K

Legalization fails re-entrenches neoliberalism

Wilson 14 Peter Wilson is an American post-anarchist author who goes by pseudonym Hakim
Bey, dropped out of Columbia (Peter, AGAINST LEGALIZATION, last updated 8/14/14,
http://hermetic.com/bey/legalization.html)

Once processed as commodity, all rebellion is reduced to the image

of rebellion, first as spectacle, and last as simulation. (See Debord,

Baudrillard, etc.) The more powerful the dissent as art (or discourse) the more powerless it becomes as

In a world of Global Capital, where all media function collectively as the perfect
we can recognize a global Image or universal imaginaire,
universally mediated, lacking any outside or margin. All Image has undergone
commodity.

mirror of Capital,

Enclosure, and as a result it seems that all art is rendered powerless in the sphere of the social. In fact, we

All human relations can

areexpressed as commodity relations. In this situation, it would seem
reform has also become an impossibility, since all partial
ameliorizations of society will be transformed (by the same paradox that
determines the global Image) into means of sustaining and enhancing the
power of the commodity. For example, reform and democracy have
now become code-words for the forcible imposition of commodity
relations on the former Second and Third Worlds. Freedom means
freedom of corporations, not of human societies. From this point of view, I
have grave reservations about the reform program of the anti-DrugWarriors and legalizationists. I would even go so far as to say that I am against
legalization. Needless to add that I consider the Drug War an abomination, and that I would
can no longer even assume the existence of any sphere of the social.
beand

demand immediate unconditional amnesty for all prisoners of consciousnessassuming that I had any
power to make demands! But in

a world where all reform can be

instantaneously turned into new means of control,

sketched in the above paragraphs,

according to the paradox

it makes no sense to go on demanding

legalization simply because it seems rational and humane. For example,

consider what might result from the legalization of medical
marijuanaclearly the will of the people in at least six states. The herb would instantly
fall under drastic new regulations from Above (the AMA, the
courts, insurance companies, etc.). Monsanto would probably acquire the
DNA patents and intellectual ownership of the plants genetic structure. Laws
would probably be tightened against illegal marijuana for
recreational uses. Smokers would be defined (by law) as sick. As
a commodity, Cannabis would soon be denatured like other legal
psychotropics such as coffee, tobacco, or chocolate. Terence McKenna once
pointed out that virtually all useful research on psychotropics is carried out illegally and is often largely

Legalization would make possible a much tighter

control from above over all drug research. The valuable contributions of the
funded from underground.

entheogenic underground would probably diminish or cease altogether. Terence suggested that we stop
wasting time and energy petitioning the authorities for permission to do what were doing, and simply get
on with it. Yes, the Drug War is evil and irrational. Let us not forget, however, that as an economic activity,
the War makes quite good sense. Im not even going to mention the booming corrections industry, the
bloated police and intelligence budgets, or the interests of the pharmaceutical cartels. Economists
estimate that some ten percent of circulating capital in the world is gray money derived from illegal
activity (largely drug and weapon sales). This gray area is actually a kind of free-floating frontier for Global
Capital itself, a small wave that precedes the big wave and provides its sense of direction. (For example
gray money or offshore capital is always the first to migrate from depressed markets to thriving

markets.) War is the health of the State as Randolph Bourne once saidbut war is no longer so profitable
as in the old days of booty, tribute and chattel slavery. Economic war increasingly takes its place, and the
Drug War is an almost pure form of economic war. And since the Neo-liberal State has given up so much
power to corporations and markets since 1989, it might justly be said that the War on Drugs constitutes

reform and legalization would

clearly be doomed to failure for deep infrastructural reasons , and
therefore all agitation for reform would constitute wasted efforta
tragedy of misdirected idealism. Global Capital cannot be reformed
because all reformation is deformed when the form itself is distorted
in its very essence. Agitation for reform is allowed so that an image
of free speech and permitted dissidence can be maintained, but
reform itself is never permitted . Anarchists and Marxists were right to maintain that
the health of Capital itself. From this perspective,

the structure itself must be changed , not merely its secondary characteristics.
Unfortunately the movement of the social itself seems to have failed,
and even its deep underlying structures must now be re-invented
almost from scratch. The War on Drugs is going to go on. Perhaps we should consider
how to act as warriors rather than reformers . Nietzsche says somewhere that he
has no interest in overthrowing the stupidity of the law, since such reform would leave nothing for the free
spirit to accomplishnothing to overcome. I wouldnt go so far as to recommend such an immoral and
starkly existentialist position. But I do think we could do with a dose of stoicism.

Neoliberalism is epistemologically bankrupt wrecks

equality and the environment
Holleman 12 assistant professor of sociology at Amherst, PhD in

sociology from the University of Oregon (Hannah, June, sociology dissertation,

University of Oregon, Energy justice and foundations for a sustainable
sociology of energy,
https://scholarsbank.uoregon.edu/xmlui/bitstream/handle/1794/12419/Hollem
an_oregon_0171A_10410.pdf?sequence=1)
under this system, when there is an
environmental catastrophe, like the Exxon Valdez oil spill in Alaska, or the current BP oil spill in the Gulf,
companies make an enormous profit cleaning up, or at least professing to do so. GDP
goes up. If someone is sick, if they die a long, drawn-out death from cancer, there is profit to be made. There is no
money to be made in human and ecological health and well-being . If
As Marilyn Waring noted twenty years ago,

communities grow their own food, the global food market significantly decreases; if people walk rather than drive, the oil and car companies
dont make money. If education is free, who benefits? Maybe most people, and the society at large, maybe even the environment, but not

it is much more economically efficient to let the

market shape education. Today students take out larger and larger loans to buy more expensive books, to get less
necessarily the shareholders. Therefore,

education engendered by fewer teachers. This is capitalist efficiency. The surplus is efficiently transferred from one segment of the population

The same goes for letting the market shape energy

policy. Those arguing today for market intervention in the climate crisis often
fail to mention that it is absolutely already the market shaping
energy policy. This is precisely the problem. It is very efficient for the
market to extract oil at bargain prices from countries without
militaries to stop them. It is very efficient, in terms of profit, to have the most
vulnerable in society pay the costs of energy production, and to keep polluting, all
the while terrifying people that new energy developments might be their
only chance of economic survival. Nevermind where the real money goes and what
happens with the boom goes bust. The current version of capitalist
to another, those at the top.

ideology, which absorbs energy scholars (and even environmental socialists) often
unwittingly, was consciously shaped to co-opt the language of social
movements seeking freedom from the yolk of capitalism and imperialism. It is no surprise that the
market would co-opt green rhetoric today. Economists having the greatest ideological influence
on political debates and social science today, the architects of neoliberal ideology, have
sought to re-write the history of capitalist development as the
constitution of liberty, and the basis of free society (Hayek 1960; Friedman 1962; Van Horn, Mirowski, and Stapleford,
eds. 2011). There can be no acknowledgement of slavery, racism, sexism,
or ecological destruction among other issues, because all of these undermine the basic
thesis neoliberal writers actively promote as political ideology. To make their argument, these writers must
present capitalism as raising all boats, color-blind, gender-neutral, and free of class coercion, the globalization of which results in a flat,

these ideas dominate the political

sphere, and contemporary notions of organizational, community, and national development. In academia, many
theorists celebrate the alleged leveling of social differences owing to
globalization (Pellow 2007, 41). The blinders imposed by this view continue to infect
energy studies despite the work of critical energy scholars.
Spreading capitalism thus becomes the solution for poverty associated with
inequalities caused by oppression based on race, class, gender, and position in the world system, as well as the solution to
environmental and energy crises. This is the basic modernization thesis. The Ecological Modernization
happy world, even if it is hot (Friedman 2005, 2008). Unfortunately,

Reader (Mol, Sonnenfeld, and Spaargaren 2009) presents these systematized views regarding the environmental crisis, which are increasingly

