notice. Gay marriage and relations with Cuba
had evolved so far in the public debate that eventually courts and elected leaders
came around in a way that was unforeseen even a few years ago. Marijuana policy is following a
similar arc. Twenty three states and the District of Columbia have now have legalized
cannabis for medical or recreational use. Most of these laws have come from citizen referenda and
many of the states in question have Republican legislatures.

This isn't a fringe issue any more. In fact, a coalition of libertarians, millennials,
social liberals, medical experts, patients' rights advocates, economists, and law
enforcement officials, have moved marijuana smack in the middle of the
mainstream of policy.
But the President doesn't have to be pro-pot to take some smart and needed steps to clear up some of the odd
disconnections that exist in a country where states have made uses of marijuana legal while the federal
government hasn't caught on.

are three common sense executive actions that the President should announce
tonight that would set the table for a more sober pot policy:
Here

1.

Make it legal for scientists to study the benefits of marijuana :

There is now broad consensus in the medical community that there are legitimate
and hugely helpful uses of cannabis as treatment for many diseases and ailments. For example, the oils
have been shown to reduce seizures in children with epilepsy and the plant is in wide use to help soldiers calm the
symptoms of PTSD. But in a bizarre Catch 22, the only way to study marijuana is to be in violation of federal law
that still makes it illegal to own the stuff.
Cannabis is considered a Class 1 narcotic by the Food and Drug Administration. As such, it is treated as though it

Because of this federal

regulation, marijuana can't be used in a study or even transported to a clinician's
lab. In his address this evening, the President should announce he is asking the FDA to review
whether marijuana should be reclassified so we can conduct further scientific research.
has high abuse potential and zero medicinal value (even Cocaine isn't Class 1).

2.

Announce that states rights will be respected on marijuana laws :

State

legislators and voters have set up regimes in their states with laws,
regulations, and taxes for marijuana. However, a law abiding citizen of Connecticut or Alabama
could still find themselves at the wrong side of a federal indictment because of the schizophrenia that exists
between federal and state law enforcement.

Justice Department has taken an unofficial hands off policy. Still, if the
President drops a line or two into his speech on Tuesday that makes it clear he respects the
rights of the states here, it will calm the concerns of many in those jurisdictions,
encourage investment, and also probably get both sides of the aisle clapping at once in a Congress where
For the most part, the

that rarely happens.

3.

Deregulate the banking industry for marijuana businesses.

Drug-related crime is down in states that have legalized some uses of marijuana. Just as drug reform advocates
predicted, when you lift an industry out of the black market, regulate it, and tax it, the criminals move on to other
things. However, because of the federal banking regulations, lawful marijuana businesses can't use normal banks.
Because of this one crime is on the rise: business having stashes of cash that they can't deposit anywhere stolen.

the thicket of anti-money laundering laws that

is ripe for executive
action that few could disagree with: order the treasury department to review
This isn't an easy problem to untangle because of

are on the books and the different bank charter rules in the 50 states. Still, the area

the laws to accommodate legal marijuana businesses .

the first step may be to loosen the
rules that keep the operating cash, profits, and even the collected taxes in shoe
boxes rather than checking accounts.
If we want to encourage a stable and well-regulated industry,

However, preserving the inconsistency between Amendment 64

and the CSA forms the foundation for the Nebraska/Oklahoma
suit against Colorado. Federal legalization eliminates the

constitutional justification the Court would use to rule in favor

of Nebraska/Oklahoma
Rivkin & Foley 12/28/14 Constitutional litigator who served in the Justice Department and
White House Counsels Office in the Reagan and George H.W. Bush administrations & professor of constitutional
law @ Florida International University College of Law [David B. Rivkin Jr. & Elizabeth Price Foley Federal
Antidrug Law Goes Up in Smoke, Wall Street Journal, Dec. 28, 2014 6:52 p.m. ET, http://tinyurl.com/nfmufvu

The Controlled Substances Act can be amended or repealed. Congress has taken a step
in this direction by providing in its recent omnibus spending bill that the Justice Department
cannot use appropriated funds to prevent states from implementing laws that authorize the use, distribution or
cultivation of medicinal marijuana.

This development may lead the Supreme Court to take another look at the CSAs
constitutionality, something that could occur in the context of the Oklahoma and Nebraska
lawsuit against Colorado. Alternatively , Attorney General Eric Holder could use his
authority under the Controlled Substances Act to remove marijuana from Schedule I. But
Coloradansor the citizens of any other statelack the power in our constitutional regime
to enact a law that conflicts with the CSA.
When federal power has been legitimately invoked, states may not go rogue. When
they do, sister states that can demonstrate concrete injury are entitled to obtain a
court declaration that state laws in conflict with federal law are unconstitutional .
Normally such lawsuits wouldnt be necessary because the federal government would enforce its superior law
against rogue states. But these arent ordinary constitutional times, and it isnt fair-weather federalism to
defend these core constitutional principles.

Their victory will create an affirmative obligation to control

GHG emissions
Adler 12/19/14 - Professor of constitutional, administrative, and environmental law @ Case Western
University School of Law [Jonathan H. Adler (Johan Verheij Memorial Professor of Law and Director of the Center
for Business Law and Regulation), Are Nebraska and Oklahoma just fair-weather federalists?, Washington Post,
December 19, 2014, pg. http://tinyurl.com/ktuugho

Accept for the argument that Colorados legalization of marijuana under state law imposes costs on Nebraska and
Oklahoma that are tantamount to an interstate nuisance. Now think about what happens if the plaintiff states are

If Colorados laws regulating marijuana are preempted, marijuana will

remain legal in Colorado federal law cannot force Colorado to implement
federal preferences on marijuana policy and Colorado law enforcement will still
have no obligation to enforce federal law . So marijuana sale, use, and possession would
successful.

become less regulated and subject to less control in Colorado. This will make it more difficult for federal officials
to police interstate trafficking, and the nuisance about which Oklahoma and Nebraska are complaining would
likely get worse.

Nebraska and Oklahoma would argue that Colorado has an affirmative duty
to control marijuana within its state . This would be an astounding argument for these
states to make, particularly given the positions they have take against commandeering of
state officials in other areas. One could perhaps argue that the anti-commandeering
rule only applies to Congress, and does not prohibit courts from ordering affirmative relief ,
Perhaps

any such argument made here still boils down to the claim that Colorado has an
affirmative obligation to regulate a product because the federal government

but

and neighboring states have

[has] chosen to make it illegal .

given the efforts by Nebraska and Oklahoma to resist federal environmental

initiatives where similar nuisance arguments and prayers for relief in court could
be made a victory here (however unlikely) would dramatically increase federal
regulatory authority. Were Nebraska and Oklahoma able to convince the Supreme
Court that Colorado has an affirmative duty to control marijuana use within the state, it
wont be long before New York, Connecticut and other northeastern states are in federal
court arguing that Oklahoma, Nebraska, and other states have an affirmative obligation
Indeed,

to control greenhouse gas emissions and other pollutants . Is that really what the
plaintiff states are trying to accomplish? (Note that the two scenarios cant be distinguished
on displacement grounds, as if the CAA displaces such claims over emissions, the CSA must displace
those involving marijuana.)

Successful litigation will halt climate change. Litigation forces

Congressional reforms
Flynn 13 JD Candidate @ Georgia State University College of Law [James Flynn, Climate of Confusion:
Climate Change Litigation in the wake of American Electric Power v. Connecticut, Georgia State University Law
Review, Spring, 2013, 29 Ga. St. U.L. Rev. 823, pg. lexis

1. Monitoring Current Enforcement

In light of the EPA's authority to regulate greenhouse gas emissions and the Court's decision in American Electric,
global warming activists must ask themselves whether

litigation is still a useful way to spur

governmental action . Indeed, it may be that such litigation is becoming counterproductive. Is it time to
"call off the dogs" and let the federal government work? The answer is a resounding no. n255 Concerned
advocates and

states must continue to litigate climate change issues.

[*860] Climate change is an issue that requires action sooner rather than later. n256
While the EPA, as an expert agency, may be in the best position to deal with the issue, as the American Electric

it would be unwise for advocates to postpone litigation for two reasons:

first, the EPA's ability and authority to regulate greenhouse gases are subject to change;
and second, even if the EPA regulates those emissions, the process may be delayed .
The EPA, an administrative agency, is subject to policy changes with each new president.
n257 Future policy changes may undermine any regulatory action the EPA takes on
greenhouse gas emissions. n258 Moreover, the agency is subject to the whim of
Congressional funding. Hostile Republican legislators in 2011 threatened the EPA's
ability to enforce any of its regulations. n259 Congressional rhetoric portrays the agency as a job-killing
behemoth. n260 Precious time will be lost if advocates refrain from litigating the issue
Court suggests,

and Congress manages to limit or repeal the agency's ability to regulate greenhouse gas emissions.

Even if Congressional threats to the EPA do not succeed, American Electric suggests that
the EPA's authority to regulate greenhouse gas emissions displaces federal common law
nuisance claims, even if the EPA refuses to regulate greenhouse gas emissions from existing power plants.
n261 Delays in the rulemaking process [*861] could postpone any actual regulation
of those emissions. n262 Furthermore, the EPA's authority to regulate and the

regulations themselves are often challenged in court, n263 which could lead to
further delay in implementing new regulations. Thus, advocates must use litigation to put
pressure on the EPA to ensure it complies with its duty to regulate greenhouse
gases. That pressure should be shifted to fossil fuel companies if the EPA fails to issue
regulations that are sufficient to make an impact on global warming.
2. Turning Up the Heat on Congress: Litigating to Legislate

a concerted global effort. n264 Such an effort

cannot succeed without the leadership, or at least support, of the United States. n265 Real
change in the United States requires comprehensive legislation that covers all facets of global
The only solution to anthropogenic global warming is

warming: greenhouse gas emissions, land use, efficiency, and sustainable growth. In addition to maximizing time
until the EPA either issues regulations or is prevented from doing so by Congress,

litigation advances the

goal of such comprehensive legislation in three ways.

litigation keeps the pressure on fossil fuel companies and other large emitters.
Comprehensive legislation is a near impossibility as long as the largest
contributors to global greenhouse gas emissions are able to exert powerful control over the
nation's [*862] energy policy and the climate change discussion. n266 While the companies have
the financial resources to battle in court, it is imperative that advocates and states
make them do so. One need only look at the tobacco litigation of the 1960s through the
First,

to understand that success against a major industry is possible . n267 Here,

though, the stakes are even higher. The chances of obtaining a largescale settlement from the
fossil fuel industry is likely smaller now that the Court has ruled that some federal common law
nuisance claims are displaced, because lower courts may hold that nuisance claims for money damages
are also displaced. n268 However, advocates of climate change legislation should keep
trying to obtain such a settlement through other tort remedies. A substantially damaging
settlement may encourage fossil fuel companies to reposition their assets into
1990s

more sustainable technologies to avoid more settlements, thus minimizing future

emissions . Alternatively, if the fossil fuel companies feel threatened enough, they may
begin to use their clout to persuade Congress to pass comprehensive legislation to
protect their industry from such wide-ranging suits. n269
Second, litigation keeps the issue in the public consciousness during a time when the media is
failing at its responsibilities to the public. n270 The media's coverage of climate change has been both inadequate
and misleading. n271 Indeed, some polls suggest Americans [*863] believe less in climate change now than just a

Litigation, especially high-profile litigation, forces the issue into the public
sphere, even though it may receive a negative connotation in the media. The more the public hears
about the issue, the greater chance that people will demand their local and state
politicians take action.
few years ago. n272

litigation sends a clear message to Congress that simple appeasements will

not suffice. n273 Comprehensive legislation is needed--legislation that mandates
Finally,

consistently declining emissions levels while simultaneously propping up

replacement sources of energy. n274 Fill-in measures, like the EPA's authority to regulate emissions
from power plants, are not sufficient. Humans need energy, and there can be no doubt that we must strike a
balance between energy needs and risks to the environment.

Catastrophic climate change, however, is

simply a risk that we cannot take; it overwhelms the short-term benefits we receive
from the burning of fossil fuels. n275 Advocates and states must demonstrate to
Congress [*864] through continuing litigation that the issue is critical and that plaintiffs like
those in Kivalina and Comer are suffering genuine losses that demand redress that current statutes do not
currently provide.
CONCLUSION
American Electric proved less important for the precedent it set than for the questions it left unanswered. While
courts wrestled over standing, the political question doctrine, and displacement in climate change nuisance cases
in the years preceding American Electric, the Supreme Court relied only on the clear displacement path

While the decision in American Electric

narrowed the litigation options that climate change advocates have at their disposal, it subtly sent
a message to Congress that greater federal action is needed . In writing such a narrow
ruling, Justice Ginsburg also sent a message to states and advocates--whether intentionally or not--that
climate change litigation is not dead. Until Congress enacts comprehensive climate
change legislation, global warming lawsuits will, and must, continue.
illuminated by its earlier decision in Massachusetts.

Failure risks extinction

Cribb 14 - Canberra science writer [Julian Cribb, Human extinction: it is possible?, Sydney Morning
Herald, Published: April 2, 2014 - 12:28PM, Pg. http://www.smh.com.au/comment/human-extinction-it-is-possible20140402-zqpln.html

our own behaviour is liable to be a far more immediate determinant of human

survival or extinction. Above two degrees which we have already locked in the worlds food
harvest is going to become increasingly unreliable , as the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate
Change warned this week. That means mid-century famines in places like India , China ,
However

the Middle East and Africa . But what scientists cannot predict is how humans living in the tropics and
subtropics will respond to this form of stress. So let us turn to the strategic and military think tanks, who like to
explore such scenarios, instead.
The Age of Consequences study by the US Centre for Strategic and International Studies says that under a 2.6
degree rise nations around the world will be overwhelmed by the scale of change and pernicious challenges, such

internal cohesion of nations will be under great stressas a result of

a dramatic rise in migration and changes in agricultural patterns and water availability. The flooding of
as pandemic disease. The

coastal communities around the world has the potential to challenge regional and even national identities.

Armed conflict between nations over resources is likely and nuclear war is possible .
The social consequences range from increased religious fervour to outright chaos. Of five degrees which the
world is on course for by 2100 if present carbon emissions continue it simply says the consequences are
"inconceivable".

Eighteen nations currently have nuclear weapons

technology

or access to it, raising

the stakes on nuclear conflict to the highest level since the end of the Cold
War. At the same time, with more than 4 billion people living in the worlds most vulnerable regions, scope for
refugee tsunamis and pandemic disease is also large. It is on the basis of scenarios such as these
that scientists like Peter Schellnhuber science advisor to German President Angela Merkel and
Canadian author Gwynne Dyer have warned of the potential loss of most of the human
population in the conflicts, famines and pandemics spinning out of climate
impacts. Whether that adds up to extinction or not rather depends on how many of
the worlds 20,000 nukes are let off in the process . These issues all involve assumptions about
human, national and religious behaviour and are thus beyond the remit of scientific bodies like the IPCC, which can
only hint at what they truly think will happen. So you are not getting the full picture from them.

a global energy stampede is taking

place as oil, gas, coal, tar sands and other miners (who, being technical folk, understand quite
clearly what they are doing to the planet) rush to release as much carbon as possible as
profitably as possible before society takes the inevitable decision to ban it
altogether. Thanks to them, humanity isnt sleep-walking to disaster so much as racing
However in a classic case of improvident human behaviour,

headlong to embrace it . Do the rest of us have the foresight, and the guts, to stop them? Our
ultimate survival will be predicated entirely on our behaviour not only on how well we adapt to
unavoidable change, but also how quickly we apply the brakes.
Which form of human behaviour prevails will probably settle the extinction
argument , one way or the other. Its our call.

Environment

Heg
NPS has a role in envt diplomacywont collapse w/o them
internal link is several years old, empirically denies
Key to leadership
Walter, 02 [Norbert, Chief Economist Deutsche Bank Group, NYT, 8-28, Lexis]

At present there is much talk about the unparalleled strength of the United
States on the world stage. Yet at this very moment the most powerful
country in the world stands to forfeit much political capital, moral
authority and international good will by dragging its feet on the
next great global issue: the environment . Before long, the
administration's apparent unwillingness to take a leadership role -or, at the very least, to stop acting as a brake -- in fighting global
environmental degradation will threaten the very basis of the
American supremacy that many now seem to assume will last forever.
American authority is already in some danger as a result of the Bush
administration's decision to send a low-level delegation to the World Summit
on Sustainable Development in Johannesburg -- low-level, that is, relative to
America's share of both the world economy and global pollution. The
absence of President Bush from Johannesburg symbolizes this decline in
authority. In recent weeks, newspapers around the world have been
dominated by environmental headlines: In central Europe, flooding killed
dozens, displaced tens of thousands and caused billions of dollars in
damages. In South Asia, the United Nations reports a brown cloud of
pollution that is responsible for hundreds of thousands of deaths a year from
respiratory disease. The pollution (80 percent man-made) also cuts sunlight
penetration, thus reducing rainfall, affecting agriculture and otherwise
altering the climate. Many other examples of environmental degradation,
often related to the warming of the atmosphere, could be cited. What they all
have in common is that they severely affect countries around the world and
are fast becoming a chief concern for people everywhere. Nobody is
suggesting that these disasters are directly linked to anything the United
States is doing. But when a country that emits 25 percent of the world's
greenhouse gases acts as an uninterested, sometimes hostile bystander in
the environmental debate, it looks like unbearable arrogance to many people
abroad. The administration seems to believe it is merely an observer -- that
environmental issues are not its issues. But not doing anything amounts
to ignoring a key source of world tension, and no superpower that
wants to preserve its status can go on dismissing such a pivotal
dimension of political and economic -- if not existential -- conflict. In my
view, there is a clear-cut price to be paid for ignoring the views of just about

every other country in the world today. The United States is jettisoning its
hard-won moral and intellectual authority and perhaps the strategic
advantages that come with being a good steward of the international
political order. The United States may no longer be viewed as a leader
or reliable partner in policymaking: necessary, perhaps inevitable, but
not desirable, as it has been for decades. All of this because America's
current leaders are not willing to acknowledge the very real concerns
of many people about global environmental issues .