Foster (2012) have pointed out the

empirical, theoretical, and philosophical roots of, and problems
associated with this perspective as a basis for understanding
ecological and social crises and solutions. But, we can expect this view to
persist as long as social relations remain intact because the logic of modernization is
influential in environmental sociology. York and Rosa (2003) and

seductive precisely because it is the logic of capitalism (Foster 1999b, 2002, 2009, 2012). The processes of capitalism, including its ideological
developments, are the background conditions in which those integrated into the market economy live, as fish swim in water, they are the
social gravity we might naturally feel is right, but dont necessarily see, as much a part of our lives as the air we breathe (York and Clark

critical theorists and

activists have sought to expose the mythological basis of
neoliberalism and transcend the system. The work of environmental justice scholars, feminist
ecologists, and ecological rift theorists, marshaling the empirical evidence, represent powerful critiques of
the modernization thesis. Taken together with the insights in existing critical work on energy, they
2006). In contrast to the modernization thesis, environmental justice scholars, among other

provide an alternative approach to energy that belies the notion

that there is no alternative. They share a common commitment, as
social scientists and activists, to reality. Part of this reality is that actual class and racial
inequalities around the global and between North and South have only worsened in the
past half-centurythe same period during which the late modern state of
capitalism took hold (Pellow 2007, 41). Despite views that we live in a post-racial society, (or one where men are
finished and women are taking over [Sohn 2011]), in fact economic globalization has seriously
undermined the gains of the civil rights and labor movement and the
general antiracist struggle in the United States and undercut the global
benefits of the anticolonial struggles occurring throughout the global
South (Pellow 2007, 43). Moreover, economic globalization and the intensified spread of
ecological destruction are intimately linked because the TNCs
[transnational corporations] themselves were the ones creating and pushing both
globalization and toxins on the world markets, facilitating greater
control over nations, communities, human bodies, and the natural world itself(43). Today,
neoliberal mythology has severely hindered the development of a
wider environmental justice consciousness in the broader public, and amongst
activists and academics. In energy studies this view is especially pronounced

in the focus on technology, carbon markets, voluntary certification schemes, and

alternative energies that basically allow business to continue as
usual

(Foster 2002, 9-25; Rogers 2010; Holleman 2012). The

critical literature emerging from what I call an energy

justice perspective in ecological rift theory, systems ecology, feminist and critical human ecology, and environmental justice scholarship

has drawn out the social and ecological crises of the current energy
regime. This is in contrast to too many well-intentioned scholars and activists who buy into the main tenets of the modernization thesis,
and thus are reluctant to break with capitalism as a system, or worse, they promote it, ignoring or ignorant of the enormous costs. This has led
to the view that our task as environmentalists is getting economics to internalize the externalities, to bring under the pricing system the

For energy this means carbon markets and

trade in other forms of pollution and raising energy prices . While it is clear that
work of natural systems and human services (labor).

as long as we have this system, goals should include wealth redistribution and businesses shouldering the costs of their polluting practices,

The logic of the market is

clear. An energy justice movement, with the intention of healing the
ecological rift and transcending social injustice, on the other hand has as its
base the goal of externalizing the internalities . This is an
long-term, internalizing more of the world in the market system is a total death strategy.

ecological and social imperative.

Understanding the nature of the current system, Daniel Yergins worse-

If the
point is accumulation, sources of profit must be found at every turn
and crises represent especially ripe opportunities (Klein 2007). The problem
today is not capitalisms lack of response to the climate crisis, capital was never developed as a system geared toward ecological
reproduction or meeting human needs. It is a system geared toward profit at all cost and
can have no rational response. The problem is that capitalism organizes so
many of our productive activities in the first place. The sooner this is
than-nothing approach to energy is the logical response of capital. Carbon markets and the new biotech boom also make sense.

recognized, the sooner we can start thinking of real alternatives,

and understand ourselves as subjects, not merely objects of the
system, as protagonists of our own future . We can move beyond
playing the passive consumers of the next product capitalism has on
offer, green or otherwise, packaged as a solution to energy crises . Examples like the carbon market
schemes, or Daniel Yergins view of what constitutes energy revolution, make clear that theres no way we can
just subcontract our environmental conscience to the new breed of
green marketers (McKibben 2010). Energy and social inequality, the challenges of our generation The social
and ecological costs of our energy regime today are clear, though the
ways these are both the result of and exacerbate social inequality and
oppression are often misunderstood or ignored. While the future is unwritten, projections, if
business continues as usual, indicate environmental and social
catastrophe with much of the damage irreversible . Without
significant social change, we should prepare for, among other depredations,
increased warfare to secure energy resources to meet increased
demand . The most recent British Ministry of Defence Strategic Trends report suggests that nations will
increasingly use energy security to challenge conventional
interpretations on the legality of the use of force (108).
Environmentally and socially destructive energy sectors are
projected to grow the next thirty years, such as nuclear energy and biofuel, while expected fossil fuel
demand also goes only one way, up: Global Energy use has approximately doubled over the last 30 years and, by 2040, demand is likely to

demand is likely to remain

positively correlated to economic growth with fossil fuels, meeting more than 80% of this increase.
grow by more than half again. Despite concerns over climate change,

Urban areas will be responsible for over 75% of total demand. (Strategic Trends, 106) Even a U.S. government official has recognized publicly

our patterns of energy use create geopolitical instability . The

ways we use energy are disrupting the climate system and threaten
that

terrifying disruptions in decades to come (Sandalow 2009). These realities only partially illustrate
energys extensive contribution to what K. William Kapp (1950) referred to as capitalisms systemic unpaid costs. As Anderson (1976) put it:

the growth society operates as if it had tunnel vision and

nearsightedness; the accumulation of capital is pursued without
regard for the side-effects or for longrange consequences , leaving to

nature and the larger community these uncalculated costs (140). Prefiguring
contemporary discussions and movement framing, Anderson referred to these accumulated
unpaid costs, or externalities as the ecological debt, the result of the exploitation of
both nature and humans for the sake of economic growth at all costs
(142-43), undermining the natural and social conditions of production. As
indicated previously, with energy demand expected only to increase as the
economy expands, the unpaid costs associated with its extraction
and use will continue to accumulate, but on a scale heretofore unseen .
The science is clear that if we do not severely curtail energy use, we
will cross critical thresholds in the biospheres ability to recycle
waste and regulate the earths temperature. The consequences of
crossing such planetary boundaries will be irreversible (Hansen 2009; Solomon, et
al. 2009; Cullen 2010; Foster 2011). This is a new juncture in humanitys relation to the rest of nature. However, the costs of
climate change, among other environmental crises generated by energy production and
use, which is driven largely by economic growth , already are visited upon communities and other social
groups in a dramatically unequal waythis we may understand as a defining feature of
energy injustice. This social inequality, indeed, is a necessary feature of
capitalism, making human exploitation and the assault on the
environment possible, and energy injustice inevitable in the current system:
Environmental deterioration will continue so long as there is a class
system, since the profits of environmental neglect accrue primarily to one class whereas the costs are borne primarily by another
(Anderson 1976, 139). Scholars studying the ecological and social rift of capitalism, including
those working on environmental racism and feminist ecology, have expanded the understanding of
how these processes are gendered and racialized. Work on unequal ecological exchange
amply has demonstrated that inequality between nations and regions also increases
the burdens of environmental injustice. Studies from all of these perspectives have
drawn out inequalities embedded in our current patterns of energy
decision-making, extraction, use, and waste disposal, documenting energy injustice through various theoretical lenses.

Alternative reject the affs neoliberal policy proposal

establishing pedagogies in this debate space is the only
way to reclaim critical education.
Giroux 12 (Henry A. Giroux, Global TV Network Chair in English and

Cultural Studies at McMaster University, 19 June 2012, Beyond the Politics of

the Big Lie: The Education Deficit and the New Authoritarianism, http://truthout.org/opinion/item/9865-beyond-the-politics-of-the-big-lie-the-educationdeficit-and-the-new-authoritarianism)
The democratic deficit is not, as many commentators have argued, reducible to the growing (and unparalleled) inequality gap in the United States, the pervasiveness of
lending fraud, favorable tax treatment for the wealthy, or the lack of adequate regulation of the financial sector. These are important issues, but they are more

The democratic deficit is

closely related, however, to an unprecedented deficit in critical education .
The power of finance capital in recent years has not only targeted
the realm of official politics, but also directed its attention toward a
range of educational apparatuses - really, a vast and complex ideological
ecosystem that reproduces itself through nuance, distraction, innuendo, myths, lies and
symptomatic than causal in relation to the democratic decline and rise of an uncivil culture in America.

misrepresentations. This media ecosystem not only changes our sense of time, space and information; it also redefines
the very meaning of the social and this is far from a democratic
process, especially as the architecture of the Internet and other media platforms are largely in the hands of private interests.(13) The educational pipelines for
corporate messages and ideology are everywhere and have for the last twenty-five years successfully drowned out any serious criticism and challenge to market

The current corrupt and dysfunctional state of American

politics is about a growing authoritarianism tied to economic, political and cultural formations that
have hijacked democracy and put structural and ideological forces in place that
constitute a new regime of politics , not simply a series of bad policies. The solution in this case
does not lie in promoting piecemeal reforms, such as a greater redistribution of wealth and income,
but in dismantling all the institutional, ideological and social
fundamentalism.

formations that make gratuitous inequality and other

antidemocratic forces possible at all. Even the concept of reform has
been stripped of its democratic possibilities and has become a
euphemism to "cover up the harsh realities of draconian cutbacks in wages, salaries, pensions and public
welfare and the sharp increases in regressive taxes."(14) Instead of reversing progressive changes made by workers, women, young people, and others, the
American public needs a new understanding of what it would mean
to advance the ideological and material relations of a real
democracy, while removing American society from the grip of "an authoritarian political culture."(15) This will require new
conceptions of politics , social responsibility, power, civic courage, civil society and democracy itself. If we do not
safeguard the remaining public spaces that provide individuals and
social movements with new ways to think about and participate in
politics, then authoritarianism will solidify its hold on the American public. In doing so, it will
create a culture that criminalizes dissent, and those who suffer under antidemocratic ideologies and policies will be both blamed for the current economic crisis and
punished by ruling elites. What is crucial to grasp at the current historical moment is that the fate of democracy is inextricably linked to a profound crisis of contemporary

As
and is reduced to

knowledge, characterized by its increasing commodification, fragmentation, privatization and a turn toward racist and jingoistic conceits.

knowledge becomes abstracted from the rigors of civic culture

questions of style, ritual and image, it undermines the political,

ethical and governing conditions for individuals to construct those
viable public spheres necessary for debate , collective action and
solving urgent social problems. As public spheres are privatized, commodified
and turned over to the crushing forces of turbo capitalism , the
opportunities for openness, inclusiveness and dialogue that nurture
the very idea and possibility of a discourse about democracy cease
to exist. The lesson to be learned in this instance is that political agency involves learning how to deliberate, make judgments and exercise choices, particularly
as the latter are brought to bear on critical activities that offer the possibility of change. Civic education as it is experienced and produced throughout an ever-diminishing
number of institutions provides individuals with opportunities to see themselves as capable of doing more than the existing configurations of power of any given society

it is precisely this notion of civic agency and critical education that

has been under aggressive assault within the new and harsh corporate order of casino capitalism. Anti-Public
Intellectuals and the Conservative Re-Education Machine The conservative takeover of public pedagogy
with its elite codifiers of neoliberal ideology has a long history extending from the work of the "Chicago
would wish to admit. And

Boys" at the University of Chicago to the various conservative think tanks that emerged after the publication of the Powell memo in the early seventies.(16) The

will more than likely win the next election and take full control over all aspects of
policymaking in the U nited S tates. This is especially dangerous given that the Republican Party is now controlled by extremists. If they
Republican Party

win the 2012 election, they will not only extend the Bush/Obama legacy of militarism abroad, but likely intensify the war at home as well. Political scientist Frances Fox
Piven rightly argues that, "We've been at war for decades now - not just in Afghanistan or Iraq, but right here at home. Domestically, it's been a war [a]gainst the poor [and

the war at home now

includes more than attacks on the poor, as campaigns are increasingly
waged against the rights of women, students, workers, people of
color and immigrants, especially Latino Americans. As the social state collapses, the punishing state expands its power and targets larger
as] devastating as it has been, the war against the poor has gone largely unnoticed until now."(17) And

portions of the population. The war in Afghanistan is now mimicked in the war waged on peaceful student protesters at home. It is evident in the environmental racism that
produces massive health problems for African-Americans. The domestic war is even waged on elementary school children, who now live in fear of the police handcuffing
them in their classrooms and incarcerating them as if they were adult criminals.(18) It is waged on workers by taking away their pensions, bargaining rights and dignity.
The spirit of militarism is also evident in the war waged on the welfare state and any form of social protection that benefits the poor, disabled, sick, elderly, and other
groups now considered disposable, including children. The soft side of authoritarianism in the United States does not need to put soldiers in the streets, though it certainly

follows that script. As it expands its control over the commanding institutions of government, the armed forces and civil society in general, it hires anti-public intellectuals
and academics to provide ideological support for its gated communities, institutions and modes of education. As Yasha Levine points out, it puts thousands of dollars in the
hands of corporate shills such as Malcolm Gladwell, who has become a "one man branding and distribution pipeline for valuable corporate messages, constructed on the
public's gullibility in trusting his probity and intellectual honesty."(19) Gladwell (who is certainly not alone) functions as a bought-and-paid mouthpiece for "Big Tobacco
Pharma and defend[s] Enron-style financial fraud ... earning hundreds of thousands of dollars as a corporate speaker, sometimes from the same companies and industries
that he covers as a journalist."(20) Corporate power uses these "pay to play" academics, anti-public intellectuals, the mainstream media, and other educational
apparatuses to discredit the very people that it simultaneously oppresses, while waging an overarching war on all things public. As Charles Ferguson has noted, an entire
industry has been created that enables the "sale of academic expertise for the purpose of influencing government policy, the courts and public opinion [and] is now a
multibillion-dollar business."(21) It gets worse, in that "Academic, legal, regulatory and policy consulting in economics, finance and regulation is dominated by a half dozen
consulting firms, several speakers' bureaus and various industry lobbying groups that maintain large networks of academics for hire specifically for the purpose of
advocating industry interests in policy and regulatory debates."(22) Such anti-public intellectuals create what William Black has called a "criminogenic environment" that
spreads disease and fraud in the interest of bolstering the interests, profits and values of the super wealthy.(23) There is more at work here than carpet bombing the
culture with lies, deceptions and euphemisms. Language in this case does more than obfuscate or promote propaganda. It creates framing mechanisms, cultural
ecosystems and cultures of cruelty, while closing down the spaces for dialogue, critique and thoughtfulness. At its worst, it engages in the dual processes of demonization
and distraction. The rhetoric of demonization takes many forms: for example, calling firefighters, teachers, and other public servants greedy because they want to hold
onto their paltry benefits. It labels students as irresponsible because of the large debts they are forced to incur as states cut back funding to higher education (this, too, is
part of a broader effort by conservatives to hollow out the social state). Poor people are insulted and humiliated because they are forced to live on food stamps, lack
decent health care and collect unemployment benefits because there are no decent jobs available. Poor minorities are now subject to overt racism in the right-wing media
and outright violence in the larger society. Anti-public intellectuals rail against public goods and public values; they undermine collective bonds and view social
responsibility as a pathology, while touting the virtues of a survival-of-the-fittest notion of individual responsibility. Fox News and its embarrassingly blowhard pundits tell
the American people that Gov. Scott Walker's victory over Tom Barrett in the Wisconsin recall election was a fatal blow against unions, while in reality "his win signals less a
loss for the unions than a loss for our democracy in this post-Citizens United era, when elections can be bought with the help of a few billionaires."(24) How else to explain
that Tea Party favorite Walker raised over $30.5 million during the election - more than seven times Barrett's reported $3.9 million - largely from 13 out-of-state billionaires?
(25) This was corporate money enlisted for use in a pedagogical blitz designed to carpet bomb voters with the rhetoric of distraction and incivility. The same pundits who
rail against the country's economic deficit fail to connect it to the generous tax cuts they espouse for corporations and the financial institutions and services that take
financial risks, which sometimes generate capital, but more often produce debts and instability that only serve to deepen the national economic crisis. Nor do they connect
the US recession and global economic crisis to the criminal activities enabled by an unregulated financial system marked by massive lending fraud, high risk speculation, a
corrupt credit system and pervasive moral and economic dishonesty. The spokespersons for the ultrarich publish books arguing that we need even more inequality because
it benefits not only the wealthy, but everyone else.(26) This is a form of authoritarian delusion that appears to meet the clinical threshold for being labeled psychopathic
given its proponents' extreme investment in being "indifferent to others, incapable of guilt, exclusively devoted to their own interests."(27) Nothing is said in this promarket narrative about the massive human suffering caused by a growing inequality in which society's resources are squandered at the top, while salaries for the middle
and working classes stagnate, consumption dries up, social costs are ignored, young people are locked out of jobs and any possibility of social mobility and the state
reconfigures its power to punish rather than protect the vast majority of its citizens. The moral coma that appears characteristic of the elite who inhabit the new corporate
ethic of casino capitalism has attracted the attention of scientists, whose studies recently reported that "members of the upper class are more likely to behave unethically,
to lie during negotiations, to drive illegally and to cheat when competing for a prize."(28) But there is more at stake here than the psychological state of those who inhabit
the boardrooms of Wall Street. We must also consider the catastrophic effects produced by their values and policies. In fact, Stiglitz has argued that, "Most Americans
today are worse off than they were fifteen years ago. A full-time worker in the US is worse off today then he or she was 44 years ago. That is astounding - half a century of
stagnation. The economic system is not delivering. It does not matter whether a few people at the top benefitted tremendously - when the majority of citizens are not
better off, the economic system is not working."(29) The economic system may not be working, but the ideological rationales used to justify its current course appear
immensely successful, managing as they do to portray a casino capitalism that transforms democracy into its opposite - a form of authoritarianism with a soft edge - as
utterly benign, if not also beneficial, to society at large. Democratic Decline and the Politics of Distraction Democracy withers, public spheres disappear and the forces of
authoritarianism grow when a family, such as the Waltons of Walmart fame, is allowed "to amass a combined wealth of some $90 billion, which is equivalent to the wealth
of the entire bottom 30 percent of US society."(30) Such enormous amounts of wealth translate into equally vast amounts of power, as is evident in the current attempts of
a few billionaires to literally buy local, state and federal elections. Moreover, a concentration of wealth deepens the economic divide among classes, rendering more and
more individuals incapable of the most basic opportunities to move out of poverty and despair. This is especially true in light of a recent survey indicating that, "Nearly half
of all Americans lack economic security, meaning they live above the federal poverty threshold but still do hot have enough money to cover housing, food, healthcare and
other basic expenses.... 45 percent of US residents live in households that struggle to make ends meet. That breaks down to 39 percent of all adults and 55 percent of all
children."(31) The consequential impacts on civic engagement are more difficult to enumerate, but it does not require much imagination to think about how democracy
might flourish if access to health care, education, employment, and other public benefits was ensured equally throughout a society and not restricted to the rich and
wealthy alone. And yet, as power and wealth accrue to the upper 1 percent, the American public is constantly told that the poor, the unions, feminists, critical intellectuals
and public servants are waging class warfare to the detriment of civility and democracy. The late Tony Judt stated that he was less concerned about the slide of American
democracy into something like authoritarianism than American society moving toward something he viewed as even more corrosive: "a loss of conviction, a loss of faith in
the culture of democracy, a sense of skepticism and withdrawal" that diminishes the capacity of a democratic formative culture to resist and transform those
antidemocratic ideologies that benefit only the mega corporations, the ultrawealthy and ideological fundamentalists.(32) Governance has turned into a legitimation for
enriching the already wealthy elite, bankers, hedge fund managers, mega corporations and executive members of the financial service industries. Americans now live in a
society in which only the thinnest conception of democracy frames what it means to be a citizen - one which equates the obligations of citizenship with consumerism and
democratic rights with alleged consumer freedoms. Antidemocratic forms of power do not stand alone as a mode of force or the force of acting on others; they are also
deeply aligned with cultural apparatuses of persuasion, extending their reach through social and digital media, sophisticated technologies, the rise of corporate
intellectuals and a university system that now produces and sanctions intellectuals aligned with private interests - all of which, as Randy Martin points out, can be
identified with a form of casino capitalism that is about "permanent vigilance, activity and intervention."(33) Indeed, many institutions that provide formal education in the
United States have become co-conspirators with a savage casino capitalism, whose strength lies in producing, circulating and legitimating market values that promote the
narrow world of commodity worship, celebrity culture, bare-knuckle competition, a retreat from social responsibility and a war-of-all-against-all mentality that destroys any
viable notion of community, the common good and the interrelated notions of political, social and economic rights. University presidents now make huge salaries sitting on
corporate boards, while faculty sell their knowledge to the highest corporate bidder and, in doing so, turn universities into legitimation centers for casino capitalism.(34) Of
course, such academics also move from the boardrooms of major corporations to talk shows and op-ed pages of major newspapers, offering commentary in journals and
other modes of print and screen culture. They are the new traveling intellectuals of casino capitalism, doing everything they can to make the ruthless workings of power
invisible, to shift the blame for society's failures onto the very people who are its victims and to expand the institutions and culture of anti-intellectualism and distraction
into every aspect of American life. Across all levels, politics in the United States now suffers from an education deficit that enables a pedagogy of distraction to dictate with
little accountability how crucial social problems and issues are named, discussed and acted upon. The conservative re-education machine appears shameless in its
production of lies that include insane assertions such as: Obama's health care legislation would create death panels; liberals are waging a war on Christmas; Obama is a
socialist trying to nationalize industries; the founding fathers tried to end slavery; and Obama is a Muslim sympathizer and not a US citizen. Other misrepresentations and
distortions include: the denial of global warming; the government cannot create jobs; cuts in wages and benefits create jobs; Obama has created massive deficits; Obama
wants to raise the taxes of working- and middle-class people; Obama is constantly "apologizing" for America; and the assertion that Darwinian evolution is a myth.(35)
Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney continues spinning this spider web of lies unapologetically, even when members of his own party point out the
inconsistencies in his claims. For instance, he has claimed that, "Obamacare increases the deficit,"(36) argued that Obama has "increased the national debt more than all
other presidents combined" and insisted that Obama has lied about "his record on gay rights." He has falsely claimed that, "Obama promised unemployment below eight
percent,"(37) dodged the truth regarding "his position on climate change" and blatantly misrepresented the truth in stating that, "he pays a 50% tax rate."(38) Diane
Ravitch has recently pointed out that in making a case for vouchers, Romney has made false claims about the success of the DC voucher program.(39) The politics of
distraction should not be reduced merely to a rhetorical ploy used by the wealthy and influential to promote their own interests and power. It is a form of market-driven
politics in which educational force of the broader culture is used to create ideologies, policies, individuals and social agents who lack the knowledge, critical skills and