AT: Amazon
Takas impact is from 1996empirically denied
Internal link about drugs = about intl trafficking
Amazon deforestation went up by 29% last year due to things
totally unrelated to the aff
The Guardian 9-11 ("Amazon deforestation jumps 29%,"
www.theguardian.com/environment/2014/sep/11/amazon-deforestation-jumps)
The destruction of the worlds largest rainforest accelerated last year with
a 29% spike in deforestation, according to final figures released by the Brazilian
government on Wednesday that confirmed a reversal in gains seen since 2009.
Satellite data for the 12 months through the end of July 2013 showed that
5,891 sq km of forest were cleared in the Brazilian Amazon, an area half
the size of Puerto Rico. Fighting the destruction of the Amazon is considered
crucial for reducing global warming because deforestation worldwide accounts for
15% of annual emissions of heat-trapping gases, more than the entire
transportation sector. Besides being a giant carbon sink, the Amazon is a
biodiversity sanctuary, holding billions of species yet to be studied. Preliminary data
released late last year by Brazils space research center INPE had indicated
deforestation was on the rise again, as conservationist groups had warned. The
largest increases in deforestation were seen in the states of Para and
Mato Grosso, where the bulk of Brazils agricultural expansion is taking
place. More than 1,000 sq km has been cleared in each state. Other reasons for
the rebound in deforestation include illegal logging and the invasion of
public lands adjacent to big infrastructure projects in the Amazon, such as
roads and hydroelectric dams.

Brownfield

1NC Treaties
US cant dictate global drug policy. States are acting
independently
Serrano 12 - Senior Editor @ TIME.com [Alfonso Serrano, How Latin America May Lead the World in
Decriminalizing Drug Use, Time, Oct. 09, 2012, pg. http://tinyurl.com/967gbw4

Latin American Presidents across the political spectrum

have joined Prez in spearheading a hemispheric debate on drug legalization
unprecedented for sitting heads of state. Traditional drug policy focused solely on prohibition a method
dictated by the U.S. since Richard Nixon created the Drug Enforcement Administration 40 years ago has run
In the past few months,

its course , they argue. In its place, Latin America has proposed a series of
measures focusing on alternative strategies, emerging as the key player
in the global reform movement .
The

genie has escaped from the bottle and it isnt going away, Hannah Hetzer
tells TIME. Hetzer, Latin America coordinator for the U.S.-based Drug Policy
Alliance, recently returned from Uruguay, where she addressed members of parliament on the drug-legalization
movement in the U.S. More and more countries in Latin America are following
their own diverse set of drug-policy reforms .
several have taken steps to
decriminalize narcotics. Argentina introduced a measure in Congress this year that would decriminalize
While no Latin American nation has legalized drugs yet,

the possession of all drugs for personal use. Chiles Congress, meanwhile, is contemplating a bill that would
decriminalize the cultivation of marijuana for personal use. And a Colombian court recently upheld a law that
decriminalizes the possession of small amounts of cocaine. Like Mexico, Colombia has also decriminalized the
possession of small amounts of marijuana.
But no country has proposed more drastic reform than Uruguay. President Jos Mujicas center-left Broad Front party
introduced a measure this summer that would not only legalize marijuana consumption but also place the
government at the helm of production and distribution. The bill, which would allow citizens to purchase up to 40 g of
cannabis per month, materialized as the tiny nation of 3.5 million inhabitants scrambles to battle drug-related
violence.
Our central concern is how narcotics trafficking is progressively altering certain aspects of Uruguayan culture and
society, Julio Calzada, secretary general of Uruguays National Committee on Drugs, tells TIME. The proposal
aspires to regulate the marijuana market with strict state control, which would allow us to guarantee users
marijuana access without being in contact with the criminal world.
The measure, which would permit the government to regulate the estimated $40 million marijuana market, will be
debated in Uruguays Congress for the next six months. Although party divisions exist, Calzada believes there is
enough political support to approve some form of the bill next spring. Most opposition to the bill, Calzada points out,
has come from marijuana users who worry about excessive government control and from physicians who fear
increased rates of drug addiction.

The U.S., meanwhile, has resisted any alternatives to its prohibitionist

drug policy. But signs of a possible shift are starting to bubble . Earlier this year
at the Summit of the Americas in Colombia, the Obama Administration said that
legalization was worthy of debate. And during a visit to Mexico in March, Vice President Joe Biden
called the debate over drug legalization legitimate, but he underlined that the Administration would not alter its
stance opposing legislation.

Drug money laundering is necessary to insulate banks from

crisis in the future our evidence cites the head of UN office on
drugs and crime
Syal 12/12/14 (Rajeev, The Guardian, Drug money saved banks in global crisis, claims UN advisor,
http://www.theguardian.com/global/2009/dec/13/drug-money-banks-saved-un-cfief-claims)

Drugs money worth billions of dollars kept the financial system afloat at
the height of the global crisis , the United Nations' drugs and crime tsar has told the Observer.
Antonio Maria

Costa, head of the UN Office on Drugs and Crime , said he has

seen evidence that the proceeds of organised crime were " the only liquid
investment capital " available to some banks on the brink of collapse last year. He
said that a majority of the $352bn (216bn) of drugs profits was absorbed into
the economic system as a result.
This will raise questions about crime's influence on the economic system
at times of crisis. It will also prompt further examination of the banking
sector as world leaders, including Barack Obama and Gordon Brown, call for new
International Monetary Fund regulations. Speaking from his office in Vienna, Costa said
evidence that illegal money was being absorbed into the financial system was first drawn to his attention by

the money from

drugs was the only liquid investment capital . In the second half of 2008,
liquidity was the banking system's main problem and hence liquid capital
intelligence agencies and prosecutors around 18 months ago. "In many instances,

became an important factor ," he said.

gang money was used to save some
banks from collapse when lending seized up , he said.
Some of the evidence put before his office indicated that

"Inter-bank

trade

loans were funded by money that originated from the drugs

and other illegal activities... There were signs that some banks were rescued that way." Costa declined to

identify countries or banks that may have received any drugs money, saying that would be inappropriate because

the money is now a

part of the official system and had been effectively laundered.
his office is supposed to address the problem, not apportion blame. But he said

"That

was the moment [last year] when the system was basically [stopped]

paralysed because of the unwillingness of banks to lend money to one another. The
progressive liquidisation to the system and the progressive improvement by some banks of their share values [has
meant that] the problem [of illegal money] has become much less serious than it was," he said.

large US and European banks lost more than $1tn on toxic

assets and from bad loans from January 2007 to September 2009 and more than 200 mortgage
lenders went bankrupt. Many major institutions either failed , were acquired under
duress, or were subject to government takeover.
The IMF estimated that

Gangs are now believed to make most of their profits from the drugs trade
and are estimated to be worth 352bn, the UN says. They have traditionally kept proceeds in cash or
moved it offshore to hide it from the authorities. It is understood that evidence that drug money has flowed into
banks came from officials in Britain, Switzerland, Italy and the US.

Liquidity shock crushes global economy

Evans-Pritchard 10/14/14 http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/economics/11162217/BIS-warnson-violent-reversal-of-global-markets.html, International Business Editor, Uk Telegrpah- well known investigative
reporter for the Economist as well,

The global financial markets are dangerously stretched and may unwind
with shock force as liquidity dries up, the Bank of International Settlements has warned. Guy
Debelle, head of the BISs market committee, said investors have become far too
complacent, wrongly believing that central banks can protect them, many staking bets that
are bound to blow up as the first sign of stress. In a speech in Sydney, Mr Debelle
said: The

sell-off, particularly in fixed income, could be relatively violent when it comes.

There are a number of investors buying assets on the presumption of a
level of liquidity which is not there . This is not evident when positions are being put on, but
will become readily apparent when investors attempt to exit their
positions. The exits tend to get jammed unexpectedly and rapidly. Mr Debelle, who
is also chief of financial markets at Australias Reserve Bank, said any sell-off could be amplified because nominal
interest rates are already zero across most of the industrial world. That is a point we havent started from before.
There are undoubtedly positions out there which are dependent on (close to) zero funding costs. When funding
costs are no longer close to zero, these positions will blow up, he said. An employee of Christie's auction house
manoeuvres a Lehman Brothers corporate logo, which is estimated to sell for 1500 GBP and is featured in the sale

the
world economy is in many respects more vulnerable to a financial crisis
than it was in 20 07 . Debt ratios are now far higher, and emerging markets have also been drawn into the fire
over the last five years. The world as whole has never been more leveraged. Debt ratios in the
developed economies have risen by 20 percentage points to 275pc of GDP since the
Lehman Brothers crash. The new twist is that emerging markets have also been on a debt
spree, partly as a spill-over from quantitative easing in the West. This has caused a flood of dollar liquidity into
of art owned by the collapsed investment bank Lehman Brothers The BIS warned earlier this summer that

these countries that they have struggled to control. It has pushed up their debt ratios by 20 percentage points to

China was
able to act as a stabilizing force during the global downturn of 2009 , letting rip with an
175pc, and much of the borrowing has been at an average real rate of 1pc that is unlikely to last.

immense burst of credit. These buffers are now largely exhausted . All of the
BRICS (Brazil, Russia, India, China, South Africa) countries have hit structural limits, and face difficulties of one form
or another. Mr Debelle said the markets may at any time start to question whether the global authorities have
matters under control, or whether their pledge to hold down rates through forward guidance can be believed. I find
it somewhat surprising that the market is willing to accept the central banks at their word, and not think so much
for themselves, he said.

Erosion of economic checks causes nuclear conflict

Harold James 14, Professor of history at Princeton Universitys Woodrow Wilson School who specializes in
European economic history, 7/2/14, Debate: Is 2014, like 1914, a prelude to world war?,
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/globe-debate/read-and-vote-is-2014-like-1914-a-prelude-to-worldwar/article19325504/
As we get closer to the centenary of Gavrilo Princips act of terrorism in Sarajevo, there is an ever more vivid fear:

it could happen again . The approach of the hundredth anniversary of 1914 has

put a spotlight on the fragility of the worlds

political and

economic security

systems .
At the beginning of 2013, Luxembourgs Prime Minister Jean-Claude Juncker was widely ridiculed for evoking the

the security situation in the

South China Sea deteriorated, Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe cast China as the equivalent to
Kaiser Wilhelms Germany; and the fighting in Ukraine and in Iraq is a sharp reminder
of the dangers of escalation.
shades of 1913. By now he is looking like a prophet. By 2014, as

The main
story of today as then is the precariousness of financial globalization , and
Lessons of 1914 are about more than simply the dangers of national and sectarian animosities.
the consequences that political leaders draw from it.

the interdependency of
the increasingly complex global economy made war impossible. But a
In the influential view of Norman Angell in his 1910 book The Great Illusion,

quite opposite conclusion was possible and equally plausible

and proved

to be the case . Given the extent of fragility, a clever twist to the control
levers might make war easily winnable by the economic hegemon.
In the wake of an epochal financial crisis that almost brought a complete
global collapse, in 1907, several countries started to think of finance as
primarily an instrument of raw power, one that could and should be turned to national
advantage.
The 1907 panic emanated from the United States but affected the rest of the world and demonstrated the fragility
of the whole international financial order. The aftermath of the 1907 crash drove the then hegemonic power Great
Britain - to reflect on how it could use its financial power.
Between 1905 and 1908, the British Admiralty evolved the broad outlines of a plan for financial and economic
warfare that would wreck the financial system of its major European rival, Germany, and destroy its fighting
capacity.
Britain used its extensive networks to gather information about opponents. London banks financed most of the
worlds trade. Lloyds provided insurance for the shipping not just of Britain, but of the world. Financial networks
provided the information that allowed the British government to find the sensitive strategic vulnerabilities of the
opposing alliance.
What pre-1914 Britain did anticipated the private-public partnership that today links technology giants such as
Google, Apple or Verizon to U.S. intelligence gathering. Since last year, the Edward Snowden leaks about the NSA
have shed a light on the way that global networks are used as a source of intelligence and power.
For Britains rivals, the financial panic of 1907 showed the necessity of mobilizing financial powers themselves. The
United States realized that it needed a central bank analogous to the Bank of England. American financiers thought
that New York needed to develop its own commercial trading system that could handle bills of exchange in the
same way as the London market.

the dynamics of the pre-1914 financial world are now re-emerging.

Then an economically declining power , Britain, wanted to use finance as a
weapon against its larger and faster growing competitors, Germany and the United States. Now America
is in turn obsessed by being overtaken by China according to some calculations, set to
Some of

become the worlds largest economy in 2014.

In the aftermath of the 2008 financial crisis, financial institutions appear

both as dangerous weapons of mass destruction , but also as potential instruments for the
application of national power.
In managing the 2008 crisis, the dependence of foreign banks on U.S. dollar funding constituted a major weakness,
and required the provision of large swap lines by the Federal Reserve. The United States provided that support to
some countries, but not others, on the basis of an explicitly political logic, as Eswar Prasad demonstrates in his new
book on the Dollar Trap.
Geo-politics is intruding into banking practice elsewhere. Before the Ukraine crisis, Russian banks were trying to
acquire assets in Central and Eastern Europe. European and U.S. banks are playing a much reduced role in Asian
trade finance. Chinese banks are being pushed to expand their role in global commerce. After the financial crisis,
China started to build up the renminbi as a major international currency. Russia and China have just proposed to
create a new credit rating agency to avoid what they regard as the political bias of the existing (American-based)
agencies.
The next stage in this logic is to think about how financial power can be directed to national advantage in the case
of a diplomatic tussle. Sanctions are a routine (and not terribly successful) part of the pressure applied to rogue
states such as Iran and North Korea. But financial pressure can be much more powerfully applied to countries that
are deeply embedded in the world economy.
The test is in the Western imposition of sanctions after the Russian annexation of Crimea. President Vladimir Putins
calculation in response is that the European Union and the United States cannot possibly be serious about the
financial war. It would turn into a boomerang: Russia would be less affected than the more developed and complex
financial markets of Europe and America.

The threat of systemic disruption generates a new sort of uncertainty, one

that mirrors the decisive feature of the crisis of the summer of 1914 . At
that time, no one could really know whether clashes would escalate or not .
That feature contrasts remarkably with almost the entirety of the Cold War, especially since the 1960s, when the
strategic doctrine of M utually A ssured D estruction left no doubt that
any superpower conflict would inevitably escalate .
The idea of network disruption relies on the ability to achieve advantage by surprise, and to win at no or low cost.
But it is inevitably a gamble, and raises prospect that others might, but also might not be able to, mount the same

there is an enhanced temptation to roll the dice,

even though the game may be fatal.

sort of operation. Just as in 1914,

Reject their media spin experts conclude Afghanistan will

remain stable.
Karp and OHanlon 1/7, Candace: PhD, Senior Program Officer at US Institute for Peace,
Michael: PhD, director of research for the Foreign Policy program at the Brookings Institution, Adjunct
Professor at Johns Hopkins, 2015, Protecting the Gains in Afghanistan,
http://www.brookings.edu/research/opinions/2015/01/07-protecting-afghanistan-gains-ohanlon,
Accessed 1/20/15

By most U.S. media accounts , Afghanistan is at best a largely forgotten cause; at worst,
lost. Even apart from the recent attacks on Kabul and Taliban gains, costs have been higher and
accomplishments less solid than they should have been.

But measured against core standards, the mission is far from a failure.
Two imperative goals have been preventing future extremist attacks against the

and giving Afghans a solid stake in their future so they will

not turn again to the Taliban or be vulnerable to a takeover. By both metrics,
success is much closer than failurethat is, if we stay the course and avoid a complete departure
West from Afghan soil

in two years, as President Barack Obama and the international community intend.

Here is why those plans for premature departure should be revised.

Among the successes achieved since 2001:
*Life expectancy had increased to 61 years in 2012 from 51 years in 2001.
*Infant mortality had declined, in 2012, to 72 deaths before age 1 per 1,000 live
births, from 93 deaths in 2001.
*As of 2014, 50% of Afghans had access to basic health care.
*Fifty-six percent of the rural population had access to clean water in 2012,
up from 44% in 2008.
*Primary school enrollment (including overage, underage, and repeating
students) is up severalfold from 21% in 2001.
But all of these gains are not the main point. Less easily quantifiable, yet even more
important, is the shift in Afghans view of government. Many are no longer
willing to perceive central government as little more than an abstract irritation.
There is an expectation, even in outlying areas, that government must respond to
the interests of all Afghans and deliver a modicum of services to justify its presence and the
demands made of citizens. For the most part, the Taliban are widely disdained.
Islamic State extremists have been on the march in Iraq and Syria, and
bombing plots from Yemen in recent years have produced major near-misses in the
U.S. homeland, but Afghanistan has not produced another major attack. To
the contrary, it has provided bases that have helped coalition forces
significantly diminish the al-Qaeda threat in Pakistan.
The greatest threat to Afghan gains is political uncertainty. Last years presidential election process was flawed
involving an initial vote in April, a runoff in June, and lengthy negotiations before, finally, a new president in

Afghans, aided by Secretary of State John Kerry and United Nations Special Representative Jn
Kubi, found their way to a power-sharing compromise. President Ashraf Ghani and his
rival Abdullah Abdullah struggle to form a cabinet, but fears of all-out ethnic competition or civil war
have ebbed.
September. Yet

While the Taliban have taken back some rural areas, and have killed about 10,000
Afghan soldiers and police over the past two years, they are not winning. Afghan cities and
major roads are in government hands, and last years voter turnout shows that
Afghans overwhelmingly support their new national project. Recruits
continue to join the army and police. The Afghan people remain 90% opposed
to the Taliban, the Brookings Institutions Afghanistan index has found.