Politics and
education have always mutually informed each other as pedagogical
sites proliferate and circulate throughout the cultural landscape .(40) But
discriminatory judgments to question the rule of casino capitalism and the values, social practices and power formations it legitimates.

today, distraction is the primary element being used to suppress democratically purposeful education by pushing critical thought to the margins of society. As a register of
power, distraction becomes central to a pedagogical landscape inhabited by rich conservative foundations, an army of well-funded anti-public intellectuals from both major
parties, a growing number of amply funded conservative campus organizations, increasing numbers of academics who hock their services to corporations and the militaryindustrial complex, and others who promote the ideology of casino capitalism and the corporate right's agenda. Academics who make a claim to producing knowledge and
truth in the public interest are increasingly being replaced by academics for hire who move effortlessly among industry, government and academia. Extreme power is now
showcased through the mechanisms of ever-proliferating cultural/educational apparatuses and the anti-public intellectuals who support them and are in turn rewarded by
the elites who finance such apparatuses. The war at home is made visible in the show of force aimed at civilian populations, including students, workers, and others
considered disposable or a threat to the new authoritarianism. Its most powerful allies appear to be the intellectuals, institutions, cultural apparatuses and new media

While a
change in consciousness does not guarantee a change in either one's
politics or society, it is a crucial precondition for connecting what it
means to think otherwise to conditions that make it possible to act
otherwise. The education deficit must be seen as intertwined with a
political deficit, serving to make many oppressed individuals complicit with oppressive ideologies. As the late Cornelius Castoriadis made clear,
democracy requires "critical thinkers capable of putting existing
technologies that constitute the sites of public pedagogy, which produce the formative culture necessary for authoritarianism to thrive.

institutions into question.... while simultaneously creating the conditions for individual and social autonomy."(41) Nothing
will change politically or economically until new and emerging social
movements take seriously the need to develop a language of radical reform and create new
public spheres that support the knowledge, skills and critical thought that are necessary features of a democratic formative culture. Getting beyond
the big lie as a precondition for critical thought, civic engagement and a more realized democracy will mean more than correcting distortions, misrepresentations and

It will also require addressing how

new sites of pedagogy have become central to any viable notion of
agency, politics and democracy itself. This is not a matter of elevating cultural politics over material relations of power as much as it is a rethinking of how power
falsehoods produced by politicians, media talking heads and anti-public intellectuals.

deploys culture and how culture as a mode of education positions power. James Baldwin, the legendary African-American writer and civil rights activist, argued that the big
lie points to a crisis of American identity and politics and is symptomatic of "a backward society" that has descended into madness, "especially when one is forced to lie
about one's aspect of anybody's history, [because you then] must lie about it all."(42) He goes on to argue "that one of the paradoxes of education [is] that precisely at the
point when you begin to develop a conscience, you must find yourself at war with your society. It is your responsibility to change society if you think of yourself as an
educated person."(43) What Baldwin recognizes is that learning has the possibility to trigger a critical engagement with oneself, others and the larger society - education
becomes in this instance more than a method or tool for domination but a politics, a fulcrum for democratic social change. Tragically, in our current climate "learning"
merely contributes to a vast reserve of manipulation and self-inflicted ignorance. Our education deficit is neither reducible to the failure of particular types of teaching nor

it is about how matters of

knowledge, values and ideology can be struggled over as issues of
the decent into madness by the spokespersons for the new authoritarianism. Rather,

power and politics . Surviving the current education deficit will

depend on progressives using history, memory and knowledge not only to
reconnect intellectuals to the everyday needs of ordinary people, but also to jumpstart social movements by
making education central to organized politics and the quest for a
radical democracy.

TPA
Obama revived TPA push, its his top prioritypolitical
capital determines passage
Alex Rogers, Time Magazine, 1/21/15, Heres the One State of the Union
Talking Point Republicans Liked,time.com/3676347/state-of-the-union-2015trade/

into President Obamas State of the Union a strange thing

happened: most of the Republicans jumped up and cheered while most Democrats
stayed seated and silent. It was the only time it happened Tuesday night, and the topic was
trade. China wants to write the rules for the worlds fastest-growing region, said Obama. That would
About a half-hour

put our workers and businesses at a disadvantage. Why should we let that happen? We should write those
rules. We should level the playing field. Im the first one to admit that past trade deals havent always
lived up to the hype, and thats why weve gone after countries that break the rules at our expense,
added Obama, who earned a brief cheer from democratic socialist Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders before
continuing. But 95% of the worlds customers live outside our borders, and we cant close ourselves off
from those opportunities. More than half of manufacturing executives have said theyre actively looking at

There are few

areas of agreement between Obama and the new Republican Congress, but
trade promotion authority, or TPA, which would ease the passage of the 12-country Trans
Pacific Partnership, or TPP, potentially the largest free trade agreement ever, is one of
them. For years the Administration has been negotiating TPP affecting about 40%
of the worlds GDP and about a third of the worlds trade but so far Obama has yet to prove
to Republicans that he is willing to spend the time, effort and political
bringing jobs back from China. Lets give them one more reason to get it done.

capital to get it done . But on Tuesday night, the Republicans response to

his message was ecstatic. The Republican Senate and House whips, Texas Sen. John
Cornyn and Louisiana Rep. Steve Scalise, said that the trade talk was probably one of the
brightest spots and the most promising part of the speech. Other top
Republicans who criticize Obama around the clock, like Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, said they
hoped the President would now push the issue. Senate Finance Committee Chairman Orrin
Hatch, the most senior member, said Obamas remarks were welcome but long overdue. In 1993,
President Bill Clinton led an all-out push to get the massive North America trade deal through Congress.
There were face-to-face White House meetings with Congressmen, White House envoys roaming the Hill,
and 37 Commerce Department reports targeting industries from computers to autos, according to a
Christian Science Monitor report, that helped show Congressmen how NAFTA would help their constituents.
In October of that year, former CEO of the Chrysler Corporation, Lee Iacocca, stood on the White House
South Lawn with hundreds of products (and businessmen) touting what the Administration believed would
thrive under NAFTA. Under the white tents, Clinton joked to a pro-trade union man that he would wear the
mans company hat if he gave a speech. A month later, the House passed the bill in a squeaker and the
Senate did shortly thereafter. This time around,

Administration effort on TPP

Republicans are hoping for another all-out

and the fast-track bill, which would allow limited

such a bill is
vital to pass TPP, as countries would be less willing to negotiate if they knew Congress could make
large changes to the deal. But liberals are livid with Obamas trade talk ; they set up a press
congressional debate, no amendments, and an up-or-down vote. The Administration says

conference Wednesday to air out their concerns. The typical business plan in this country because of
trade and tax policies: You shut down production in Cleveland and you move it to Beijing and sell the
products back to the United States, said Ohio Sen. Sherrod Brown after the State of the Union. That
makes no sense. And hes wrong on that as his predecessors were. If you think that previous trade
agreements. . . have done well, you should support the TPP, said Sanders. But if you believe, as I do, that
they have been disastrous, that they have cost us millions of decent paying jobs, then it make no sense to
go forward in a failed policy and it should be defeated. . . . At the end of the day, among many other
concerns, American workers are going to be forced to compete against people in Vietnam who make a
minimum wage of 56 cents an hour. Still pro-trade lawmakers like Democratic Missouri Sen. Claire

McCaskill believe that

Obama can bring enough Democrats to pass a

fast-track trade bill . Democratic Maryland Senator Ben Cardin, who supported the North
American Free Trade Agreement in 1993 but opposed the more recent trade agreement bills with South

Obama probably has the votes now to pass a TPA

bill through Congress, although its easier in the Senate than House, where some conservatives
have also raised an uproar about giving more power to the President. The White House has
recently increased its outreach efforts , tasking every Cabinet member to
divvy up and target 80 House Democrats, according to the Hill newspaper. In an email
Wednesday, Commerce Secretary Penny Pritzker told TIME that the trade agenda is a top
Korea, Panama and Columbia, said

priority for the Administration. We are taking an all-hands-on-deck

approach to getting this done, she said. We are all out talking not only to members of
Congress but to business leaders and workers around the country, telling the story of why
trade and exports matter.

Second term makes Obama more willing to spend PC on

the plan---and its normal means because only pressure
from Obama gets people on board
Martin D. Carcieri 11, Associate Professor of Political Science, San

Francisco State University; J.D., University of California, Hastings; Ph.D.,

University of California, Santa Barbara. 2011 OBAMA, THE FOURTEENTH
AMENDMENT, AND THE DRUG WAR 44 Akron L. Rev. 303
Notwithstanding momentum at the state level
prospects for
such

, however, the

reform at the federal level appear dismal for the near future
has consistently refused even to instruct the DEA not to harass sick patients in states with medical marijuana laws. n7 For his part, President

signals

. For its part, Congress

Obama has sent mixed

on marijuana policy. On the one hand, he announced in 2009 that so long as state medical marijuana laws are faithfully observed, there would be no DEA intervention. n8 In 2010, by

contrast, when polls leading up to the election indicated that Proposition 19 might succeed, Attorney General Eric Holder threatened to enforce federal marijuana prohibition if it did. n9 With Proposition 19's defeat,
of course, the Administration dodged a bullet. Yet Obama almost certainly seeks reelection, and few politicians of either party will touch the marijuana issue. n10 Especially since the new Republican-controlled
House of Representatives is even less likely to spur reform in this area than did the recent Democrat-controlled House, it seems clear that for the time being, federal marijuana prohibition n11 marches on.

Obama is reelected
the situation transforms
second Amendment bars him from a third term
would be free to speak the truth on
marijuana prohibition
, however,

. Since

If

the Twentyhe

, n12 and his future would be quite secure,

this issue, which includes the following: beyond its economic n13 and social n14 costs, [*306]

burdens a range of constitutional interests, including those arising under the First, n15 Fourth, n16 Fifth, n17 Sixth, n18 [*307] Eighth, n19 Tenth,

n20 and Fifteenth n21 Amendments. n22 As a constitutional lawyer, further, the President knows that these problems may be but symptoms of an underlying constitutional infirmity, one rooted primarily in the
Fourteenth Amendment. This article is written to help clarify the full range of understanding Obama would bring to a second term. Specifically, I defend two related, contested theses. My core thesis, to which this
article is primarily devoted, is a jurisprudential claim: contrary to state and lower federal court rulings, marijuana prohibition is subject to strict judicial scrutiny under leading [*308] relevant U.S. Supreme Court
jurisprudence. n23 I support this thesis primarily by showing that under the Fourteenth Amendment, bodily autonomy--i.e., the control over the borders and contents of one's body burdened by laws like marijuana
prohibition--is a fundamental right, and that the Court has thus established a presumption in its favor, especially for adults in the home. I then reinforce this thesis with three further arguments: (1) marijuana
prohibition violates "justice as regularity," n24 (2) marijuana prohibition satisfies the "suspect class" trigger of strict scrutiny, n25 and (3) bodily autonomy is closely analogous to the fundamental right of free

if reelected,
to urge Congress to end federal

speech. In sum, I argue that all roads of constitutional analysis lead to strict scrutiny of marijuana prohibition. My second thesis, resting largely on the first, is a policy claim:

Obama will be inclined

marijuana prohibition

, and ought,

letting States go their own way within federal guidelines. n26 As President, he knows that if he is convinced, on both policy and constitutional grounds, that the law must be changed, he need not wait for the Court to act--or more accurately, react. Especially if the current pace of state