Drug revenues causing Afghan stability now the plan causes

instability.
--employment stops them joining the insurgency.
--alternative is collapse of the state because 50% of the illicit GDP comes from
opium
--small farmers dont matter whats needed is strong government support, political
instability comes from

Speri 5/21/14 (Alice,Alice Speri is an Italian-born journalist for VICE based in New York city. She
has lived in many countries including Italy, India, Benin, Egypt, Palestine, Haiti and the United
Kingdom. She is currently working on her PhD in Comparative Literature,
https://news.vice.com/article/afghanistans-opium-economy-is-doing-better-than-ever )
Afghanistans opium economy is bad news to the countrys growing population of drug addicts up
to 1.5 million, according to the UN, and as all illicit trades, it is vulnerable to violence and abuse.

for the country's economy and political stability, as

things in Afghanistan might actually be worse without it.
But it may not be such bad news

opium employs a lot of people. And at least until the end of harvesting season, it
keeps them too busy to join the insurgency.
For one,

'The alternative right now would be huge political instability and it would
also be huge unemployment.'
Theres

no legal economy in Afghanistan that can match the profits and

the amount of people opium can employ, Vanda Felbab-Brown, a senior fellow at
the Brookings Institute and expert on counter-narcotic efforts in Afghanistan, told VICE News.
Opium is both profitable and labor-intensive, an important combination in
a country with some 400,000 people entering the workforce every year. To
put things in perspective, if the 806 square miles Afghans cultivated with opium
last year were to grow wheat instead, they would employ about 20 percent
of the people currently working on opium fields, Felbab-Brown said.
What we really need to ask ourselves is, is it bad to have this illicit economy? It probably is bad, but
is it much worse than the alternative? The alternative right now would be

huge political instability and it would also be huge unemployment , she said.
So yes, its undesirable that there is a major illicit economy that constitutes
so much of the countrys GDP, but theres just no way to walk away from
that.
Is an Illicit Economy Better than no Economy?
if the opium economy is illicit and fraught with potential for violence
and devastating public health implications, it is an economy nonetheless,
and a thriving one at that.
But

Afghanistan produced 75 percent of the worlds heroin supply in 2013, and its
on its way to produce as much as 90 percent this year. The country is also one of the
world's top exporters of cannabis mostly hashish.

poppy cultivation, which provides employment for more

than 200,000 families in Afghanistan and accounts for 73 million hours of labor
annually," Ashita Mittal, acting country director for the UN Office on Drugs and Crime in Kabul told
You have a sector, the

VICE News. "Those are huge numbers we are talking about.

growing opium makes more money than anything else for Afghan
farmers so its going to be very hard to stomp out .'
'Right now,

as 50 percent of
Afghanistans GDP, she noted, and was down to about 15 percent of it last year. But
In the early 2000s, the $18 billion-worth trade accounted for as much

Afghanistan which doomsayers have dubbed a "narcostate" years ago lacks the determination to
do away from such profits, despite massive financial incentives to do so, including some $7.5 billion
from the US alone.
"The

US has put three times more money on counter-narcotics in

Afghanistan than it did in Colombia, but what distinguishes Colombia from Afghanistan is the
political will that was demonstrated by the ruling parties there," Mittal said. "Unless there's a firm
commitment from the top, it's not going to change. Perhaps the new government will be an
opportunity to place this on the agenda."
The profits of the opium trade, she added, are not exactly enriching the country's most destitute. While the economic impact trickles down somewhat, the
largely poor farmers harvesting the white and pink poppy blooms are not the ones reaping the profits.

Local warlords and the Taliban often have their hands in the trade , but it
is wealthy elites with deep ties to the countrys government that have no
interest in seeing the opium cultivation stop.

2NC

Laundering

Impacts
Strategic fluidity turns every impact
Chas W. Freeman 14, served in the United States Foreign Service, the State and Defense Departments in
many different capacities over the course of thirty years, past president of the Middle East Policy Council, co-chair
of the U.S. China Policy Foundation and a Lifetime Director of the Atlantic Council, 9/13/14, A New Set of Great
Power Relationships, http://chasfreeman.net/a-new-set-of-great-power-relationships/

We live in a time of great strategic fluidity . Borders are shifting. Lines of control are
blurring. Long-established spheres of influence are fading away. Some states are
decaying and dissolving as others germinate and take root. The global economic order is
precarious . New economic and geopolitical fault lines are emerging .
Europe is again riven by
geopolitical antagonisms. Ukraine should be a prosperous, independent borderland between the
European Union and Russia. It has instead become a cockpit of strategic contention . The
United States and Russia have relapsed into hostility. The post-Ottoman borders of West
The great powers of North and South America are barely on speaking terms.

Asia and North Africa are being erased. Neither Europeans, nor Russians, nor Americans can now protect or direct
their longstanding clients in the Middle East. Brazil, China, and India are peacefully competing for the favor of

China and Japan are at daggers drawn and striving to

ostracize each other. Sino-American relations seem to be following US-Russian
relations into mutual exasperation and intransigence .
Africa. But, in the Indo-Pacific,

No one surveying this scene could disagree that the world would benefit from recrafting the relationships between
its great powers. As President Xi Jinping has proposed, new types of relations might enable the great powers to

This is, after all,

the nuclear age . A war could end in the annihilation of all who take part

manage their interactions to the common advantage while lowering the risk of armed conflict.

in it.

Short of that, unbridled animosity and contention between great powers and their allies and friends have

high opportunity costs and foster the tensions inherent in military posturing, arms races, instability, and
impoverishment.

Liquidity solves adaptation turns bioD

Sustainable Business Institute, 11 [UNEP Finance Intiative, Sponsored by the Federal Ministry
of Education and Research, http://www.unepfi.org/fileadmin/documents/advancing_adaptation.pdf, Advancing adaptation through
climate information services, Accessed July 20,]

Shifting to climate-change resilient economies will not be achieved only by

governments building dams, improved water systems, and similar large-scale infrastructure. As with the
move to a green economy, effective adaptation, in a systemic sense, will only occur
if the millions of dispersed business decisions taken every day start to
account for climate change factors and impacts. Within the group of private sector decisionmakers, representatives of the financial services sector banks, investors and insurers
stand out in the commercial landscape essentially because of their ability
to effectively influence business practice and emerging trends in the real
economy: Their daily engagement with clients and investees of all types and sizes and
across virtually all sectors of the economy shapes the current and future reality of production processes and services. As such, the

can be a powerful conduit towards economic systems that

are better prepared for the challenges of climate change.
financial services sector

A financial services sector that understands climate change and proactively drives adaptation is not only in the highest interest of broader
economic stability and the societal well-being it underpins; it is clear that it will
increasingly be in the very interest of financial institutions themselves .
Banks, investors, and insurers that get ahead of the curve in understanding and
managing the risks linked with the physical impacts of climate change will
build a strong competitive advantage relative to lagging competitors. The
central role of financial institutions in advancing the climate resilience of
societies is not only a matter of leverage and necessity, but also a matter of ability and expertise. Adapting
to climate change boils down to identifying, quantifying, pricing, and mitigating the financial risks linked with climate change
impacts: Risk management is and has always been core to the business of all financial institutions. The key point is that effective
risk management requires appropriate information input on all parameters that are relevant for business as well as forecasts of the
future development of such factors.

2NCUQ
Squo is goldilocks were risking a collapse of the US financial
architecture.
Tracy 12/2/14 (WSJ Citing the office of financial research report, U.S. Watchdog Sees Risk of Repeated
Liquidity Crunches Office of Financial Research Cites Less Liquidity as One Increasing Risk to U.S. Financial System,
http://www.wsj.com/articles/u-s-watchdog-sees-risk-of-repeated-liquidity-crunches-1417554001)
WASHINGTONThe

U.S. financial system is growing more vulnerable to

debilitating shocks as new regulations and market forces change trading

habits and make some market participants less willing to smooth out
volatility, a government watchdog warned.
The Office of Financial Research, a new arm of the Treasury Department created by the 2010 Dodd-Frank law, said

the system is vulnerable to repeats of what occurred in October, when tumult in the
trading of U.S. Treasury securities spread broadly to futures, swaps and options markets.
Although

the dislocation that peaked in mid-October was fleeting , we believe

there is a risk of a repeat occurrence , the office said in its third annual report, adding that
such volatility raises a host of financial stability concerns .
The report highlights concerns that have been simmering for more than a
year related to a decline in liquidity, or the ability of market participants to buy or sell securities
quickly at a given price. The worry is that without enough liquidity, price swings could
become more severe across financial markets, raising the cost of credit on
Wall Street and Main Street. The report said such swings could be exacerbated by
computerized trading and algorithms, as high volumes of transactions are
executed automatically, deepening instability.
One reason for the decline in liquidity is that banks are less willing to facilitate trading as new regulations make lending cash and securities more
expensive. Regulators have said the rules are necessary and will reduce the kinds of excess borrowing that fueled the 2008 financial crisis.
A reduction in securities that are available to lend against in financial marketssuch as Treasury bonds and asset-backed securitiesalso is fueling the
volatility. The securitization markets have shrunk since the financial crisis and the Federal Reserve has further reduced the amount of available securities
by snapping up trillions of dollars in bonds in recent years.

the financial system is safer

than it was six years ago. Compared with the period just before the financial crisis, threats to
While the report cites the potential for financial instability, it said

financial stability are moderate, Office of Financial Research Director Richard Berner wrote in a letter that
accompanied the report. But

that relatively benign backdrop is no cause for

complacency .

Squo liquidation is goldilocks

Ned Pagliarulo, 5/31/2014. Works for a Japanese press company, reporting on economics and
government statistics. US Decline Series: Financial sector health makes US a sound investment,
Global Risk Insights, http://globalriskinsights.com/2014/05/us-decline-series-financial-sector-healthmakes-us-a-sound-investment/.

concerns remain about

the health of financial systems in advanced countries. A closer look at the
US, however, reveals a financial sector, which has rebounded strongly
Despite being half a decade removed from the global financial crisis,

with a robust regulatory framework . Banks have deleveraged and are

better capitalized than before the crisis. The Dodd-Frank Act has given
regulators better tools to measure systemic risk and boosted bank
resilience . Taken together, the US looks like a safer investment than other advanced
economies.
Clean Bill of Health

The IMF recently published its biannual Global Financial Stability

Monitor, and the US financial sector compares very favorably
internationally. Financial institutions gross debt in the US measures 83%
of GDP, while the EU remains high at 153% and Japan even higher at 196%.
With regard to the amount of bank capital to assets, the US also checks in with a ratio of 12.0%
compared to the UKs 5.0%.

By other measures, US banks position has strengthened as the economy

has recovered. For example, the ratio of non-performing loans to total
loans has fallen sharply by more than half to 2.68%. This improvement can be tied
not only to individual bank actions but to the broader and more stringent regulatory focus.
Regulatory Response

Yellen expressed strong

confidence that US regulators had made good progress. Regulatory and
supervisory actions, including those that are leading to substantial
increases in capital and liquidity in the banking sector , are making our
financial system more resilient, she said.
In recent testimony to Congress, Federal Reserve Chair Janet

In April, the Fed concluded its annual review of bank holding companies capital plans, approving 25 of
30 plans. The recent results showed that US firms moved aggressively to increase their capital since
the crisis the aggregate tier one common equity of the 30 firms has increased to 11.6% from 5.5%
in 2009.

This improvement in the position of US banks has a lot to do with the

statutory increases in capital ratios and leverage ratios mandated by
Dodd-Frank. Capital ratios were implemented as part of the international Basel III framework and
represent the ratio of high quality capital to risk weighted assets.
However, risk weighting opens the door for underestimating the risk of certain assets. In order to
counteract this, the US approved an enhanced supplementary leverage ratio two percentage points
higher than the Basel II standard of 3% for systemically significant US bank holding companies. The
leverage ratio measures capital to total assets and therefore does not inadvertently discount assets
that are usually thought of as safe, but could prove risky.

Beyond capital ratios, US regulators have also approved an Orderly

Liquidation Authority that will help in future crises to smoothly move a
firm into bankruptcy. OLA requires firms to maintain living wills that will assist in rapid
resolution. Importantly, OLA creates the legal authority for a single point of entry for firms in distress,
concentrating losses on the shareholders of the parent company. This removes some of the public
backstop for large firms and should pressure investors to more appropriately assess the risk of firms.

A New Dialogue
In the US, the Federal Reserve is legally bound by its so-called dual mandate of promoting stable
prices and full employment. With the crisis having shown the pernicious effect of systemic instability
on both of those goals, the Fed has considered how best to include financial risk considerations in its
policy.
A year ago, Governor Jeremy Stein made the now oft cited remark that, when macro prudential
regulation fails, traditional monetary policy can get in all the cracks. In his view, regulation is by its
very nature targeted, creating the chance that regulators could miss developing risks. Rate policy,
however, changes the environment for all investors.
Governor Daniel Tarullo, the Feds top regulator, has agreed that monetary policy could be used
effectively but has more faith that macroprudential policies could give the Fed more time to better
assess developing risks. While investors rarely like uncertainty in how monetary policy is
administrated, this debate over the role of financial stability concerns in shaping policy is healthy for a
more stable system.
Looking Forward

On top of strengthened regulation and improved capital positions, the US

financial sector might be boosted even further by a strengthening US
economy. Despite a harsh winter delivering a blow to first quarter economic activity, recent
economic indicators (like unemployment insurance claims and new
housing starts) show signs of a spring pick up.
If predications of strong second half growth hold up, the US financial
system will benefit further improving its position vis a vis other
advanced economies.

2NC Link
Drug money key to Western bank liquidity
Malone 8/18/12 (http://www.golemxiv.co.uk/2012/08/a-word-about-banks-and-the-laundering-of-drugmoney/ David Malone. Graduate of the BBC science department, employee of Horizon. Documentary Director of
documenatires on science, religion, on BBC and other TV networks)
The reality is

that drugs are a massive banking business . And it is also a fact that the

bulk of that business is done in the industrial nations, in their banks,

drug producing nations.

NOT in the

The Drugs business is mostly a western business. Its a banking

busness . Not unlike global mining where the mines are in the third world but the mining companies are listed
and work in London. A recent study on the Colombian drug trade reported in The Guardian
found that 2.6% of the total street value of cocaine produced remains within the country, while a staggering
97.4% of profits are reaped by criminal syndicates, and laundered by banks , in first-world
consuming countries. If that study is anywhere near accurate then the fact is

the drug business is our

business . We, the rich West, use it, we finance it, we provide the laundering services for it, and we then
use the money it generates to feed the financial system. That money
keeps our banks going , especially in hard times. That money is what is
used by the financial industry to

speculate with, to

buy up sovereign assets

with, to

speculate on food with. That money helps create their bonuses and pays off our politicians in soft donations and

The drug money laundering business is a staple and

important part of global banking. Money laundering is one of the things

access to decision makers.

bankers do well . They should, they practice every day. It is not a one off rogue teller or rogue ofice. It is
not something the bank does once and never again. Amex did it many times. HSBC has a
history. You only have to go back to the murkey and bloody AGIP affair to
find the same names and the same widespread conspiracy to commit
financial and legal crimes. Dig deep enough and youll find the names of politicians, senior ones and
find yourself meeting some of the people who make sure the truth of such matters does not come out and whose
job it is to protect the guilty and do their dirty work. Drug money, criminal at the start of its journey, is still crminal

Drug Money is criminal and dirty no matter how many times it is laundered, by
The bankers know this better than anyone. Yet they do
it every day, every week, every year and every decade in every major
financial centre and everyone knows it.
at its respectsble end.

no matter how many banks.

Afghan Stable Now

Afghan soldiers will retain stability laundry list of factors
prevent civil tension.
Dobbins 11/14, James, veteran diplomat who served as the State Department's special
representative for Afghanistan and Pakistan, senior fellow at RAND Corporation, 2014, Afghanistan
After America: A Fragile Stability, http://www.rand.org/blog/2014/11/afghanistan-after-america-afragile-stability.html, Accessed 1/19/15

Throughout these years, Afghan security forces have increased in numbers

and competence. As American and other NATO forces have withdrawn,
Afghan soldiers and police have filled the vacuum , largely retaining the
territorial gains made during the 20102011 surge in NATO troop strength.
Earlier this year, Afghanistan held its fifth national election. Voter participation was
strong, even in areas heavily contested by the Taliban. The results were widely seen
as a victory for the Afghan army and police, and a defeat for the insurgency.
More recently, as this year's fighting season drew to a close, the Taliban
began mounting larger attacks, with greater forces than were seen in recent
years. This was clearly an effort to test Afghan security forces, which are now
alone on the battlefield and increasingly bereft of NATO air support. Again, the
Afghan army and police stood their ground, repelled attacks, and retook
posts initially overrun by the insurgents.
Compared with Syrians or Iraqis, most Afghans live in relative security. Over the
past 13 years, millions of refugees have been returning to, not fleeing,
Afghanistan. The economy has grown fourfold. The literacy rate has
doubled. Perhaps most remarkably for a country still in conflict, longevity has
increased by 20 years the largest jump any society has made in such a short
timeframe since humankind started collecting such statistics. Despite the ongoing
war, most Afghans are living longer, healthier, and more productive lives.
Nevertheless, Afghan government forces have suffered an increasing casualty rate
throughout the past year. Of course, so has the Taliban. Thus far, recruitment has
kept pace with combat losses and other forms of attrition within the army and
police, and probably within the Taliban as well.
More of the same is expected for next year: hard ground combat and heavy
casualties with even less air power available to support government forces. One
side or the other might crack under these pressures, but the more likely
outcome is an enduring stalemate.
Stalemate on the battlefield meets the essential American objective of
ensuring that Afghanistan does not again offer a safe and friendly
environment for Al Qaeda and its affiliates and imitators. But stalemate is hardly
a desirable long-term prospect.

China is making sure conflict wont occur.