marijuana law reform continues through 2012, Obama's recommendation will have broad support by the time he delivers his 2013 State of the Union address. An application of strict scrutiny to marijuana prohibition is the subject of another article. Here I simply show that the President has ample reason under well-settled law to conclude that this prohibition is properly subject to that high standard. It may be that prohibition of
cocaine, heroin and methamphetamine could survive strict scrutiny. These too are the subjects of other articles. Obama takes the rule of law seriously, however, and he would have grave doubts that marijuana prohibition could pass an honest application of strict scrutiny, in turn prompting him to urge Congress to end this costly war. [*309] II. THE CONSTITUTIONAL JURISPRUDENCE OF BODILY AUTONOMY A. Introduction The
Fourteenth Amendment provides that "no State . . . shall deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." n27 The President has written that he considers these provisions to be among the Constitution's most important. n28 He knows, after all, that civil liberty is ultimately fused with equality--that where the law creates a
presumption of liberty, each person has a vital interest in not having his liberty denied while others are allowed an equal or more harmful liberty. n29 As Professor Tribe thus recently observed, substantive due process "is a narrative in which due process and equal protection, far from having separate missions and entailing different inquiries, are profoundly interlocked in a legal double helix. It is a single, unfolding tale of equal
liberty . . . ." n30 In this light, it is not surprising that due process and equal protection analyses blend into each other. Both start with the premise that one challenging a law as an unconstitutional violation of his rights ordinarily has the presumption against him. So long as government can show a legitimate interest or end in enacting the law, that is, that the law [*310] is "rationally related" to advancing that interest, it will be
upheld. This ends/means test, embodying a presumption for government and against the individual, is called rational basis scrutiny. n31 In some cases, however, the Court has found either that the right burdened by a challenged law is "fundamental" n32 or that a classification the law employs is "suspect." n33 In either case, it applies "strict scrutiny," n34 and the presumption shifts to favor the individual. n35 While the law
might still survive constitutional challenge, government now has an uphill battle: it needs not simply a legitimate interest in enacting the law, but a compelling one. n36 It must have, we might say, not just a reason, but a very good reason. Further, the law as a means must be not just rationally related to advancing the interest, but "narrowly tailored" to doing so. n37 There must be not just a plausible link between means and
ends, in other words, but a close, efficient, causal link--one that is neither too over-inclusive nor under-inclusive. n38 On both the ends and [*311] means portions of the analysis, a court applying strict scrutiny is skeptical of, not deferential to, government's arguments. n39 B. Core Thesis: Bodily Autonomy and the Fourteenth Amendment 1. Bodily Autonomy as a Fundamental Right Since the 1980's, writes Professor Post, the
Court has developed two approaches to identifying fundamental rights in its substantive due process jurisprudence--the traditional approach and the autonomy approach. n40 The former is drawn originally from Palko v. Connecticut n41 and embodied more recently in Washington v. Glucksberg. n42 Beyond the rule that an asserted fundamental right must be "deeply rooted in the Nation's history and tradition" as well as
"implicit in the concept of ordered liberty," Glucksberg demands a "careful description" of the right. n43 Relying on this traditional formulation, state courts and lower federal courts have long held that laws criminalizing the possession or use of marijuana, even by adults in private, burden no fundamental right, and so need only pass rational basis scrutiny. n44 As the Hawaii Supreme Court has written, for example, We cannot
say that smoking marijuana is a part of the "traditions and collective conscience of our people." In Hawai'i, possession of marijuana has been illegal since 1931 . . . . In the rest of the United States, the possession and/or use of marijuana, even in small quantities, is almost universally prohibited. Therefore, tradition appears to be in favor of the prohibition against possession and use of marijuana . . . . Furthermore, we cannot say
that the principles of liberty and justice underlying our civil and political institutions are violated by marijuana possession laws. We dare say that liberty and justice can exist in spite [*312] of the prohibition against marijuana possession. Therefore, the purported right to possess and use marijuana is not a fundamental right and a compelling state interest is not required." n45 This conclusion, I submit, cannot withstand analysis.
To see why, we must evaluate bodily autonomy as a fundamental right under both approaches identified by Post. To begin, the phrases "implicit in the concept of ordered liberty" n46 and "neither justice nor liberty would exist if they were sacrificed" n47 are vague and abstract, and so provide little real guidance. They draw us out onto Wittgenstein's slippery ice, where language has little traction. n48 At best, they yield starting
points for analysis. While a High Court may "dare say that liberty and justice can exist in spite of (marijuana) prohibition," n49 then, this is a meaningless claim that can be neither proven nor disproven without heavy theoretical lifting. Reasonable people differ on the meaning of such terms, so we are entitled to know exactly how liberty can truly exist where the state can invade adults' bodily autonomy, even in the home. We
are entitled to know how justice can really exist when adults who privately consume marijuana are criminals while adults who consume far more dangerous substances like alcohol and tobacco, even in public, are within their rights for reasons that are widely understood. n50 The Mallan court does not remotely speak to such questions. [*313] By contrast, the other aspect of the first prong of the traditional approach--whether a
right is "so rooted in the traditions and conscience [*314] of our people as to be ranked as fundamental" n51 --provides some guidance. Sometimes, after all, we can justifiably claim that a given right is embedded in American traditions and conscience. Indeed, bodily autonomy is a good example. Beyond its reflection in the Fourth Amendment, n52 leading Anglo-American political theory, n53 and the statutory law of alcohol,
tobacco, caffeine, and fatty foods, "a right of control over one's body has deep roots in the common law." n54 As the Supreme Court observed over a century ago, "no right is held more sacred, or is more carefully guarded, by the common law, than the right of every individual to the possession and control of his own person, free from all restraint or interference of others, unless by clear and unquestionable authority of law."
n55 As Justice Cardozo later wrote, "[e]very human being of adult years and sound mind has a right to determine what shall be done with his own body." n56 Under the "historical roots" aspect of the traditional approach, then, bodily autonomy is plausibly a fundamental right even before we turn to the most recent case law. The second part of the traditional approach, we saw, is the demand for a "careful description" of the
asserted right. This brings us the other strand of the Court's search for fundamental rights--the autonomy [*315] strand, embodied in Lawrence v. Texas, n57 as it refines the careful description requirement. While Lawrence created no fundamental rights, one scholar has observed that Lawrence emphasized . . . that the precise framing of a right ought not to be conflated with the narrowest and most concrete definition of the
conduct the state seeks to punish; the appropriate level of generality may require a broader understanding of the asserted interest . . . . On the one hand, framing must not be overly narrow . . . . On the other hand, framing must not be so broad that the scope of substantive due process becomes limitless . . . . n58 By these lights, bodily autonomy defined as control over the borders and contents of one's body, particularly
within the home, n59 measures up well under Lawrence. It is not too broad, to begin, as it specifies concrete limits on the autonomy protected by the right. It literally protects a private physical space within a private physical space. It is thus not nearly as broad as "autonomy" or "liberty" or "privacy" or "the pursuit of happiness." n60 Conversely, bodily autonomy is not too narrow under Lawrence. It does not, like Mallan and
other cases, define the right at stake merely as smoking marijuana. Lawrence, after all, was clear that the right at stake there was not simply that of engaging in sexual conduct. n61 There is no fundamental right to smoke cigarettes either, but a sudden federal prohibition of tobacco would certainly be subject to strict scrutiny. On this preliminary basis, bodily autonomy is plausibly a fundamental right under the Fourteenth
Amendment. Yet a key advantage to framing the right at stake in marijuana prohibition as bodily autonomy is that it is stated broadly enough to have substantial roots in, and thus draw meaningful guidance from, the Court's leading relevant [*316] case law, especially that of liberty due process. To reinforce the status of bodily autonomy as a fundamental right, rendering marijuana prohibition subject to strict scrutiny, we thus
now turn to a brief review of that jurisprudence. We shall take the cases according to the strength of the state interest asserted, beginning with those in which it is strongest and proceeding toward those in which it is weakest. While no right except freedom of thought is absolute, the portrait that will emerge is that of a strong presumption in favor of liberty as bodily autonomy. 2. The Presumption in Favor of Bodily Autonomy
Our starting point is the right to die cases, Cruzan v. Director, Missouri Dept. of Health n62 and Glucksberg. In Cruzan, a young woman was rendered vegetative in a car accident and eventually taken to a state hospital. n63 Once it was apparent that she had virtually no chance of regaining her mental faculties, her parents asked employees of the hospital to terminate the artificial nutrition and hydration procedures keeping her
alive. n64 The employees refused to do so without court approval, and the case went to the Supreme Court. n65 On the one hand, the Court held, the State's compelling interest in preserving life entitles it to require clear and convincing proof of a patient's wish to discontinue life saving procedures before honoring that wish. n66 On the other hand, assuming such proof is made, the Court affirmed the Fourteenth Amendment
right of such a patient, based on his interest in bodily autonomy, to refuse the treatment. n67 Quoting an old precedent, the Court observed that "no right is held more sacred, or is more carefully guarded by the common law, than the right of every individual to the possession and control of his own person, free from all restraint or interference of others, unless by clear and unquestionable authority of law." n68 Glucksberg