Weihua 1/15, Chen, China Daily USA, 2015, China plays mediator in Afghanistan,
http://usa.chinadaily.com.cn/us/2015-01/15/content_19331856.htm, Accessed 1/19/15

China on Wednesday announced that it has been mediating between the

Afghan government and the Taliban as the United States withdraws troops to
end its 13-year war there, the longest in US history.
"As a friendly neighbor of Afghanistan, China values its relationship with
Afghanistan and hopes to see Afghanistan achieve long-lasting peace,
stability and development at an early date," Foreign Ministry spokesman Hong Lei
told a daily briefing in Beijing.
China plays mediator in Afghanistan
He said China supports the Afghan-led and Afghan-owned peace and
reconciliation process and stands ready to play a constructive role.
The United States began to withdraw its troops from Afghanistan last month to end
its 13-year war there, the longest in US history.
Reports show that 10,800 US military personnel were in Afghanistan at the turn of
the New Year, and half those troops are expected to remain until the total
withdrawal by the end of 2016.
While the war has killed several thousand American soldiers, many times more
Afghan military elements and civilians have been killed.
As the US role declines, China has become more active diplomatically
trying to stabilize the war-torn nation, which shares a short mountainous
border with China.
China had for the first time hosted the fourth Foreign Ministerial Conference
of the Istanbul Process on Afghanistan in Beijing last October to facilitate
peace and stability there, with the presence of new Afghan President Ashraf Ghani.
Ghani expressed his hope for a greater role by China in his country's peace, stability
and development.
In November 2011, China, Russia, Afghanistan and several central Asian countries
reached an agreement in Turkey known as the Istanbul Process, with the goal of a
secure and stable Afghanistan. In addition to Afghanistan, the 14 members include
countries China, India, Iran, Kazakhstan, Pakistan, Russia and Turkey, while 28
supporting parties include the US, the UK, the United Nations and the Shanghai
Cooperation Organization.
Doug Brooks, a member of the board of directors of the Afghan-American Chamber
of Commerce (AACC), told China Daily on Wednesday that he thought what China
did in Afghanistan was very good.

2NC Paki Shift

Poppy cultivation shifts to Pakistan that accesses a more
direct internal link to regional instability and terrorism.
Felbab-Brown 13, Vanda, Senior fellow with the Center for 21st Century Security and
Intelligence in the Foreign Policy program at Brookings, 2013, Counterinsurgency, Counternarcotics,
and Illicit Economies in Afghanistan: Lessons for State-Building: What Replacement Illicit Economy
Would Emerge? Brookings, Accessed 1/20/15

Where Would Poppy Cultivation Move?

The second what-then question of vital importance for the United States is what country opium cultivation would

Given high world demand for illicit opiates, suppression of poppy

cultivation in Afghanistan would not leave a highly lucrative market unsatiated but would
simply move the industry elsewhere . Unlike coca, the opium poppy is a very
adaptable plant that can be grown under a variety of climactic conditions.
shift to.

Theoretically, its cultivation could spread to many areasCentral Asia, back to the Golden Triangle of Southeast
Asia, or West Africa.51

the shift of poppy cultivation

to the Federally Administered Tribal Areas (FATA), Khyber-Pakhtunkwa, or even Punjab in Pakistan. For
over 20 years, Pakistan has been a major heroin refining and smuggling
hub in the region. It has an extensive hawala system that includes moving drug profits. Today, these
territories also have extensive and well-organized Salafi insurgency and terrorist
groups that seek to limit the reach of the Pakistani state and topple the
government. A relocation of extensive poppy cultivation there would be
highly detrimental to U.S. interests since it would contribute to a critical undermining of the
state and fuel jihadi insurgency. Such a shift would not only increase profit
possibilities for Pakistani belligerents, but also provide them with
significant political capital by allowing them to become important local
employers sponsoring a labor-intensive economy in areas with minimal employment
By far the worst scenario from the U.S. strategic perspective would be

opportunities.

Nor is Pakistan a newcomer to the drug trade. During the heyday of illicit poppy
cultivation in Pakistan in the 1980s, the opium poppy was grown in FATA and the
thenNorthwest Frontier Province (now renamed Khyber-Pakhtunkwa). Opium poppy
cultivation often involved entire tribes and represented the bulk of the local
economy in these highly isolated (geographically, politically, and economically)
places.52 Pakistan was also the locus of heroin production and smuggling, with
prominent and official actors such as Pakistans military and the Inter-Services
Intelligence directorate deeply involved in the heroin trade.53
U.S.-sponsored eradication during the 1980s generated violent protests and political
costs too high even for the military dictatorship of General Zia ul Haq.54 In the
1990s, strong emphasis was thus placed on generating legal economic alternatives
to wean Pakistani tribes from drugs. Consisting mainly of small rural infrastructure
projects and special economic opportunity zones (similar to those for textiles
promoted by the current U.S. administration in Pakistan), the programs linked

isolated areas better with the rest of Pakistan and increased local populations
identification with the Pakistani state.
In 2002, the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC) declared Pakistan
cultivation-free. However, the dominant reason for the decline in opium
poppy cultivation was not counternarcotics efforts, whether eradication or alternative development, but
rather the wholesale shift of cultivation to Afghanistan during the 1990s.
Moreover, the positive political and economic effects of alternative development
efforts in Pakistan frequently proved ephemeral and failed to generate sustainable
employment. Many participants have continued to be consigned to subsistence
agriculture, trucking, and smuggling and to migration to other parts of Pakistan
such as Karachi, or to Dubai.55
This extensive drug-trade network, the history of poppy cultivation, and
poor central-government control over the border regions with Afghanistan
make Pakistan a likely candidate for vastly increased poppy cultivation if
Afghan production is disrupted. Some opium cultivation has already emerged in
Baluchistan, Khyber, Kohistan, and Kala Dhaka. Given the lack of systematic drug
surveys in those and other areas of Pakistan, the extent of cultivation there is
difficult to gauge, but some assessments report a resurgence of cultivation up to
2,000 hectares in recent years. It may well be more, given the lack of economic
alternatives in the area, the history of opium poppy cultivation there, and the fact
that the level of poppy cultivation in Kashmir on both sides of the Line of Control is
estimated at 8,000 hectares.56
There is little evidence today that either the Afghan Taliban or the Pakistani Taliban
(including Tehrik-i-Taliban-Pakistan and Tehrik-e-Nafaz-e-Sharia-Mohammadi) has systematically penetrated
the slightly resurgent opium poppy cultivation in FATA and Khyber-Pakhtunkwa, even
though they may have penetrated trafficking in drugs and precursor agents in Pakistan. Instead, it appears
that the main sources of the Pakistani Talibans income include: smuggling in legal
goods, charging tolls and protection fees, taxation of all economic activity in the areas in which they operatesome
being highly profitable, such as marble mining, theft and resale of North Atlantic Treaty Organization supplies
heading to Afghanistan via Pakistan, illicit logging, and fundraising in Pakistan and the Middle East.57 While profits
from such a diverse portfolio can equal or even surpass profits from drugs, the main downside from the perspective
of belligerent actors is that

these economic activities are not labor-intensive.

Consequently, unlike when belligerent groups sponsor the highly laborintensive cultivation of opium poppies, the jihadi groups in Pakistan
cannot present themselves as large-scale providers of employment to the
local population. If extensive poppy cultivation shifted to Pakistan, the
consequences for U.S. national security would be extremely serious. FATA
and parts of Khyber-Pakhtunkwa, as the jihadi takeover of Swat and Malakand in
spring 2009 revealed, are already the hub for anti-American jihadists. Salafi
insurgency and global terrorism networks have been leaking into and taking root in
southern Punjab and go beyond the Lashkar-i-Taiba or Jaish-i-Mohammad presence.
Not only could al Qaeda and affiliated terrorist groups there profit financially from drug
trafficking and money laundering, but ready access to cultivation (which
these groups, unlike the Taliban, do not have as long as cultivation is centered in

Afghanistan ) would allow them to provide an economically superior

livelihood to vastly undeveloped regions in Pakistan and thus obtain
significant political capital within the population. Their calls to jihad against the
Pakistani state would gain greater resonance with the tribal population. What these
groups now can provide to the population are ideological succor and promises of
martyrdom.
If production shifted to Pakistan, the sponsorship of cultivation would
allow these groups to distribute significant real-time economic benefits to
the population, a key source of legitimacy. Just as happened in Afghanistan in
the 1980s, the jihadists would be able to outperform traditional tribal elites in
providing for the populations needs. The sponsorship of relocated opium
cultivation would allow the jihadists to offset the potential losses of
support resulting from these attacks on the tribal elite.
Government efforts at eradication would generate protests and uprisings, cementing the bond between the jihadists and the population and weakening
the already tenuous legitimacy of Islamabad. Weak central government presence there (military and otherwise) would compromise counternarcotics
efforts, but eradication would greatly undermine even modest counterterrorism and stabilization efforts by the government. Given the existence of
militancy in the likely poppy regions, forced eradication would greatly fuel militancy and generate far greater negative security externalities than it did in
the 1980s and early 1990s when social protest had not congealed into a highly organized form, social networks were not premobilized, and pernicious
political entrepreneurs were not at the ready to capitalize on social discontent. Because of the continuing geographic, political, and social isolation of these
areas, the lack of rule of law and the paucity of productive assets (both physical resources and human capital), generating employment opportunities
there will be highly challenging under the best of circumstances.

A large-scale shift of opium poppy cultivation to Pakistan in the near and

medium term would thus contribute to a further critical weakening of the
state and undermine its control of and even reach to some of the most
jihadi-susceptible areas in Pakistan. Such a large-scale shift of cultivation
would also likely leak into Baluchistan, where heroin processing facilities and
trafficking networks are already extensive. It would thus enable Baluchi
nationalists to tap into the drug economy and strengthen the Baluchi
insurgency in a multifaceted way, further threatening the territorial integrity
of Pakistan and diverting the states attention from the jihadi threat.
Assisting the government of Pakistan today in both rural development in the critical
regions and overall in enhancing the effectiveness of its interdiction and law
enforcement capacity has the potential of reducing the security and political threats
that could result from such a relocation.

2NC C/O
1. Major companies crowd out Afghan growers from the
market.
Raybourn and Mulligan 14 (Raybourn and Mulligan- Attorneys at law, "Drug Cartels,
Terrorism, and Marijuana" 7/14/14 raybounmulligan.com/mexican-drug-cartels-afghanistan-andmarijuana/)
In his recent blog, H.A. Goodman illustrates some of the possible benefits of legalizing marijuana.
Goodman notes that Afghanistan is the worlds largest supplier of cannabis and legalization would
allow Afghans to realize an immediate revenue stream. Goodman concludes that this revenue would
contribute to the overall stability in the region. However, he does not consider the fact that

legalization would remove barriers of entry for American and

international entrepreneurs . Goodman cites Rand Corporation figures that Americans
spend approximately $40.6 billion a year on marijuana. Hence, entrepreneurs from around
the world would put their hat into the ring and effectively push Afghan
growers out of any new market created by legalization. Thus, the
conjectured stabilization in Afghanistan as a result from marijuana
legalization is not likely to happen.

2NC No Impact Multilat

Structural uncertainty makes ilaw ineffective
Goldsmith 9 Jack Goldsmith, Henry L. Shattuck Professor of Law, Harvard Law
School, Daryl Levinson, Fessenden Professor of Law, Harvard Law School, Harvard
Law Review, May 2009, vol. 122, no. 7, "LAW FOR STATES: INTERNATIONAL LAW,
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW, PUBLIC LAW", 1792-1868

A. International Law

International law lacks a centralized and hierarchical lawmaker akin to the

legislature inside a state to specify authoritative sources of law and the mechanisms of legal
change and reconciliation. It also lacks centralized and hierarchical judicial institutions
to resolve

the resulting

legal uncertainty . As a result, its norms are imprecise,

contested, internally contradictory , overlapping, and subject to multiple

interpretations

and claims.

International laws inability to resolve this

uncertainty has fueled skepticism about its status as law ; law that is
unclear

or unknowable, many believe, cannot be described as a real legal system, and in any case

cannot

be effective .32
States coordinate public understandings of what counts as law largely through the institutional mechanism of an
authoritative legislature. But of course there exists no global legislature. International legal rules are created
through two decentralized mechanisms: treaties and customary international law (CIL). A treaty results from the
consent of two or more nations, and binds only those nations that ratify it.33 A small handful of treaties the U.N.
Charter and the Geneva Conventions, for example have been ratified by practically every nation in the world. But
even these universal laws are laboriously constructed through the same decentralized process of negotiation and
consent. CIL also originates through a decentralized process; its content is derived from those customary state
practices that states follow out of a sense of legal obligation (opinio juris).34
These

decentralized lawmaking processes give rise to fundamental uncertainty

about the content of international legal norms. The problem of uncertainty is

most severe with respect to CIL, which lacks any clear rule of recognition.
Little agreement exists as to what types of state action count as state practice. 35
Official pronouncements, certain types of legislation, and diplomatic correspondence are relatively (but not entirely)

international law has no settled method for weighing

or ordering these sources or for determining when they count as evidence of opinio
juris. Bilateral and multilateral treaties are sometimes invoked as evidence of CIL, though rarely consistently or
uncontroversial sources of CIL, but

coherently.36 The writings of jurists are a secondary source of CIL, but jurists rarely agree even on supposedly
settled rules.37 Nonbinding statements and resolutions of multilateral bodies, most notably the resolutions of the
U.N. General Assembly, are also invoked as a basis for CIL, as are moral and ethical claims. Needless to say,

each potentially relevant source of CIL may point in a different direction ,

and there is no formula or agreed-upon set of principles for reconciling them. Nor is
there any authoritative institutional mechanism the equivalent of a legislature or supreme
court for definitively resolving CILs content . The unsurprising result is
frequent and persistent contestation over the content of CIL.

By comparison, the secondary rules for treatymaking are relatively well-settled, and there is much less

there is still a great deal of disagreement about

the content of treaty-based international law because the relationships between
different treaties, and between treaties and CIL , are subject to no settled rules .
The U.N. Charter is among the most fundamental of international laws , and its Article 103
provides that Charter obligations trump other international law obligations.39 But when NATO countries
bombed Kosovo in violation of the U.N. Charters prohibition on the use of force, many
scholars contended that there was a developing CIL exception for humanitarian
intervention, and there has been much disagreement among both scholars and nations about this point
disagreement over what counts as a treaty.38 But

ever since.40 There are also many unsettled questions about the validity of important treaty obligations that
conflict with the Charter. 41 Similarly, different human rights treaties (for example the European Convention on
Human Rights42 and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights43) contain different and in some
respects contradictory rights, and there is disagreement among courts, legal institutions, and scholars about which
prevails.44 The same is true of obligations imposed by the World Trade Organization that conflict with obligations
imposed by other treaty regimes.45
Thus,

even when the relevant rules of international law can be clearly identified , it

often remains unclear how overlapping and inconsistent rules are to be

reconciled and systematized . In theory, the international legal system has a set
of meta-rules rules of nonretroactivity, last-in-time, the priority of lex specialis, and normative hierarchy
(prioritizing the U.N. Charter or jus cogens norms) that are supposed to help sort out these
conflicts.46 But in practice these rules are often contested and
indeterminate. 47 Lacking a centralized legislative process, the international legal system
commonly

allows for the unbridled proliferation of contradictory norms.

Navy
This add on is trash says that counternarcotics are posing a
tradeoff concern, they dont solve
Farley 07 (Robert, Assistant Professor, started at the Patterson School in 2005 as a post-doc scholar. He
received his Ph.D. from the University of Washington Department of Political Science in 2004, 10/23/07The False
Decline of the U.S. Navy, http://prospect.org/article/false-decline-us-navy)

The United States Navy currently operates eleven aircraft carriers. The
oldest and least capable is faster, one third larger, and carries three times
aircraft of Admiral Kuznetsov,

the

the largest carrier in the Russian Navy . Unlike Chinas

only aircraft carrier, the former Russian Varyag, American carriers have engines and
are capable of self-propulsion . The only carrier in Indian service is fifty
years old and a quarter the size of its American counterparts . No navy
besides the United States' has more than one aircraft carrier capable of
flying modern fixed wing aircraft . The United States enjoys similar
dominance in surface combat vessels and submarines, operating twentytwo cruisers, fifty destroyers, fifty-five nuclear attack submarines, and ten
amphibious assault ships (vessels roughly equivalent to most foreign aircraft carriers). In every
category the U.S. Navy combines presumptive numerical superiority with a
significant ship-to-ship advantage over any foreign navy.

Amazon
Koebler does not say that defo is stopped as a result of the
plan says that it isnt causal only that theres a relationship.
Koebler 14, staff writer at Motherboard, Jason, Drug Trafficking Is Destroying
Central America's Rainforest, http://motherboard.vice.com/en_ca/blog/drugtrafficking-is-destroying-central-americas-rainforest
In a new article in Science, Ohio State University ecologist Kendra McSweeney argues that trafficking of drugs
(principally cocaine) has become a crucialand overlookedaccelerant of forest loss in the isthmus. Thats
because the well-known causes of deforestationillegal logging, ranching, agricultural expansionare only
intensified by drug trafficking. As cartels take over the rainforest, Central American governments are less willing to
police protected areas as they become increasingly dangerous. In some cases, officials are bribed to look the other
way, making a protected area protected in name only. With less intervention, ranchers and farmers become more
bold, clearing out parts of the forest that they otherwise wouldnt touch. When resident ranchers, oil-palm growers,
land speculators, and timber traffickers become involved in drug trafficking, they are narco-capitalized and
emboldened, and so greatly expand their activities, McSweeney writes. The drug traffickers themselves also may
become involved in these activities, looking for legal businesses with which to launder their money. Statistics on
how bad the problem has gotten are hard to come by, McSweeney admits, because many of these areas have
become dangerous for governments and scientists to study.

Correlation certainly isnt

causation, but deforestation in Central America seems to have intensified

as the drug trade did . Deforestation rates in Central America were 1.19 percent annually between
2000 and 2010, compared to a global rate of .13 percent, according to a 2011 United Nations report. Between 2000
and 2010, the size of Central Americas forests shrank from 54 million acres to 48 million acres. Starting about
2007, we started seeing rates of deforestation there that we had never seen before, McSweeney said. When we
asked the local people the reason, they would tell us: Los narcos. Other major international organizations have
noticed the problem and have blamed it, partly, on drug trafficking. In 2011, UNESCO put Honduras Rio Platano
Biosphere Reserve on its in danger list after the government there asked it to due to the combined threats of
illegal logging, fishing and land occupation, poaching and the reduced capacity of the State to manage the site,
notably due to the deterioration of law and to the presence of drug traffickers. This all comes back, of course, to
the war on drugs. Anti-trafficking policies have pushed traffickers into the worlds most biodiverse spots partly
because they offer the most cover and are often the least populated. At this point, its hard to know how to best
combat the problem, but McSweeney says any future drug policy needs to take into account its potential
environmental impacts.

Amazon deforestation went up by 29% last year due to things

totally unrelated to the aff
The Guardian 9-11 ("Amazon deforestation jumps 29%,"
www.theguardian.com/environment/2014/sep/11/amazon-deforestation-jumps)
The destruction of the worlds largest rainforest accelerated last year with
a 29% spike in deforestation, according to final figures released by the Brazilian
government on Wednesday that confirmed a reversal in gains seen since 2009.
Satellite data for the 12 months through the end of July 2013 showed that
5,891 sq km /// MARKED ///
of forest were cleared in the Brazilian Amazon, an area half the size of
Puerto Rico. Fighting the destruction of the Amazon is considered crucial for
reducing global warming because deforestation worldwide accounts for 15% of
annual emissions of heat-trapping gases, more than the entire transportation sector.
Besides being a giant carbon sink, the Amazon is a biodiversity sanctuary, holding
billions of species yet to be studied. Preliminary data released late last year by
Brazils space research center INPE had indicated deforestation was on the rise

again, as conservationist groups had warned. The largest increases in

deforestation were seen in the states of Para and Mato Grosso, where the
bulk of Brazils agricultural expansion is taking place. More than 1,000 sq km
has been cleared in each state. Other reasons for the rebound in
deforestation include illegal logging and the invasion of public lands
adjacent to big infrastructure projects in the Amazon, such as roads and
hydroelectric dams.

NO IMPACT TO OXYGENEVEN IF EVERY TREE IN THE WORLD

WAS BURNED OXYGEN LEVELS WOULD REMAIN HIGH
NOWAK et al 2007 (David J. Nowak, Project Leader, USDA Forest Service,
Northern Research Station 5 Moon Library; Robert Hoehn, Biological Science
Technician, USDA Forest Service Northern Research Station 5 Moon Library; Daniel E.
Crane, Information Technology Specialist USDA Forest Service Northern Research
Station 5 Moon Library. Arboriculture & Urban Forestry, May,
http://nrs.fs.fed.us/pubs/jrnl/2007/nrs_2007_nowak_001.pdf)

The reason the oxygen production value of urban trees is insignificant has to do with the large amount of oxygen
within the atmosphere (approximately 21% of the atmospheres volume is oxygen). As stated by Miller (1979):
We

have a large number of serious ecological problems, but suffocation from

lack of oxygen is not one of them (Broecker 1970; SCEP 1970). The oxygen content of the
atmosphere remains essentially constant with the oxygen consumed by all animals, bacteria, and respiration
processes roughly balanced by the oxygen released by land and sea plants during photosynthesis. The present
atmospheric oxygen content seems not to have changed since 1910 (SCEP 1970). Furthermore, because air is about

Our atmosphere has such an

enormous reserve of oxygen that even if all fossil fuel reserves, all trees,
and all organic matter in soils were burned, atmospheric oxygen would
only drop a few percent (Broecker 1996). Also, waters of the world are the main
oxygen generators of the biosphere; their algae are estimated to replace 90% of all oxygen used
(Encyclopaedia Britannica 1994). Thus, although urban trees do produce significant amounts
of oxygen, it is not a significant ecologic benefit given the global nature of
oxygen and the sheer volume of oxygen in the atmosphere.
20 percent oxygen, the total supply is immense (Broecker 1970).

-- Alt causes:
A) Illegal logging
Lane 8 (Jim, World Wildlife Fund Exonerates Ethanol on Amazonian Deforestation
and Food Production, Biofuels Digest, Lexis)

The World Wildlife Fund has concluded, in a

new study profiled on the BBC, that "ethanol production is not having a significant
impact on food production, and that it is not contributing to deforestation in the
Amazon." The report concludes that sugar cane ethanol has a positive impact on the environment. The report
May 27, 2008 (Biofuels Digest delivered by Newstex) --

called for strict monitoring to protect remaining rainforest areas." In Brazil, the federal government announced a
crackdown on illegal deforestation in the Amazonian rainforest. Biofuels producers have been accused of causing
deforestation, however the authorities are targeting soy farmers, cattle ranchers and illegal timber operators in 36

pockets where increased deforestation has occurred. An emergency meeting of the Brazilian cabinet had been been
called by President Luiz In cio Lula da Silva after a 50 percent jump in deforestation rates, following a steady three-

A German academic has analyzed the factors that are causing

deforestation of the Amazon, and concluded that sugarcane ethanol production in
south-central Brazil is not pushing cattle and soy farming into the Amazon region.
Peter Zuurbier, Associate Professor and Director of the Wageningen UR Latin America Office, said that
the problem is unclear land titles, unscrupulous timber companies, and poor soil
conservation practices by cattle ranchers. He said that after illegal clear cutting by timber
year decline.

companies, the land is occupied by nomadic cattle herds that, over a period of 3 to 4 years, ruin the thin soil of the
Amazon areas, which causes fertilizer-based soy farming to be brought into the area to improve productivity.
Researchers say that Amazonian deforestation has increased in pace in 2007 and is likely to rise throughout 2008.
Carlos Nobre, a scientist with Brazil's National Institute for Space Research, said that 2,300 square miles of forest
had been converted to farmland in the past four months, compared with 3,700 square miles in the 12 months
ending last July.

B) Mining
Butler 6 (Rhett, Deforestation in the Amazon, Monga Bay,
http://www.mongabay.com/brazil.html)

Mining has impacted some parts of the Amazon Basin. During the 1980s, over
100,000 prospectors invaded the state of Para when a large gold deposit was
discovered, while wildcat miners are still active in the state of Roraima near the
Venezuelan border. Typically, miners clear forest for building material, fuelwood
collection, and subsistence agriculture.

C) Climate change
Lovejoy 8 (Thomas, President The Heinz Center, 2-14, Impact Of Tropical Forest
Destruction On The Climate, CQ Congressional Testimony, Lexis)

In addition climate change can have a major impact on the Amazon. Current estimates
from the Inter-Governmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) are that at 4.5 degrees
Fahrenheit increase in global average temperature, Amazon dieback will occur -- not the
entire Amazon but large parts of it. Indeed, the most severe drought in recorded Amazon
history occurred in 2005, and was associated with changes in the circulation of the
Atlantic that could, in a sense, have been a preview of what climate change could bring.
This of course would be a positive feedback releasing yet more greenhouse gases to
the atmosphere. Amazon dieback is not that far a distant possibility: at current
concentrations, we are currently automatically slated for 2.7 degrees Fahrenheit of
increase in average global temperature because of the lag time between increase in
greenhouse gas concentrations and radiant energy being trapped by them, and
most projections bring us close to 3.6 degrees Fahrenheit by 2030.

-- *No global oxygen impact

Morano and Washburn 00 (Marc and Kent, Producers of American
Investigator's "Amazon Rainforest: Clear-Cutting the Myths" Shaky Science Behind

Save-Rainforest Effort, 6-26, http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?

ARTICLE_ID=17543)

Another familiar claim of the environmentalist community is that the Amazon

constitutes the "lungs of the earth," supplying one-fifth of the world's oxygen. But,
according to Antonio Donato Nobre of INPE, and other eco-scientists, the Amazon
consumes as much oxygen as it produces , and Stott says it may actually be a net
user of oxygen. "In fact, because the trees fall down and decay , rainforests actually
take in slightly more oxygen than they give out," says Stott. "The idea of them
soaking up carbon dioxide and giving out oxygen is a myth. It's only fast-growing
young trees that actually take up carbon dioxide." Stott maintains that the tropical
forests of the world are "basically irrelevant" when it comes to regulating or
influencing global weather. He explains that the oceans have a much greater
impact. "Most things that happen on land are mere blips to the system, basically
insignificant," he says.

1NR

UQOklahoma/Nebraska Win Now

Congress has spoken. The Court will rule that marijuana is a
public nuisance
DeVeaux & Mostad-Jensen 12/19/15 - Professors of Law @ Concordia University
School of Law [Chad DeVeaux & Anne Mostad-Jensen, Fear and Loathing in Colorado: Invoking the Supreme
Court's State-Controversy Jurisdiction to Challenge the Marijuana-Legalization Experiment, (December 19,
2014). Pg. SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=2540640
Unlike other state vice-legalization experiments such as gambling, 34 prostitution, 35 and prize-fighting 36
which involve actions undertaken at a fixed locationColorados

initiative authorizes the

trafficking of goods 37 federal contraband 38that can easily cross state lines inside
luggage, 39 through the mail, 40 or in the trunks of cars.41 In this way, marijuana legalization
produces regional externalities that closely resemble pollution . Just as
contaminants released into rivers flow across state lines, marijuana introduced into the
stream of commerce from Colorado dispensaries will predictably flow into neighboring
States through the simple expediency of placing lawfully purchased cannabis in vehicles which are then driven
across state lines. And just as interstate watercourses are guided by the laws of gravity and hydrology, the

Marijuana is the most lucrative cash crop in the

United States. 42 The resulting high demand in the interstate market will draw
Colorado weed into that market thereby having a substantial effect on the
supply and demand of the drug in the black markets of neighboring States. 43 The available
data suggests that large quantities of Colorado cannabis are now being diverted
into these markets.44 The Court should employ the same principles it once applied
in cases involving interstate environmental nuisances to resolve this problem.
movement of Colorado pot is driven by greed.

The burden faced by the Court in an original action challenging Colorados marijuana-legalization experiment is
less onerous than that presented by the environmental-nuisance cases of the past. The Court is not comprised of
scientists, and is ill-equipped to resolve controversies such as what concentration of a given pollutant in air or
water is acceptable.45 As such, in the days before the EPA, it was forced to rely on often vague and

it is well
settled that when Congress addresses a question previously governed by a
indeterminate nuisance concepts and maxims of equity jurisprudence to resolve such disputes.46 But

decision rested on federal common law the need for such an unusual lawmaking
by federal courts disappears. 47 Congress has not delegated adjudication of
interstate nuisance actions involving marijuana to an administrative agenc y as it did
with air and water-quality disputes. But it also has not left the question whether the introduction of marijuana into
interstate commerce constitutes a nuisance to the often vague and indeterminate . . . maxims of equity
jurisprudence.48 An activity constitutes a public nuisance when it creates significant interference with the

Congress
has conclusively determined that the importation, manufacture, distribution, and
possession of marijuana has a substantial and detrimental effect on the health
and general welfare of the American people 50 and that the intrastate distribution
and possession of [marijuana] contribute[s] to swelling the interstate traffic in such
substances.51 These findings rest on solid science . As a recent study published in the
New England Journal of Medicine concluded , marijuana use causes long-lasting
changes in brain function that can jeopardize educational, professional and social
achievements.52
public health, the public safety, the public peace, the public comfort or the public convenience.49

The Supreme Court held that Congresss findings rest comfortably within its
enumerated powers and that they must be accepted by reviewing courts .53
Thus, the Supremacy Clause dictates that the introduction of marijuana into the
stream of commerceeven intrastateconstitutes an interstate public nuisance as that
term is used in the Courts original-action jurisprudence.

it
remains the Courts duty to determine what remedy , if any, is available to Colorados
neighbors. Rather than issuing injunctive reliefthe traditional remedy in original nuisance
actions 54we posit that the Court should award damages to prevailing sister States
compensating them for the injuries inflicted by the incursion of Colorado marijuana
into their territory. Pg. 7-12
While Congress has determined that the introduction of marijuana into commerce constitutes a public nuisance

Raich precedent will force the Court to rule in favor of the

plaintiff
Bell 12/18/14 [Kyle W. Bell | Up in Smoke? Two States Sue Colorado to Overturn Legalized Marijuana
Law, South Bend Voice, December 18, 2014, pg. http://tinyurl.com/kvf7lx8

The lawsuit was filed by Nebraska Attorney General Jon Bruning and Oklahoma Attorney
General E. Scott Pruitt, both Republicans.
Federal law undisputedly prohibits the production and sale of marijuana, Bruning said in a statement. Colorado
has undermined the United States Constitution, and I hope the U.S. Supreme Court will uphold our constitutional
principles.

The lawsuit argues that federal law, which prohibits recreational marijuana,
preempts Colorado state law that allows it. Their legal argument relies on the
Supremacy Clause

of the US Constitution.

The state attorney generals also allege that Colorado did not provide safeguards to ensure marijuana cultivated
and sold in Colorado is not trafficked to other states, including Plaintiff States.
If successful, the lawsuit would stop legalization dead in its tracks and would likely spell ultimate doom for future
state referendums on the issue. The Supreme Courts ruling would immediately affect Alaska, where marijuana
was legalized in a November voter referendum, and Washington state. Washington DC voters approved a
legalization measure with 70 percent support in November, but Congressional Republicans blocked it. Congress
has the authority to challenge laws passed on the local level in DC, which is not a state.

The lawsuit would not affect the 32 states and the District of Columbia that have legalized medical
marijuana. That is because Congress quietly passed a law allowing medical marijuana
in states where it is legal. The law will prevent federal law enforcement agents from raiding medical
marijuana operations in those states. The provision was part of the recently passed omnibus bill, which funded the
federal government through next September.

The Supreme Court may ultimately dismiss the case. However if they do take the
case, a 2005 ruling in Gonzales v. Raich signals potential trouble for the Colorado law.
In that case, a 6-3 majority on the Court found that Congress had the legal
authority to criminalize the production and use of marijuana grown in the home,
even in cases of medicinal use where it is legal under state law . However, only five of the
nine justices that heard that case are still on the bench.

Follow On
1NC Weiner (above)
Their solvency deficit is pure conjecture. The Omnibus Bill will
force Congress to accommodate state legalization and removes
the fear of federal circumvention
The Inquistr 12/11/14 [Marijuana Legalization: U.S. Congress Inadvertently Paves Way For
States To Decide, The Inquisitr, December 11, 2014, pg. http://tinyurl.com/nltcfs6

Marijuana legalization took a major step forward

today, even if it was disguised as a setback.

The U.S. Congress failed to vote for outright legalization of marijuana an act that brought out protesters, as
reported in the Inquisitr, but

one provision of a new budget bill

could invariably

pave the way

for states to decide for themselves to legalize marijuana.

The previous budget bill contained language that would effectively overturn the recent Washington, D.C.,
proposition that voters approved to decriminalize recreational marijuana use. Also included in the bill were
cuts to funding for homeland security and attacks on Obamas immigration reforms. That bill, called the Omnibus
Bill, essentially died, and with it Congress attempt to overstep what was legally voted on by the populace of the
District of Columbia.
A new budget bill is being written, this one with a better chance to pass both houses and, as the year draws to a
close, will most likely pass.

This new bill

has a provision attached that

defunds the federal

governments enforcement of drug laws in states where marijuana legalization

has been passed by voters. Right now, those states include Colorado, Washington State, Alaska, and
Oregon. Without interference from the federal government on drug enforcement issues, these
states can now move forward with further implementation of legalized recreational pot
along with the taxation that comes with it paving the way for greater access to
users, which in turn will bring in more money for the states.
marijuana
legalization bills in due process, and 23 states have some form of medicinal marijuana statutes already in
place. Proponents claim that this process has been hindered in the past due to fears
that no matter what the voters choose at the polls, the federal governments Drug Enforcement Agency (DEA)
would just work to shut it all down. If this new budget bill defunds that possibility
of enforcement, the states will be free to choose for themselves whether or not
they want to jump into what has become, in the last three years, a multi-billion dollar business.
The key issue here is that there are currently seven other states with varying forms of

The Law Enforcement Against Prohibition called the measure a stunning

victory . As reported by ThinkProgress, Tony Newman of the Drug Policy Alliance explains
what the measure means for the states.
For

the first time, Congress is letting states set their own medical marijuana and
hemp policies, a huge step forward for sensible drug policy . States will continue to
reform their marijuana laws and Congress will be forced to accommodate
them . Its not a question of if, but when, federal marijuana prohibition will be
repealed .

This major step in marijuana legalization could also effectively change the
classification of marijuana from a schedule one drug (like cocaine or heroin), further
erasing the wrongly placed stigma on the naturally grown plant. It could also very well remove roadblocks
that are still in place for medicinal marijuana use. Any way its taken, the amendment in the new
budget bill is a major step forward.
the DEA would be forced to step back
on issues of marijuana use and sale on the state level, leaving the decisions to the
states and the people living in the states. For the states where medicinal and recreational
use has already been passed, it means greater access for users and greater tax
incomes for the states. In states where the ideas are just now starting to take hold, this clearing of the
If this new budget passes, and the amendment becomes law,

path means that very possibly, those next seven states could see legalized marijuana use on the ballot as early as
2016, a presidential election, which usually has higher voter turnout. For proponents, this is a a stunning
victory, indeed.

Fed will model the states. Short-term Congressional reforms

solves their signal based advantages without full federal
marijuana legalization
Serrano 12/27/14 News Editor @ Jazeera America [Alfonso Serrano, The Year in Drug Policy:
Movement at a crossroads, Al Jazeera America, December 27, 2014 5:00AM ET, pg. http://tinyurl.com/odogzof

The 43-year-old war on drugs had never seen such a barrage of opposition as it did in
2014, with successful marijuana legalization initiatives in several U.S. states,
Californias historic approval of sentencing reform for low level drug offenders and world leaders calling for the

which cement the mainstream appeal of drug policy

alternatives and offer unprecedented momentum going into 2015.
legal regulation of all drugs all of

Oregon, Alaska and Washington D.C. joined Colorado and Washington state in
legalizing recreational marijuana and will soon start seeing the tax benefit from the estimated $41
billion that U.S. consumers spend annually on marijuana. That these states voted for legalization during a
Republican romp in November elections underscores the conviction among drug policy analysts that legalization
has entered the mainstream culture.

Its a matter of time, they say, before more states

and countries follow suit .

Proof of that allure lies in the South , where conservative states had kept their distance from the
marijuana legalization until recently. Legalization activists have spearheaded
decriminalization and medical marijuana campaigns in Texas, Alabama and
Georgia, with initial bi-partisan support in some state legislatures, and 2015 promises
further momentum. California, though, remains the state to watch . If the most
populous state, and the worlds 8th largest economy, legalizes cannabis use via
ballot initiative during the 2016 presidential elections, as its expected to do, it
may lead to a dramatic chain reaction across the country following the path
of the gay marriage movement and ultimately force the federal government
to revisit its policy on the drug.