involved a State ban on physician-assisted suicide, even for terminally ill and suffering patients. n69 Among the reasons for the ban, Washington asserted a compelling interest in preserving human [*317] life. n70 Writing for the Court, and grounding his decision in a historical and comparative analysis of the law of suicide, Chief Justice Rehnquist ruled for the State. n71 He held that the individual right asserted was not
fundamental and that the ban was subject to rational basis scrutiny, which it could satisfy. n72 Yet three points are in order. First, although it did not prevail in Cruzan, the interest in preserving human life, at least in the abstract, is the most compelling of all state interests. All other public interests assume the preservation of human life, and so a State is on strong ground where it can plausibly assert this interest. Second, a key
reason Rehnquist rejected the right claimed in Glucksberg is that, unlike the right claimed in Cruzan, it amounted to a right to coerce a third person (doctor) to administer a lethal dose to a patient. n73 Whatever else one thinks of this ruling, an adult's liberty to consume marijuana in his home does not remotely involve such third party coercion. Concurring in Glucksberg, thirdly, Justice Stevens wrote that "in most cases, the
individual's constitutionally protected interest in his or her own physical autonomy, including the right to refuse unwanted medical treatment, will give way to the state's interest in preserving human life." n74 While the Glucksberg Court thus ruled for the State, Stevens expressly recognized the constitutionally protected status of bodily autonomy. n75 This implies a different outcome where a law violates bodily autonomy yet
government can claim no plausible interest in preserving life. As we shall see, the state interests asserted in most bodily autonomy cases are not of this magnitude. Whatever the weight of the State's interest in preserving life in other circumstances, then, it is diminished in the case of a deeply comatose or terminal and suffering individual for the same reason and to the same degree as that individual's interest in refusing
lifesaving medicine is enhanced. n76 Thus far, then, even when the state interest in invading bodily autonomy is strongest, the cases go both ways. [*318] We come next to Jacobson v. Massachusetts, n77 Schmerber v. California, n78 and Winston v. Lee. n79 In these cases, States asserted interests in preventing serious threats to, or punishing serious breaches of, public safety and welfare. In Jacobson, a town required the
inoculation of all residents against smallpox. n80 Jacobson was fined when he refused to be inoculated, and he challenged this fine under the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. n81 In Schmerber, the petitioner had been in a car accident and appeared intoxicated to police when he arrived at a hospital. n82 In order to preserve any evidence of his intoxication for purposes of prosecution, they directed a hospital
employee to take a blood sample from Schmerber over his objection. n83 A blood sample analysis disclosing a high blood alcohol level was introduced against him at trial, and he objected on Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment grounds. n84 The Court held for the State in both cases, and this is not surprising. For one thing, the state interest in invading bodily autonomy was compelling in both cases: smallpox was a fatal threat
to public health and safety in 1905, n85 and drunken driving remains so today. For another thing, the degree of state intrusion into bodily autonomy was relatively limited in both cases. A smallpox inoculation may be more intrusive than the extraction of blood, if only because something is being forced into the body rather than taken out. Yet neither is on a par with the forced feeding of a comatose or terminal suffering patient.
n86 While [*319] Jacobson and Schmerber are sound, then, they neither lessen the force of Cruzan nor control cases in which state interests are of a lesser magnitude than that in protecting and preserving life. n87 In Winston v. Lee, by contrast, the Commonwealth of Virginia claimed that a bullet lodged under Lee's collarbone would help prove that he had committed an armed robbery. n88 It thus sought a court order forcing
him to undergo surgery to remove the bullet. n89 The Supreme Court ruled, however, that Lee's interest in avoiding invasive surgery outweighed the state interest in violating his bodily autonomy. n90 While Virginia could claim a state interest on a par with those in Jacobson and Schmerber, thus, the gravity of Lee's interest in avoiding the bodily intrusion in question far exceeded those in the earlier cases. Because Virginia had
other, if less incriminating, evidence with which to prosecute, it is not surprising that Lee prevailed. n91 Thus far, once again, the cases go both ways, even where state interests are compelling. We come next to the abortion cases, in which States have claimed an interest in protecting potential human life. Given the importance of preserving human life generally, Roe v. Wade n92 and Planned Parenthood v. Casey n93 took
seriously the State interest in protecting fetal human life (and maternal health). Nonetheless, Roe ruled for the individual, establishing a woman's presumptive n94 constitutional right to obtain an abortion. Casey, in turn, reinforced the core of that right, expressly recognizing "the two more general rights under which the abortion right is justified: the right to make family decisions and the right to physical autonomy." n95 As in
Winston, then, the principle of bodily autonomy prevailed in the abortion cases, even over substantial state interests. Thus far, we have reviewed cases involving important state interests. Yet not all state interests are of this magnitude. In City of [*320] Indianapolis v. Edmond, n96 police had conducted suspicionless searches at highway roadblocks for the sole purpose of drug interdiction, and these were challenged on Fourth
Amendment grounds. In the past, the Court had spoken of a "fundamental public interest in implementing the criminal law." n97 Writing for the Edmond Court, further, Justice O'Connor called drug trafficking a serious problem. n98 Nonetheless, she held that the state interest in drug interdiction is simply a species of the "general interest in crime control," n99 and thus could not justify the governmental action at issue. This is a
key distinction, reiterated in later decisions. n100 Whether or not they prevailed, the State interests asserted in Glucksberg, Cruzan, Jacobson, Schmerber, and Winston were all compelling interests, i.e., more substantial than the mere general interest in crime control. By contrast, O'Connor is clear in Edmond that the while the State interest in drug interdiction may be legitimate, it is not compelling, and so would not satisfy
strict scrutiny. n101 We come then to Rochin v. California. n102 Here, police witnessed the defendant, in his bedroom, swallow two capsules they reasonably believed were illegal contraband. n103 Unable to make him disgorge them, they took him to a hospital and had his stomach forcibly pumped in order to retrieve the evidence. n104 As Justice Frankfurter wrote, such conduct "shocks the conscience," n105 violating the
liberty protected by the Fourteenth Amendment. n106 Forcible stomach pumping, of course, is a far greater bodily intrusion than is a forced inoculation or blood extraction. Yet Rochin implicitly recognized what Justice O'Connor confirmed in Edmond--that the state interest in enforcing drug prohibition generally (and marijuana prohibition in particular) is far less [*321] substantial than that in preventing influenza or securing
proof of drunk driving. Under current U.S. law, thus, it is not a compelling interest. We come at last to cases in which government has no plausible interest, not even a legitimate one, in invading bodily autonomy. In Griswold v. Connecticut, n107 claiming an interest in preventing human conception, n108 the State had banned the sale or use of contraceptive devices, even for married couples in the privacy of the home. n109 By
contrast to the abortion context, in which there is arguably a substantial state interest in protecting a human fetus, n110 there is no such interest where conception has not yet occurred. n111 Indeed, given the crisis of human overpopulation, there is no legitimate state interest in preventing conception, far less a compelling one. If abortion or unwanted children are to be avoided, then available contraception for those who
want it is not just sound public policy, it is urgent. The Court thus quite reasonably invalidated the statute. n112 Finally, of course, we come to Lawrence v. Texas. n113 Here, a state law had criminalized homosexual sodomy, n114 even by consenting adults in the privacy of the home. n115 Writing for the Court, Justice Kennedy finessed the question whether the individual has a fundamental right for Fourteenth Amendment
purposes to engage in such conduct. n116 Yet this did not change the outcome, for even applying rational basis scrutiny, Kennedy wrote that "the Texas statute furthers no legitimate state interest which can justify its intrusion into the personal and private life of the individual." n117 As Professor Barnett has argued, Lawrence established a "presumption of liberty" where adults act peacefully in the privacy of their homes. n118
[*322] Summing up, States have prevailed in bodily autonomy cases where they have sought to protect post-natal life, n119 prevent the spread of influenza, n120 and secure essential proof of serious crimes. n121 These rulings are consistent with Rawls' equal liberty principle, which requires that "each person is to have an equal right to the most extensive total system of equal basic liberties compatible with a similar system
of liberty for all." n122 It is thus striking that, by contrast, even a state interest as strong as that in protecting fetal life mostly yielded to the individual liberty interest in the abortion cases. n123 Accordingly, where a State's interest in invading bodily autonomy is weak or nonexistent, e.g., in preventing conception (Griswold), n124 punishing private consensual adult sodomy (Lawrence), n125 or punishing the ingestion of drugs
in the privacy of the home (Rochin), n126 the Court held for the individual. Like most liberties, bodily autonomy is not absolute. Yet we can now see that the President would have ample reason to agree that the cases we have reviewed, forming "a coherent constitutional view over the whole range of (the Court's) decisions," n127 reflect a strong [*323] presumption of liberty as bodily autonomy. n128 Using this presumption as
a guidepost in assessing the constitutionality of marijuana prohibition, he is already inclined to bring a skeptical eye to arguments in its favor. n129 C. Complementary Theses I have argued that marijuana prohibition is subject to strict scrutiny because bodily autonomy, which marijuana prohibition burdens, is a fundamental right. I now turn to three arguments which reinforce one or both parts of this, my core jurisprudential