And California is not idly waiting for 2016 in November the state made a salvo on another drug war front.
Voters approved Proposition 47, which will reduce penalties for low-level drug crimes. The possession of small
amounts of cocaine and heroin, for example, will soon be treated as misdemeanors, not felonies a move that is
expected to affect about 40,000 offenders annually and save hundreds of millions of dollars.
The coming year will also witness implementation of a landmark decision in 2014 by the U.S. Sentencing
Commission, which acted on the recommendation of Attorney General Eric Holder. Starting in November, low
level drug offenders an estimated 46,000 prisoners who have spent at least 10 years in prison will be
released from prison as part of a clemency initiative to reduce sentences for non-violent drug offenders.
And there are other signs Washington may be shifting direction in the drug war. Tucked away in the $1.1 trillion
spending bill is an amendment that prohibits the Justice Department from using federal funds to target state-run
medical marijuana programs a major shift in federal drug policy. The provision also keeps federal agents from
arresting people involved in pot businesses who are complying with state laws.

Expect similar legislative efforts in Washington during 2015 , say drug policy watchers.
There is no way Congress will take up full legalization yet, especially with the GOP
still divided on cannabis. But Congress will continue to introduce reform-centered
legislation though probably with not enough support to see passage on issues like drug
sentencing, industrial hemp use and medical access to marijuana.
Washingtons deviation will likely also reverberate through Latin America . In
October at the United Nations, Assistant Secretary of State William Brownfield recognized the growing disconnect
between Washingtons approach to marijuana legalization in the U.S. and abroad. He responded to growing
criticism toward U.S. drug policy from Latin American leaders, who openly question why they should channel
resources and lives against the drug trade when several U.S. states have legalized recreational cannabis. We
have to be tolerant of different countries, in response to their own national circumstances and conditions,
exploring and using different national drug control policies," said Brownfield.
No country better exemplifies that exploration than Uruguay, which in late 2013 became the first country in the
world to legalize recreational marijuana. This year saw the Jos Mujica slowly roll out the law, with some delays,
and survive what would have been the measures demise, when Mujicas ruling party won a presidential run-off
against Luis Alberto Lacalle Pou, of the right-leaning National Party, who had vowed to repeal the laws major
provisions.

Mexico and Colombia have already decriminalized possession of drugs for

personal use. And the coming year will see the legalization of medical cannabis debated
in Colombia, Chile and Jamaica. Additionally, Otto Perez Molina, the president of Guatemala and a
Countries like

major drug reform proponent, has vowed to decide on marijuana legalization in early 2015.

AT: Getman
The CP completely legalizes the sale, retail, and use of
marijuana and legalizes the production by states. This
solvency deficit doesnt apply to the function of the CP.
Gettman is about medical marijuana. No rollback, the CPs fiat
is durable and removes the prohibition on every part
Gettman, 14 [4/19/14, Jon, Ph.D. in public policy, teaching undergraduate
criminal justice and graduate level management courses., Remove Marijuana from
the Controlled Substances Act http://www.hightimes.com/read/remove-marijuanacontrolled-substances-act]

Marijuana does not belong in the Controlled Substances Act. Any scheduling of
marijuana in the Controlled Substances Act is a threat to medical marijuana
use and state medical marijuana laws . Rescheduling is an obsolete remedy,
once long overdue but now its only value would be to provide a pretext to roll back
or eliminate the advances brought about by state level reform. The CSA is
intended to regulate pharmaceutical products, manufactured by corporations,
and provided to patients according to prescriptions issued by doctors. Marijuana is
not a pharmaceutical product, it is grown not manufactured, and no doctor in the
United States can write a prescription for a substance that remains
unapproved by the Food and Drug Administration. State medical marijuana
laws challenge the premise that marijuana should be subject to this federal
regulatory framework. State medical marijuana law are part of a process, governed
by the principles of federalism, to develop alternative regulatory approaches that
better serve the needs of patients and caregivers. Rescheduling is advanced today
as a means of expediting research on medical marijuana that would provide the
means to successfully challenge the DEAs opposition to recognizing the
therapeutic benefits of cannabis. Some also hope the provisions of any bill
passed by Congress to change marijuanas placement in the CSA would include
protections for state medical marijuana programs and patients. This poses an
obvious question. If Congress is willing and able to pass a law providing
protection for state programs and medical cannabis users, then why not
just remove marijuana from the CSA and provide such protections? Also,
as a related but perhaps separate matter, if Congress is willing and able to pass a
law to expedite research on the medical use of cannabis, why not establish
appropriate regulations outside the framework of the Controlled Substances Act?
The reader may have noticed that this discussion has not included any explanation
of the differences in the various schedules of the CSA and how placement in one
schedule or another would affect research or medical availability. This is because it
doesnt matter. A different schedule for marijuana would make research easier, but
Congress could accomplish that with specific legislation. As long as marijuana is
subject to the CSA, there will be no legal medical use under federal law until there is
FDA approval of corporate, patented, pharmaceutical cannabis products. There

was a time when the symbolic ramifications of rescheduling would have

helped to advance reform of the nations marijuana laws. That time is
past. Passage of state-level medical marijuana laws has accomplished
that, and much more they have provided legitimacy, access and legal
protections. At the federal level it is time for substantive changes in
federal law and policy, not symbolism, nor half-measures, nor tinkering
around with the CSA to provide the appearance of action without
providing any significant relief for patients. Imagine the following
scenario. Marijuana is rescheduled and the DEA then aggressively
attempts to make all medical marijuana access in the US subject to the
regulatory restrictions established by the CSA. Access to medical marijuana
under state programs is reduced and made much more complicated as
tighter controls are enacted. Within a few years Sativex, a cannabis
pharmaceutical product, will be approved for sale in the US by the Food and Drug
Administration. The DEA will probably make it a Schedule III substance, like Marinol
(the THC pill) or maybe even something less restrictive. The DEA will then argue
that while access to medical marijuana may have been necessary in years past, this
new pharmaceutical product has rendered medical marijuana obsolete. Is this the
Obama Administrations plan? Maybe, but probably not. However, Obama will
only be in office until 2016. What then? Who knows? What we do know is
that the CSA is not a practical regulatory framework for medical cannabis
and that it can be used to roll back or eliminate medical cannabis access .
Right now, everybody involved in medical cannabis distribution can be
indicted under federal law, if not now under this Attorney General then
later under another one. Rescheduling marijuana once had potential to
advance marijuana law reform. It no longer does. State level reform has
changed the playing field in significant and profound ways. Its time to change
federal law to address the legitimate needs of patients in every state.
This means removing marijuana from the Controlled Substances Act and
federal passage of a new piece of legislation granting every American access to
marijuana in a legal regulated market.

AT: Wild
Hes a JD without qualification and just asserts the removal
from the CSA would HELP but that does not mean that the aff
controls the UNIQUE link to changing the UNGASS the CP
solves the only internal link is legal regulation
Wild, 13 [Joshua, JD, Suffolk University, EPIC FAILURE: THE UNCOMFORTABLE
TRUTH ABOUT THE UNITED STATES' ROLE IN THE FAILURE OF THE GLOBAL WAR ON
DRUGS AND HOW IT IS GOING TO FIX IT, Suffolk University Suffolk Transnational Law
Review Summer, 2013, 36 Suffolk Transnat'l L. Rev. 423, p. lexis]
I. Introduction The global war on drugs has been deemed a failure, an apt categorization considering the billions in exorbitant
expenditures applied to its supply-side campaign with little statistics to effectuate its cause. n1 In fact, evidence persistently
suggests that the ardent prohibitionist style of the United States may be the leading cause for the current global drug epidemic. n2
The disheartening current state of the international drug problem has lead to the global erosion of support for the U.S.-style war on
drugs; furthermore, the emergence of new empirical data has [*424] generated a series of advocates for reform who seek fiscally
responsible policies grounded in science, health, security, and human rights. n3

Part and parcel of this

is the encouragement of governments to experiment with

the

argument

legal

regulation of marijuana because of its vast global consumption and low level of
associated criminality. n4

Evidence suggesting there are

more pragmatic and

less punitive

approaches to the drug issue , coalescing with various global commissions advocating the assimilation of this
data into policies, represents a shift in the global drug consensus . n5 This shift in
global consensus places the [*425] United States. in the necessary sociopolitical context
that may be needed to actually manage the drug epidemic. n6 This Note argues that the
United States has severely aggravated the global drug control problem by forcefully
imposing a prohibitionist ideology onto other countries around the world. n7 To remedy
this error, the United States should take accountability and stand at the forefront of drug policy reformation by implementing
demand side policies within its own nation, something that is within its own capacity. n8 Part II of this Note will set forth all of the
pertinent facts that are necessary for understanding the current global drug epidemic, how the epidemic arrived at this state, and
what the United States can do to manage it. n9 In Part III, this Note traces the history of international drug control and attempts to
correlate the demise of control over the issue with U.S.-led supply-side policies. n10 Part IV provides an analysis of how the United
States exacerbated the problem and suggests an avenue the United States can take to place the issue in a manageable position.

the U nited S tates should take accountability for its mistakes and
reform its policies from a regime of prohibition to one of regulation. n12 II.
n11 Part V concludes that

Facts The ineffectiveness of the war against drugs, both domestically and internationally, is not a relatively new or veiled problem.
n13 [*426] Despite the continual emergence of empirical evidence, little has been done to assimilate this information into drug
control policies since the war was first waged by international policymakers and President Richard Nixon over forty years ago. n14
Recently, case studies and evidence have accumulated to a level that can no longer be ignored, and the debate concerning more
efficient alternatives and revisions to current drug control policies has intensified. n15 International commissions such as the Global
Commission on Drug Control Policy are chastising global drug control regimes for their lack of leadership on drug policy and are
advocating for multilateral debate on this issue. n16 Essential to the progression of this issue is the United States, who within the
past forty years has spent over $ 2.5 trillion dollars fighting the war, with little empirical data to support meaningful results. n17 In
fact, research has consistently indicated that [*427] the United States supply-side policies are instead a leading cause of the current
international epidemic. n18 A. The First Step to Solving a Problem is Recognizing That There is One - Current State of International
Drug Control With the implementation of the United Nations Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs ("UNSCND") nearly fifty years ago,
it was clear that the ultimate objective was to improve the "health and welfare of mankind." n19 Unfortunately, this objective has
been lost amidst current policies driven by ideological perspective and political convenience, with a focus on quantifiable figures
such as drug arrests and harsh punishments, rather than qualitative figures that represent economic and social development. n20
Since the initiation of the global drug prohibition system, numerous forms of empirical and scientific evidence have surfaced that
reveal the nature and patterns of drug production, distribution, consumption, and dependence. n21 Most significantly, some studies
have even correlated the progression of these patterns with the effectiveness of current policies. n22 The [*428] 2011 World Drug
Report estimated that in 2009, between 149 and 272 million people globally, or 3.3% to 6.1% of the world's middle aged population,
used illicit substances at least once in that year. n23 Globally, the average prevalence of HIV and Hepatitis C among injecting drug
users is 17.9% and 50%, respectively. n24 These statistics reflect the health consequences of the drug use epidemic and illustrate
the importance of solving this ominous predicament. n25 Ironically, despite increasing evidence that the current drug control
policies are not working, and case studies suggesting that less repressive, alternative drug control policies are working, most

policymaking bodies have tended to avoid this reality and the possibility of exploring alternatives. n26 Governments continue to
expend resources and billions of U.S. dollars on incarceration and futile supply reduction strategies which in turn displace the

Advocates of reform endorse the

sensible policy [*429] option that governments experiment with different
models of legal regulation of drugs in an attempt to undermine the criminal market and enhance national
security. n28 For this movement to effectively control the epidemic at hand, there
must be a broad consensus around the world that the current drug control
policies are morally noxious. n29 Unfortunately, the stigma and fear
associated with more toxic drugs, such as heroin, has precluded this
consensus and perpetuated the current ineffective policies. n30 B. Exacerbating the
possibility of spending these resources on demand reduction. n27

Problem - The U.S. Role in the Global War on Drugs When President Nixon waged the U.S. Government's "War on Drugs" nearly forty
years ago, policymakers' focus was on supply-side measures and harsh law enforcement as the means to stop the seemingly
endless flow of drugs across U.S. borders. n31 The problem was, and remains today, that the United States is the world's largest
consumer of illicit drugs, and combining that with drug markets as diverse and well established as they are, the possibility of
stopping the supply of these drugs is simply unrealistic and unrealizable. n32 Instead, these ineffective [*430] drug policies have
resulted in nothing short of an abject disaster. n33 With approximately 20 million illicit drug users in the United States, the estimated
annual cost of illicit drug use to society is above $ 193 billion. n34 With the overall availability of illicit drugs in the U.S. increasing at
alarming rates, and empirical data to correlate current drug policies to this epidemic, advocates of reform are pointing to the urgent
need for a more rational drug control policy discussion. n35 Policymakers often underrate the U.S.-demand element of the equation,
and how it relates to the problem at hand, particularly when you consider that marijuana accounts for the vast majority of America's
illicit drug consumption. n36 A 2010 study conducted by the National Survey on Drug Use and Health revealed that in the United
States, 22.6 million people had used illicit drugs in the past month, 17.4 million of which used marijuana. n37 Further, the National
Survey on Drug Use and Health estimated that at least 18.5 % of the nation's young adults, aged 18 to 25, used marijuana. n38 Put
bluntly, the monumental scope of the international marijuana market is largely affected by the exorbitant U.S. demand for the drug
and the illegality of the market. n39 [*431] The high demand for marijuana in the United States has eroded authority in countries
that produce marijuana, and international officials are increasingly calling on the United States to do more to reduce its demand.

there is a
growing movement among U.S. states to rethink and restructure
n40 At a time when it seems that the drug epidemic in the United States may be spiraling out of control,

marijuana laws . n41 Marijuana is a criminally sanctioned drug under U.S.

federal law, but as of 2010, over half of the states have enacted or proposed legislation that either allows legal medical
marijuana or decriminalize possession of marijuana. n42 California was the first state in the United States to allow marijuana for
medical use. n43 The state tax board of California believes that the legalization and regulation of marijuana could raise $ 1.3 billion
or more per year, while saving millions of dollars in prison and law enforcement costs. n44 This economic approach to state
regulation and taxing of marijuana has a two-fold prospective: (1) eradicating the demand for a criminal market, and (2) generating
a substantial amount of revenue at a time when it is badly needed. n45 These benefits, combined with [*432] the minimal health
risks of marijuana in comparison to alcohol and tobacco, are leading more states to tolerant approaches to drug policy. n46 III.
History The notion that international drug control is primarily a fight against crime and criminals has been the foundation of policy
decisions since the development of national and global drug control regimes. n47 The concept of the drug control system was
initially developed based on laudable principles such as reducing harm to individuals and fostering economic and social
development. n48 Over time, however, the drug control system degenerated into a "war" that threatens harm to individual users,
farmers, and petty traders while depressing economic and social development. n49 A. Tracing the Development of International
Drug Control Policies The framework of international drug control has transpired through a series of stages in the past century
beginning with the International Opium Convention of 1912 and continuing through 2012, marking the centennial of its existence.
n50 The Opium Convention in 1912 and the treaties that followed were [*433] initially regulatory mechanisms developed largely to
control the previously unregulated market of opium. n51 As the treaties evolved and expanded, they resulted in a regulated trade
market for opiates, cocaine, and cannabis, but not the criminalization of these substances or their trade markets. n52 As a result,
the ardent prohibitionists, namely the United States and China, departed from the negotiations in 1925. n53 World Wars I and II
served as both a burden and a blessing for the United States because drug control was not a top priority for most countries during
this period and the United States was unable to globalize their prohibitive anti-drug ideals. n54 Conversely, the end of the war
marked the necessary political atmosphere that the United States had yearned for, emerging as the dominant political, economic,
and military power; a leverage position that allowed the United States to shape a new drug control regime. n55 It was the initiative
by the United States, advocating for the international control of narcotic drugs, which lead to the development of the landmark
international agreement, the 1961 United Nations Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs. n56 1. The UN Drug Control Conventions
The 1961 UN Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs codified all of the piecemeal multilateral treaties on drug control that had been
developing since the early years of the twentieth [*434] century and created a more prohibitive system, extending coverage to
include the cultivation of plants that were grown as the raw material of narcotic drugs. n57 With this extension, a universal system
was in place for limiting the cultivation, production, distribution, trade, use, and possession of narcotic substances. n58 A decade
later in 1971, the Convention on Psychotropic Substances was developed to combat the emerging pharmaceutical market that had
completely re-structured conventional drug use. n59 The assimilation of these two treaties into one drug control system resulted in
the creation of the International Narcotic Control Board (INCB), a regulatory board that limited the availability of the controlled
substances to medical and scientific purposes. n60 Much to the U.S.'s chagrin, none of the scheduled drugs were ever declared
illegal and the term "illicit drug" does not appear in the UN Conventions. n61 The effective implementation of the UN Conventions
adversely affected the drug market. n62 In the 1970s and 1980s, demand in the Western world for the previously available drugs
facilitated the development of a multi-billion dollar international narcotics trafficking business. n63 In response to the growing illegal
drug market, the 1988 Convention against Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances was developed [*435] and
implemented to deter the expansion of the illicit drug market through the availability of special punitive measures for offenders. n64

The implementation of this convention marked a significant point in the history of international drug control. n65 The emphasis
placed on criminal sanctions for offenders was representative of the prohibitive anti-drug ideology of the United States and was a
catalyst in the demise of control over the global drug problem. n66 B. Tracing the Development of the U.S.'s "War on Drugs" The
late 1960s marked an era of political unrest in the U.S., and recreational drug use became fashionable as a sign of social rebellion.
n67 By 1971, President Nixon declared a national "War on Drugs" in response to the growing heroin epidemic among U.S.
servicemen returning from Vietnam and U.S. illicit drug consumption growing out of control. n68 As part of this war, Nixon
established the Drug Enforcement Agency (DEA), a "super agency" consolidating all of the previously established drug control
agencies, which would handle all aspects of the drug problem. n69 Unfortunately, the DEA was no match for the [*436] epic drug
problem and the significant growth of the cocaine trade brought a new, violent dimension to the already expanding U.S. drug
market. n70 The exorbitant growth and ensuing violence of the cocaine trade in the late 1970s and early 1980s led President Ronald
Reagan to issue a National Security Decision Directive (NSDD-221) in April of 1986, declaring the escalating drug trade a threat to
the U.S. and prompting Operation Blast Furnace, the first publicized deployment of U.S. troops to foreign soil to aid anti-drug efforts.
n71 In hindsight, the events that would unfold in 1986 and the years to follow reflected the general ideology behind the "War on
Drugs" and are symbolic of exactly what went wrong in U.S. drug policy development. n72 In 1986, President Reagan signed the
Anti-Drug Abuse Act, allocating $ 1.7 billion USD and new criminal sanctions to be applied to drug control measures. n73 The U.S.
Congress enacted "drug certification," which was a highly politicized, disciplinary mechanism for countries that failed to fully
cooperate with the prohibition of illicit drugs. n74 Military drug interdiction became the symbol of the National Defense Authorization
Act of 1989, which made the Department of Defense the lead agency responsible for tackling drug trafficking. n75 The political
context of the preceding period, [*437] evolving around the Cold War, sparked questions about the potential use of the War on
Drugs to legitimize military operations abroad. n76 IV. Analysis A. A Starting Point for Review: Taking Accountability The War on

The correct classification of the

global drug problem was and still is as a set of interlinked health and
social challenges to be managed, not a war to be won. n78 The U.S. has worked strenuously for the past
Drugs' demise started when the bellicose analogy was created. n77

fifty years to ensure that all countries adopt its rigid, prohibitionist approach to drug policy, essentially repressing the potential for
alternative policy development and experimentation. n79 This was an expensive mistake that the U.S. unfortunately cannot take
back. n80 The current emergence from the economic recession of 2008-2009 has set the stage for a generational, political and
cultural shift, placing the U.S. in a unique moment in its history; the necessary sociopolitical context to revoke its prohibitionist
ideals and replace them with more modern policies grounded in health, science and humanity. n81 The U.S. can remedy its mistake

One way
to do this is by capitalizing [*438] on this unique moment in its existence
and experimenting with models of legal regulation , specifically with
by using its considerable diplomatic influence and international presence to foster reform in other countries. n82

marijuana because nearly half of U.S. citizens favor legalization of it. n83
This will help redeem our image internationally and help repair foreign relations because the
monumental scope of the international marijuana market is largely created by the exorbitant U.S. demand for the drug which
partially stems from the illegality of the market. n84 B. Step 1: Recognize the Ineffectiveness of The Global War on Drugs and
Consider Alternatives An objective way to gauge the effectiveness of a drug policy is to examine how the policy manages the most
toxic drugs and the problems associated with them. n85 With that in mind, at the global level, having one in five intravenous drug
users have HIV and one in every two users having Hepatitis C is clearly an epidemic and not the result of effective drug control
policies. n86 The threat of arrest and punishment as a deterrent from people using drugs is sound in theory, but in practice this
hypothesis is tenuous. n87 Countries that have enacted harsh, punitive laws have higher levels of drug use and related problems
than countries with more tolerant approaches. n88 Additionally, the countries that have experimented with forms of legal regulation
outside of punitive approaches have not seen rises in drug use and dependence [*439] rates. n89 Therefore, one sensible first step
in placing this issue back into a manageable position is for national governments to encourage other governments to experiment
with models of legal regulation of drugs which fit their context. n90 This will in turn, undermine the criminal market, enhance
national security, and allow other countries to learn from their application. n91 1. Easier to Say Than Do - A Suggestion for
Overcoming Difficulties Associated With Legal Regulation For this movement to be successful and effectively manage the epidemic
at hand there must be a broad consensus around the world that the current drug control policies are morally harmful. n92 This
consensus however is precluded by the stigma and fear associated with more toxic drugs such as heroin. n93 This note does not
propose that heroin and other toxic drugs should be legalized but instead suggests that society and drug policies tend to consolidate
and classify all illicit drugs as equally dangerous. n94 This in turn restrains any progressive debate about experimenting with the
regulation of different drugs under different standards. n95 [*440] Regardless of these false dichotomies, which often restrain
progressive debate, it is difficult not to give credence to the idea of marijuana being socially acceptable when it has been by far the
most widely produced and consumed illicit drug. n96 There is between 125 and 203 million users worldwide and no indication of that
number declining. n97 With this many users, it is reasonable to conclude that if the international community could reach a
consensus about the moral noxiousness of any drug control policy, the repression of marijuana would likely be it. n98 Marijuana,
arguably socially acceptable, represents a simple mechanism to enter into the experimentation process with the legal regulation of
drugs. n99 Without advocating for the UN to adopt new commissions or encouraging drastic moves such as the decriminalization of
all illicit substances, the global decriminalization of marijuana would be a relatively minor adjustment compared to the monumental
impact. n100 If national governments were to decriminalize marijuana, the scope of this movement would essentially eradicate the
public health problem of marijuana abuse and the associated criminality because of its illegal status. n101 Public health problems
can be remedied because it will afford governments the ability to regulate the market and control the quality and price of the drug,
essentially removing toxic impurities and setting a price that will diminish an illegal market. n102 This will in turn diminish the
criminal market [*441] by eradicating the need for users to commit crimes to procure marijuana and removing the economic
incentive for other countries to get involved in the drug's market. n103 Without arguing that this is the panacea for the global war
on drugs, proponents of legalization can aptly point to the archaic drug control policies in place and this macro approach as an
effective way to tackle the problem now. n104 C. Step 2: Real Reform - the U.S. Needs to Stand at the Forefront of Drug Policy
Reformation The U.S. wields considerable influence over the rest of the world, so it is no surprise that its call for the development
and maintenance of prohibitive, punitive drug policies resulted in a majority of the international community following. n105

Conversely, if the U.S. leads the call for the development and maintenance of more tolerant drug policies grounded in health,
humanity and science, a majority of the international community will also follow. n106 Cultural shifts do not take place overnight,
and the idea of complete U.S. drug policy reformation is too aggressive and stark in contrast to succeed against modern
bureaucracy and political alliances. n107 On the other hand, a more moderate, piecemeal approach could effectively act as a
catalyst for this transformation while simultaneously serving as a case study for opponents of legal regulation. n108 [*442] If the
U.S. is serious about addressing the ineffectiveness of the War on Drugs, then the federal government must remove marijuana from
its list of criminally banned substances. n109 The tone of the Obama administration is a significant step in this direction. n110
President Obama has explicitly acknowledged the need to treat drugs as more of a public health problem, as well as the validity of
debate on alternatives, but he does not favor drug legalization. n111 This progressive rhetoric is a significant step in the right
direction, but until there is some real reform confronting the issue, reducing punitive measures and supporting other countries to
develop drug policies that suit their context, there is still an abdication of policy responsibility. n112 1. Starting Small - Potential
Positive Effects of Regulation and Taxation of Marijuana in the U.S. If marijuana was legal in the U.S., it would function similarly to
the market of legal substances such as liquor, coffee and tobacco. n113 Individual and corporate participants in the market would
pay taxes, increasing revenues and saving the government from the exorbitant cost of trying to enforce prohibition laws. n114
Consumers' human rights would be promoted through self-determination, autonomy and access to more accurate information about
the product they are consuming. n115 Additionally, case studies and research suggest that the decriminalization or legalization
[*443] of marijuana reduces the drugs' consumption and does not necessarily result in a more favorable attitude towards it. n116
The legal regulation of marijuana would relieve the current displaced burden the drug places on law enforcement, domestically and
internationally. n117 In the U.S., law enforcement could refocus their efforts away from reducing the marijuana market per se and
instead towards reducing harm to individuals, communities and national security. n118 Abroad, U.S. international relations would
improve because of the reduced levels of corruption and violence at home and afar. n119 The precarious position repressive policies
place on foreign governments when they have to destroy the livelihoods of agricultural workers would be reduced. n120
Additionally, legalization and regulation would provide assistance to governments in regaining some degree of control over the
regions dominated by drug dealers and terrorist groups because those groups would lose a major source of funding for their
organizations. n121 2. Health Concerns? - Marijuana in Comparison to Other Similar Legal Substances The federal government,
acknowledging the risks inherent in alcohol and tobacco, argues that adding a third substance to that mix cannot be beneficial. n122
Adding anything to a class of [*444] dangerous substances is likely never going to be beneficial; however marijuana would be
incorrectly classified if it was equated with those two substances. n123 Marijuana is far less toxic and addictive than alcohol and
tobacco. n124 Long term use of marijuana is far less damaging than long term alcohol or tobacco use. n125 Alcohol use contributes
to aggressive and reckless behavior, acts of violence and serious injuries while marijuana actually reduces likelihood of aggressive
behavior or violence during intoxication and is seldom associated with emergency room visits. n126 As with most things in life, there
can be no guarantee that the legalization or decriminalization of marijuana would lead the U.S. to a better socio-economical position
in the future. n127 Two things however, are certain: that the legalization of marijuana in the U.S. would dramatically reduce most of
the costs associated with the current drug policies, domestically and internationally, and [*445] if the U.S. is serious about its
objective of considering the costs of drug control measures, then it is vital and rational for the legalization option is considered. n128
D. Why the Time is Ripe for U.S. Drug Policy Reformation The political atmosphere at the end of World War I and II was leverage for
the U.S., emerging as the dominant political, economic and military power. n129 This leverage allowed it to shape a prohibitive drug
control regime that until now has remained in perpetuity. n130 Today, we stand in a unique moment inside of U.S. history. n131 The
generational, political and cultural shifts that accompanied the U.S. emergence from the "Great Recession" resulted in a
sociopolitical climate that may be what is necessary for real reform. n132 Politically, marijuana has become a hot issue;
economically, the marijuana industry is bolstering a faltering economy and socially, marijuana is poised to transform the way we live
and view medicine. n133 The public disdain for the widespread problems prohibition caused in the early 20th century resulted in the
end of alcohol prohibition during the Great Depression. n134 If history does actually repeat itself than the Great recession may have

V. Conclusion The U.S. and its prohibitionist

ideals exacerbated the failure of both the international and its own
domestic drug policies. n136 As a result, the U.S. should accept
accountability for its mistakes by reforming its drug policies in a way that
will help [*446] place the global drug market back into a manageable
position. n137 Marijuana is an actionable, evidence based mechanism for
been much more telling than expected. n135

constructive legal and policy reform that through a domino effect can
transform the global drug prohibition regime .

n138 The generational, political and cultural

shifts that accompanied the U.S. emergence from the "Great Recession" have resulted in a sociopolitical climate ready for real
reform. n139 The U.S. will capitalize on this unique moment by removing marijuana from the list of federally banned substances,
setting the stage for future international and domestic drug policies that are actually effective. n140

AT: Berman
Not about the Fed or CSAabout states (green)
Berman 14, Professor of Law [April 2014, Douglas A. Berman, Reflecting on the
Latest Drug War Fronts, Federal Sentencing Reporter, Vol. 26, No. 4, Is the Drug
War Ending or Retrenching?, pp. 213-216]

Why State Marijuana Legalization Could Dramatically Transform Drug War

Battles and Forces

As reflected in the primary materials reprinted in this Issue, alongside the current

federal officials have been

forced to confront and respond to much more dramatic drug law

debate over modest modifications to federal drug sentencing schemes,

reforms

taking place in the states. In 2012, voters in Colorado and Washington legalized recreational use and

sales of marijuana. These reforms came on the heels of these states and more than a dozen others enacting laws
permitting persons to legally obtain mari- juana for medicinal purposes under various regulatory schemes. These
state-level marijuana law reforms, particularly in the two states in which voter approval of recreational marijuana
use required state officials to create and monitor regulatory regimes for marijuana distribution and use, forced the
Department of Justice to review and articulate whether and how federal officials would continue to enforce existing
federal prohibitions on all marijuana use and distribution in states that had legalized such activity. Reprinted in this
Issue are two documents that reflect the results of the Justice Departments latest efforts to provide guidance to
states that have legalized marijuana use and to actors with those states involved with marijuana-related
businesses: (1) an August 2013 memorandum signed by Deputy Attorney General James Cole providing guidance,
through the articulation of eight national priorities, for on-going federal marijuana enforcement, and (2) a February
2014 memorandum from the U.S. Department of the Treasury setting out expectations for any financial institutions
involved in providing services to marijuana-related businesses. Much might be said concerning the substance and
style of these federal policy memos, and it will likely be years before it is clear what concrete impact these
statements of federal policies and practices will have on the day-to-day activities of persons working in and around
state marijuana industries. But, regardless of exactly how federal policies and practices impact state marijuana

the new reality that public officials and private actors in a

number of states are now working within and around a new legalized
marijuana regime could have an extraordinary, transformative
regulations and businesses,

potential with respect to the broader drug war . Unlike sentencing reform, the
creation of new

state

regulatory regimes necessarily and dramatically alters

the basic drug war landscape and the basic work of those on the
battlefield. As suggested above, even significant drug sentencing reforms do not
change the essential terms on which the drug war is fought, nor are they
likely to reorient the perspectives and commitments of the traditional
combatants in this war. In sharp contrast, new laws legalizing and regulating
recreational use of marijuana demand that governmental moneys
and energies which were previously devoted to drug supply reduction
strategies, interdictions, and incarceration are now directed toward
new programming and invest- ments intended to ensure safe and
limited access to certain drugs along with revised strategies for

reducing drug abuse and related harms . Voters in Colorado and Washington have
now

essentially demanded their governments experiment with new

models of legal regulation for marijuana focused primarily on

safeguarding the health and security of those citizens who want to use drugs
responsibly and those who wish to avoid drug use. With government priorities reoriented
in this way, some addi- tional space has been cleared for legitimate and
responsible businesses and other private-sector actors to invest in and
contribute to creating a legal, regulatory, and social environment in which
some respon- sible drug use is encouraged, and drug abuse is discouraged
and treated as a public health problem rather than as a criminal justice
concern. With legal recreational marijuana regulations and realities just starting to emerge in Colorado and
Washington, and in light of the varied experiences in states with varied medical marijuana regulatory structures, it
is far too early to predict just how and how quickly state-level marijuana reforms can and will transform national

it is clear that these reforms have

already ensured that a new set of policy makers and institutional

policies and perspectives on the drug war more generally. But

players are thinking about regulation of drug distribution and use

in radical new ways . And once it becomes easier to understand and
experience a serious, reasonable alternative to a criminal justice response to
at least some drugs, the prospect of a full withdrawal from the drug
war, rather than just a limited retrenchment in that war, becomes
much more realistic.

AT: Velimirovic
This evidence is all about state legalization and legalizing all
drugs immediately which the aff doesnt do but the CP solves
Velimirovic, 14 [Sara, 11/24/14 Could Drug Legalization Policies Be a Tool for
Peace? Former Coordinator for The Helsinki Committee on Human Rights, AND
internally citing UN Data, and James Cockayne, head of the UN University Office at
the United Nations in New York and Allison Holcomb, criminal justice director of
ACLU. Research for this article included participation in the International Experts
Forums at the International Peace Institute in NYC]
In the wake of a booming trend of legalization of cannabis, the debate about our efforts to combat drugs has taken
off. In the past 50 years, the War on Drugs has created more problems than it has solved. Mass incarceration,
corruption and drug cartel induced violence continue to destroy millions of lives and stall economic growth. Sadly,
the most fragile regions entrenched in violent conflicts are the ones which provide fertile ground for organized

This article
will present how the issues of organized crime, peace and legalization of
cannabis are related, and if legalization of illicit drugs could be our silver
bullet. The International Peace Institute, a think tank for the United Nations on peace and international security
crime. In parallel, the question of peace still remains the most important question of our time.

issues, organized an International Experts Forum last Thursday on the topic of peacebuilding and organized crime.
Namely, organized crime is an important factor in the process of peacebuilding, a term usually used to describe the
whole framework of work being done by international organizations in conflict areas. According to Richard Zajac
Sannerholm, a researcher at Folke Bernadotte Academy, organized crime seems to thrive in the environments
where the political, economic and social factors in conjunction provide easy access, safety, and opportunities of
control and manipulation. Thus, working on the problem of organized crime means working on building peace in
the conflict areas. But, how does organized crime look today? We do not see many Godfather-like figures walking
around anymore, and it is certainly harder than before to spot whos the boss and track down the financial flows of
the business. James Cockayne, head of the U.N. University office at the U.N., illustrated at the conference on
Thursday how todays organized crime looks with a story from former CIA director James Woolsey: If you should
strike up a conversation with an articulate English speaking Russian gentlemen in the restaurant of a lovely hotel by
the shores of lake Geneva, and he says to you I am an executive of a trading company and I would like to enter
into a joint venture with you, then there are four possibilities: the first possibility is that thats exactly what he is,
the second possibility is he is a Russian intelligence officer working under commercial cover, the third possibility is
that he is a member of a Russian organized crime group and the fourth, and most interesting possibility, is that he
is all of these things and all of these institutions are perfectly happy with that arrangement. This illustrative
example, according to Cockayne, outlines the existence of an intimate relationship of organized crime with
politics. Moreover, organized crime is becoming more often defined as a network rather than a hierarchical
structure, which means it is harder and harder to pinpoint individuals and hold them accountable, according to
Catalina Uribe Burcher, Democracy, Conflict and Security Officer at International IDEA. The increased
interconnectedness of various parts of the world, commonly known under the umbrella term globalization, is
another factor testifying to the increasing difficulty to find solutions for organized crime. According to the UNODC
report, as unprecedented openness in trade, finance, travel and communication has created economic growth and
well-being, it has also given rise to massive opportunities for criminals to make their business prosper. Therefore, it

So how do we combat organized crime?

Lets look at the statistics
about the income of organized crime. According to this report of the
United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime, around 1.5% of global GDP
comes from organized crime. Illicit drugs amount to half of transnational
organized crime proceeds and 0.6% to 0.9% of global GDP .1 As Antonio
Maria Costa, Executive Director of the UNODC smartly put it, the key is
seems that ever-more organized crime is here to stay.

Could the liberalization of certain products on the market be the solution?

to go after their money.

According to these statistics,

if we legalized all drugs

right now, organized crime would lose 50% of its income, meaning that
many

networks of organized crime would

suffer severe damage or

would completely

disappear. Naturally, these processes take time. But, the good news is some
of the solutions that can help us combat organized crime are actually
trending already. For example, legalization of cannabis is booming all
across the globe. Uruguay received wide global attention when it legalized marijuana in 2013 with the
goal of combating illicit drug trade and social violence connected to organized crime. According to Carolina de

What followed
was the wave of legalization that hit the U.S. with states like Colorado,
Alaska, Oregon, Washington and Washington D.C. Alison Holcomb, National Director of
Robertis, this law is not just a law about smoking pot; its a law about peace and safety.

the ACLU Campaign to End Mass Incarceration, pointed out last Monday that California will most certainly be casting

This is of great importance not only because

California is the biggest state in the U.S., but also because the debate
around legalization would include political and security issues in
neighboring Mexico. By legalizing, California would become the domestic
a ballot related to the initiative in 2016.

supplier of cannabis in the U.S.,

while, noted Holcomb, the

citizens of Mexico

(would) continue to suffer from the failures of outdated drug policies . The
recent disappearance of 43 students in Mexico has sparked media outrage and the debate around War on Drugs
policies in this country. What are other benefits of legalization that could help rally public support? The argument
that drugs should be legalized because they are taken consensually, and do not hurt others seems quite evident to
many libertarians. Apart from this, a myriad of authors have already written about the benefits of marijuana
legalization, and most of them agree on the following points: If legalized substance is of higher quality for the
consumer substance is safer for the consumer criminal networks are weakened new jobs are created the state
can tax the transactions In fact, in a recent study by the CATO institute which looked into the budgetary impact of
drug legalization in the U.S., researchers found legalizing all drugs would save roughly $41.3 billion per year in
government expenditure and would yield $46.7 billion in tax revenue (assuming tax rates were similar to those of
alcohol and tobacco.) Overall, the U.S. government would be in a $89 billion plus. Out of this sum, $17.4 billion
would be from marijuana alone. Looking at marijuana legalization success stories in
terms of economic gains for the state, better quality of the product and apparent absence of negative

could these findings give credible grounds to push for other policies
of liberalization? In other words, could marijuana be a gateway drug for
consequences,

libertarianism? The answer might lie in the upcoming UN General

Assembly Special Session scheduled for 2016. This is a meeting where the
UN member states will discuss issues related to the global drug problem .
Namely, last Monday, UN University organized a talk about the preparations for UNGASS 2016, which included
many high level diplomats from countries of Latin America and members of the civil society. The conclusions made
at this event testify of how global the issue of legalization of drugs has become, and how much has changed in a

one of the speakers, James Cockayne, emphasized

legalization in California being the game-changer in the political

matter of a few years. To be specific,

the case of

debate.

He warned that

if the heads of states

and NGOs

fail to consider

drug

legalization policies more thoroughly, UNGASS 2016 is risking being seen

by the global media as yet another useless UN summit, and confirming
UNs inability to rapidly respond to contemporary problems , as was the
case with the Kyoto summit and climate change. Alison Holcomb

noted that conventions which

shape UNs stance on drugs were created more than fifty years ago and the use of words such as abuse and misuse
is more common than the word use. Thus, she symbolically

insinuated our policies are

outdated and the upcoming forum is an excellent chance to rethink our

interpretation of these conventions.

Finally, legalizing a substance such as cocaine still seems

rather shocking to a lot of people, especially to the decision-makers who will take part in the UNGASS 2016.

liberalization of all drugs is an issue that currently meets many

challenges, most notably lack of public support. Moreover, mentioning
Naturally,

legalization of drugs in fragile conflict ridden places such as Afghanistan

or Iraq seems far-fetched as there are many problems which are more pressing. However, we
cannot afford to ignore the potential of policies of decriminalization and
legalization of drugs to combat transnational organized crime globally.
Especially because the consequences of these policies easily transcend
national borders. It is one of the worlds most sophisticated and
profitable business, and we now have a growing pile of examples on how
to take the business away. As we have seen, experts are warning that world
governments will face scrutiny if they do not take the issue of legalization
seriously. Fortunately, there is strong potential for these inherently
libertarian policies to become a tool for peace . As outlined in the UNODC report,
Peacebuilding and peacekeeping make fragile regions less prone to the conflict that affects crime, while fighting

legalization could be a part of the

process of peacebuilding. Thus, the international peacebuilding community
should incorporate this debate into the larger framework for peace. This
would mean creating a space in which political solutions related to the
global trend of a loosening stance on drugs could answer to current
challenges. Experts need to discuss issues of drug legalization, organized
crime, and peacebuilding together, because this would lead us to a more
comprehensive understanding of challenges for peacebuilding in conflict
areas and to a more successful track record in our efforts for peace.
crime neutralizes spoilers who profit from instability.Meaning,

AT: Rolles
Rolles doesnt assume the function of the CP the CP legalizes
on almost every level, this violates international law and
embraces the collapse of prohibition.
Bennett, 10/16/14 - Brookings fellow in governance studies (Wells, Interview
conducted by Jonathan Rauch,
http://www.brookings.edu/blogs/fixgov/posts/2014/10/16-marijuana-enforcementmodernize-international-drug-treaties-rauch)

As a legal matter, what do you think of the administrations argument that it

has this kind of discretion?
It has a basis in international lawthough the argument will lose a lot of
force quickly, if marijuana legalization moves forward and the federal
government holds back on enforcement. Considering the policy alternatives, the
United States approach is nevertheless quite well justified under the
circumstances, practically speaking.
So you think its okay as a short-term response?
Right, if you want to push domestic policy right now in a direction more respectful of
the drug treaties, you would have to do things in domestic law that would be either
very difficult or politically toxic. For example, there was a call in some quarters to
have the Justice Department bring a lawsuit establishing that the federal Controlled
Substances Act, which bans marijuana, preempts the states regimes. But doing that
would essentially only upend the states marijuana rules without restoring their
criminal prohibitions of marijuana. In other words, a legal victory on those grounds
which, by the way, is not assuredwould require the federal government to take on
a much broader enforcement portfolio with regard to marijuana, something it lacks
the resources and political appetite to do.
It also matters that the international cost to the United States, right now, is not
off the charts at all. The body established by the treaties to monitor
compliance has disagreed with the administrations claim that it is acting
lawfully, but it hasnt gone further than that. And other nations have not
publicly been making a lot of noise about the United States views. For those
and other reasons, wait-and-see is a short-term response that makes a lot
of sense .
So, if what the administration is doing makes some sense, whats the
problem?
A wait-and-see strategy, under these circumstances, will look really good if
marijuana legalization goes really badly. But if legalization proceeds in a smart
and rigorous wayif 10, 15, 20 states enact and operate responsible
regimes for the regulation of marijuanawe will be enforcing the Controlled

Substances Act less and less in jurisdictions that have regulated, legal marijuana
markets. And that will create more and more tension with our international
commitments to suppress marijuana. At that point, it will be
extraordinarily difficult for the U.S. to maintain that it complies with its
obligations.

AT: Stripping
Stripping doesnt workPublic distrusts the other branches
moreit would backfire to moderate those branches
William G. ROSS, Professor of Law, Cumberland School of Law of Samford
University, 3 [The Resilience of Marbury v. Madison: Why Judicial Review has
survived so many Attacks, Wake Forest Law Review, Summer 2003, 38 Wake Forest
L. Rev. 733, Lexis]

The obstacles that impede any effort to curtail judicial review are so
formidable, and the history of Court-curbing is so rife with failure , that it is
hardly surprising that today's antagonists of the federal judiciary concentrate their
attention on influencing the judicial appointments process. But while organized efforts to
curb judicial review may be waning, and public acceptance of judicial
review may have reached an all-time high, study of the reasons why movements to abolish
or curtail judicial review have failed remains relevant. Movements to curtail or limit judicial review are likely to
continue to arise among those whom the Court's decisions seriously aggrieve, and the persistence of attacks on
judicial review during the past two centuries suggests that Marbury might not be invulnerable.

Any organized attack on judicial review will encounter almost inevitable

resistance, since Marbury is so firmly established in the constitutional system of a nation that is so profoundly
conservative in preserving the continuity of its political institutions. Even if the federal judiciary is
widely unpopular, few Americans are likely to countenance the transfer of
its powers to Congress, the President, or the states, all of which are
generally viewed as less reliable guardians of property and personal
liberty. Although romantic commentators probably have exaggerated the profundity of public support for the
Court as an institution, respect for the federal judiciary's role in sustaining the rule of law is
deeply embedded in the nation's psyche. Americans therefore have
tolerated judicial review even when they have disagreed with specific
decisions.
Since any meaningful or lasting curb on judicial power probably would require a constitutional amendment,
proponents of change also face the immense obstacles of the constitutional amendment process. A successful
movement for an amendment requires leadership and unity, which previous Court-curbing movements have
conspicuously lacked because grievances against judicial review were so diffuse that antagonists of the courts could

Court-curbing movements also

are likely to encounter organized opposition from [*792] powerful elites///
not forge a viable coalition or agree on remedies or strategies.

.
Moreover, the Court itself helps to block Court-curbing movements. Although the Court regularly issues decisions
which are unpopular with substantial numbers of persons, these decisions rarely have contravened the prevailing
political consensus on significant issues. Since federal judges are nominated and confirmed by elected officials and
are subject to the same social and economic influences as other citizens, it is unlikely that they would ever follow a
general course of decision-making that was seriously at odds with a clear majority of the American people. Even
when its decisions have provoked significant Court-curbing movements, the Court has demonstrated a remarkable
ability to modify its direction in a manner that has pacified its critics, albeit usually in a subtle and incremental
manner.

Finally, movements to curtail federal judicial power have suffered from

their own internal contradictions. Most antagonists of the courts have opposed the manner in
which the courts have exercised judicial review rather than the power itself. Their attacks on the Court therefore
have appeared self-serving and hypocritical, driving away potential
supporters. Moreover, those who oppose judicial review for instrumental reasons have little incentive to
effect its abolition since they have reason to hope that the courts in the future will exercise judicial review in a

members of Congress may perceive

that judicial review is useful in its confrontations with the President and the
manner that will serve their political agenda. Similarly,

states, and that judicial review may help Congress to escape the consequences of unwise legislation that was
motivated by political expediency.

efforts to curb judicial

review often have served a useful purpose by reminding federal judges
and all Americans of the importance of judicial restraint and the need for
the federal judiciary to remain accountable to the people.
Although no attack on judicial review has shaken the doctrine of Marbury,

1NR Adaptation Key

Impact to GW=food warsconceded
A coping strategy is critical. Warming induced scarcity produce
climate change hotspots.
Marlow 11Co-Executive Directors of the Three Degrees Project at the
University of Washington School of Law [Jennifer Marlow (JD from the University of
Washington) & Jennifer Krencicki Barcelos (JD from the University of Washington),
Global Warring and the Permanent Dry: How heat threatens human security in a
warmer world, Seattle Journal of Environmental Law, 2011 Volume 1 Issue 19]
2. Food and Water

the warmer world is likely to be a

hungry world . Heat can be devastating to crops, and in many places, climate change is
already reducing agricultural productivity. A recent newspaper headline, ripped from the
Coupled with heat-related dangers to public health,

front page of the San Francisco Chronicles business section, reads Worlds Wheat Crop Stressed.25 According to
the article, Yields

arent keeping up with a world growing hungrier. Crops are

stunted in a world grown warmer. A devastating fungus, a wheat rust, is spreading out of Africa,
a grave threat to the food plant that covers more of the planets surface than any other.26 The article continues,
In the face of leapfrogging prices, stagnating yields and shifting climate zones, wheat cannot be counted on to fill
humankinds stomach in the future as it has since at least 7000 BC.27 The article is right to call attention to the
multitude of social and scientific factors that combine to create food insecurity.
One such factor that will compound all of this for much of Africa will be desertification. It is estimated that by 2050,
there could be less than ninety reliable crop-growing days per year in parts of sub-Saharan Africa.28 (See Fig. 2).

The warmer world will lead to reduced yields of many staple grains: wheat,
maize, rice, and soybeans. A rule of thumb is that for every one degree Celsius increase in
temperature, cereal grain crop yields will decline by about 10 percent////

this decline is attributable to temperature increases only;

scientists did not factor in any changes in precipitation, pathogen responses, or
other possible impacts on food production in their study. In hotter weather and with
longer growing seasons, plants may mature faster, but overall yield is
reduced.31
.30 Importantly,

climate change could

significantly reduce the protein content of many of the major grains that people
depend on for survival.32 As Figure 2 indicates, some regions may benefit from climate changes hotter
temperatures, but much of the Global South will see reduced yields of crops that are
In addition, current research reveals that the rising temperatures associated with

already in scarce supply. And, according to the map, Russias crops were supposed to benefit from warmer weather.

The warmer world will also be a thirstier world . And there are alread a lot of thirsty
people. Take water scarcity, in India, for example, where the magnitude of drying far exceeds the capacity of
afterthought or charity to provide an adequate response as people kill each other with swords in the slums of
Bhopal over access to limited freshwater. Indias 2009 record drought and shifting monsoon caused the driest June
for 83 years . . . exacerbating the effects of a widespread drought and setting neighbour against neighbour in a
desperate fight for survival.33 One hundred thousand people in Bhopal already rely entirely on the daily deliveryy

of water from water tankers to meet their survival needs.34

The UN has warned for many years that water shortages will become one of the
most pressing problems on the planet over the coming decades, with one report estimating
that four billion people will be affected by 2050. What is happening in India, which has too
many people in places where there is not enough water, is a foretaste of what is to come.35
Will we be delivering water to four billion people via tanker trucks in India? How about in the United States? The
recent drought study by Dr. Dai mentioned earlier poses equal challenges for the United States, particularly for the
Southwest.36 Although the United States has avoided significant drying over the past fifty years due to natural
climate variations, much of the United States will experience severe drying within the next few decades.37
Imminent drying could cause water levels in the Colorado River and Lake Mead to drop, further endangering the
water supply for the Southwest.38 Dr. Dai also predicts droughts of devastating severity by 2030 in southern
Europe, Southeast Asia, Brazil, Chile, Australia, and a majority of Africa.39
3. Security
The warmer world is likely to be a less secure world. Looking beyond the public health imp, acts of heat waves and

the warmer world is going

to be a more violent place. In fact, there is a phrase in psychology, the heat hypothesis ,
which is used to describe this very phenomenon.40 Studies of this relationship between human
the phenomenon of reduced agricultural productivity and water scarcity,

behavior and weather patterns date back to the time of Cicero (10632 BC), although the topic was first empirically

Research by criminal psychologist Ehor Boyanowsky, a professor at

shows that elevated ambient temperatures lead to
increased brain temperatures that result in cognitive dysfunction,
emotional stress, and aggression, as well as increases in violent crime.42
studied in the 1700s.41

Simon Fraser University,

According to another study by Iowa State psychologist Craig Anderson and sociologist
Matthew DeLisi, higher temperatures can increase aggression in myriad ways.43
Based on their analysis of violent crime data for the period between 1950 and
2008, the researchers estimate that an increase of 4.4 degrees Celsius in the
United States would result in more than 100,000 additional violent crimes nationwide
per year.44 But, the researchers caution, regular heat-fueled aggression is only one part of the problem.

Migration, when it does take place, is likely to lead to even more violent behavior
that can take on various forms of civil unrest. As DeLisi notes, displacement and
migration of people across borders can potentially lead to a lot more human
conflict.45 He points out the example of a post-Hurricane Katrina spike in
Houston homicides, which has been linked to spars between Houston gangs and those gangs displaced
from New Orleans.46 The Katrina example may seem unique, but there is actually potential for
increased violence across the world as shown in Figure 1. The map showcases how climateinduced environmental stresses will overlay one another and create or
exacerbate political instability resulting in climate change hot spots . The
areas that face water insecurity also face food insecurity and these
factors combine and can lead to the forced migration of climate refugees.
Without adequate access to food and water, and with more violence and aggression, it is not hard to see how many
people in the warmer world could be less secure. How will we cope with a climate-dominated future? What kinds of
needs will we voice? As the 1994 United Nations Development Programmes (UNDP) Human Development Report
(HDR) describes:
For most people, a feeling of insecurity arises more from worries about daily life than from the dread of a
cataclysmic world event. Will they and their families have enough to eat? Will they lose their jobs? Will their streets
and neighborhoods be safe from crime? Will they be tortured by a repressive state? Will they become a victim of
violence because of their gender? Will their religion or ethnic origin target them for persecution?47

Through its 1994 HDR, the UNDP promoted a new concept of security in the post-Cold War era, human security, as a
more holistic alternative to the traditional twentieth century reliance on heavy militarization and notions of security
centered on nation-states.48 Security in a warmer world must take on new meanings, and many traditional security
institutions are now beginning to reexamine what this new security paradigm could look like.
Every year, Foreign Policy magazine collaborates with The Fund for Peace to create an index that evaluates the
security of the worlds countries. In the summer of 2009, the index featured a special article devoted to the
destabilizing effects of climate change. The article concludes, [ a]s

global warming churns the

worlds weather, its becoming increasingly clear that its time to start
thinking about the long term. In doing so, the West may need to adopt an even broader definition of
what it takes to protect itself from danger.49 Challenging the common discourse about
global security threats related to Pakistan , the article suggests that
[w]hen it comes to the stability of one of the worlds most volatile regions,
its the fate of the Himalayan glaciers that should be keeping us awake at
night.50 Perhaps, the article suggests, climate change is on par with terrorism as a threat to the
United States and the global world order. According to a recent New York Times article, a new type of
national intelligence work is being founded on the assumption that the 21st century will be
shaped

by potentially disruptive scarcities

depletion of minerals; desertification of land; pollution or overuse of water; weather
changes that kill fish and farms.51 pg. 28-29
not just by competitive economic growth, but also