thesis. 1. Justice as Regularity The central command of the equal protection principle is that government may not treat differently those who are similarly situated. n130 Rawls calls this "justice as regularity," n131 and as the Court wrote in a seminal case, "[w]hen the law lays an unequal hand on those who have committed intrinsically the same quality of offense . . . it has made as invidious a discrimination as if it had selected
a particular race or nationality for oppressive treatment." n132 More recently, it has observed, "[o]ur cases have recognized successful equal protection claims brought by a 'class of one,' where the plaintiff alleges that she has been [*324] intentionally treated differently from others similarly situated and that there is no rational basis for the difference in treatment." n133 Obama would thus take very seriously the principle that
those with similar cases must be treated similarly. Just as the state violates this principle when it treats individuals arbitrarily based on race, it violates it where it imposes a greater punishment on one person than it does on another for the same or a lesser offense. n134 Now we saw that there is substantial evidence that marijuana use is less harmful than the use of alcohol and tobacco. n135 Under current law, then, it is not
just that marijuana users are similarly situated to drinkers and smokers, yet differently treated. The imbalance is greater than this, for far from posing as much risk to genuine state interests as those who drink and smoke, especially in public, private adult marijuana users pose far less. Yet the latter are subject to criminal punishment while the former are not. The President would be inclined to agree that such a stark
inconsistency is irrational and fundamentally unfair. n136 2. Marijuana Prohibition and Suspect Classifications Beyond this, secondly, we have seen that strict scrutiny is triggered under the Fourteenth Amendment not only when a law burdens a [*325] fundamental right, but also when it uses a "suspect classification." n137 Race is the paradigm suspect classification, we saw, and the drug war's disparate impact on racial
minorities in all phases of the criminal justice system is well documented. n138 Yet even if Obama had doubts that such an impact embodies a suspect classification, he would find it hard to disagree that U.S. marijuana prohibition has long been motivated largely by racism. As Bonnie and Whitebread write, for example, based on their "brief survey of marijuana prohibition in the western states, we have concluded that its
Mexican use pattern was ordinarily enough to warrant its prohibition, and that whatever attention such legislative action received was attended by sensationalist descriptions of crimes committed by Mexican marijuana users." n139 As Sloman adds: "the first users of marijuana--that is, the first people to smoke cannabis for mostly recreational purposes--were members of minority groups . . . . [S]tate after state enacted some
form of prohibition against the non-medical abuse of the drug. California in 1915, Texas in 1919, Louisiana in 1924, New York by 1927--one by one most states acted, usually when faced with significant numbers of Mexicans or Negroes using the drug." n140 As Booth elaborates: "the press and 'concerned citizens' took up the call, driven not only by their zeal but also by their anti-Mexican attitudes, which were strengthened
during the Depression when jobs were scarce and migrants seemed to be stealing work from the white work force. The Mexicans were accused, without any justification, of spreading marijuana across the nation. State marijuana laws were often used as an excuse to deport or imprison innocent Mexicans. . . ." Although they had been using marijuana for years, it was not until 1938 that [Federal Bureau of Narcotics Director
Harry] Anslinger finally came to realize the link between jazz musicians and the drug . . . . Once the association dawned on him, he set about going after the entertainment industry in general and jazz musicians specifically. They [*326] fitted nicely into his racist agenda: if they were not black, they were whites who had come under and been corrupted by black influence . . . . What had been considered a drug threat during the
two world wars--the German and, before and between the conflicts, the Chinese--was now replaced by colored men, this jingoism heightened not only because of the immigration situation but also by the American cant put out since the 1930s by Anslinger and the FBN. Concern was not only voiced about the fate of women in black hands: there was a worry that the young might also come under their spell, this given credence
by the arrest, in August 1951, of the first white teenager found in possession of marijuana. Cannabis, the black man's narcotic, was widely regarded as more dangerous than heroin or cocaine, not because of its potential for addiction but for its facilitation of multi-racial sexual communication." n141 Beyond the drug war's racially disparate impact, then, there is evidence that racism has long been a dominant motive behind U.S.
marijuana prohibition. Obama is thus justified in concluding not only that it burdens a fundamental right, but also that it embodies a suspect classification. He would thus likely agree that all roads of Fourteenth Amendment analysis lead to a presumption against, i.e., strict scrutiny of, marijuana prohibition. 3. Bodily Autonomy and Free Speech Finally, while I have argued that my thesis has broad support in the Fourteenth
Amendment, it is reinforced by the analogy between bodily autonomy and free speech. Rawls expressly includes both speech and "the physical integrity of the person" among the basic liberties protected by the equal liberty principle. n142 Moreover, neither speech nor bodily autonomy is a zero sum liberty. n143 Unlike some forms of affirmative action, for example, involving scarce, valuable resources, free speech [*327] and
bodily autonomy are not denied to some simply because extended to others. While free speech is not absolute, then, the Court has come to recognize the strongest of presumptions in its favor. n144 Given the analogy between bodily autonomy and free speech, two doctrines in particular are illuminating. The first is that of commercial speech. In Rubin v. Coors Brewing Co. n145 and 44 Liquormart, Inc. v. Rhode Island, n146 the
Court held that laws banning ads giving the public accurate information about retail prices of alcoholic beverages violate the First Amendment. As great a threat as such ads intuitively pose to public health and safety, that is, government cannot prove that a given ad will proximately cause, e.g., domestic violence or a fatal car crash. n147 Because liquor can be legally purchased and consumed by adults, moreover, even in
public, the Court reinforced the presumption of liberty--even in the case of liquor ads. n148 On this basis, Obama would be skeptical that private adult marijuana use, unlike liquor ads, will proximately cause harms of the magnitude of domestic violence or a fatal auto collision. The second doctrine is that of incitement to imminent lawlessness, the rule for which is stated in Brandenburg v. Ohio. n149 There, a man was convicted
under a state criminal syndicalism statute for remarks he had made at a Ku Klux Klan rally. n150 In striking the law down, the Court held that government may punish incitement to imminent lawlessness only where it can show that the speech in question is both (1) directed toward producing serious imminent harm to others and (2) likely to do so. n151 Two points are in order. First, this rule recognizes the distinction, reflected
elsewhere in free speech law, n152 between (1) the exercise of liberty and (2) its likely, immediate, harmful effects on third parties, the latter being necessary to [*328] ban or punish the former. n153 In light of the speech/bodily autonomy analogy, then, the law governing bodily autonomy should reflect this distinction as well. Before government can punish private adult marijuana use, that is, it should have to prove, and not
merely assert, any substantial harms immediately caused by that exercise of liberty. If private adult marijuana use causes no such harms, then it should no more be punishable based on what may happen afterward than consumption of alcohol can be punished based on the drunken driving that may later take place. Beyond this, secondly, application of the Brandenburg rule to private adult marijuana use suggests that
punishing this exercise of liberty is even harder to justify than suppression of speech. Whatever harms, if any, private adult marijuana use is likely to cause others, it would be very difficult to show that it is directed to causing such harm. Even a speaker at a public rally who desires and advocates that public buildings be blown up is constitutionally protected if there is no imminent threat that anyone will do as he says. n154 In
this light, Obama would recognize the absurdity of any claim that private adult marijuana users, in exercising their liberty, have any comparable malicious, destructive intent. n155 In sum, the parallel between bodily autonomy and free speech reinforces the President's basis for concluding that marijuana prohibition is subject to strict scrutiny. n156 [*329] III. CONCLUSION: TOWARD RATIONAL AND JUST POLICY REFORM Beyond
its economic, social, and other constitutional difficulties, I have argued, marijuana prohibition is subject to strict scrutiny under the Fourteenth Amendment. I have supported this primarily by showing that (1) bodily autonomy, which is directly burdened by marijuana prohibition, is plausibly a fundamental right, and (2) the Court's leading relevant case law has established a presumption in its favor. I have endeavored to
reinforce my thesis, further, by arguing that (1) marijuana prohibition violates "justice as regularity," n157 (2) its racist origins satisfy the suspect classification trigger of strict scrutiny, and (3) given the analogy between free speech and bodily autonomy, the strong presumption in favor of free speech should apply to bodily autonomy. As noted, the application of strict scrutiny to marijuana prohibition is the subject of another
article, and indeed, complex litigation. Yet I submit that Obama would have grave doubts that this prohibition could pass an honest application of that rule. As a stark matter of precedent, an adult woman has a limited right to expel a fetus from her body n158 and an adult man has a right in his home to have another man's penis inside his body. n159 Both, moreover, have the right to eat, drink and smoke themselves to death,
even in public, contributing to serious social problems like drunken driving, second hand smoke, and burdens on the health care system. In this light alone, the President would find it hard to identify a principled basis in equality or liberty for denying those adults the right to consume marijuana in their homes. Beyond constitutional law, finally, three key ideas in Rawls--legitimate expectations, public reason, and overlapping
consensus-- provide the President an even broader foundation for challenging Congress to end this war. I conclude with them. As for the first, Rawls writes that it is not the satisfaction of moral desert, but rather legitimate expectations, that characterize a just distributive scheme under a sound contract theory. n160 From his viewpoint as a citizen, then, while knowing he cannot expect perfection from human institutions like
government, the average person can legitimately expect that the law will not be so irrational and inconsistent as to criminalize the exercise of one liberty while other liberties, far [*330] more harmful, are merely regulated for reasons widely understood. n161 From their viewpoints as citizens (and not merely economic agents), those who profit from or are employed by the alcohol, tobacco, pharmaceutical, and prison industries

have no legitimate expectation that private adult marijuana use will forever remain a crime simply so that their profits and employment will be maintained. The social contract of a reasonably just society, one worth passing onto their grandchildren, would never include such a provision. As for public reason, we have seen that

Obama can

give powerful justifications for ending marijuana prohibition

, justifications which

those in a constitutional democracy can accept in their capacity as citizens. n162 We have seen, that is, that the President has support not only in policy terms of cost/benefit analysis but also on constitutional

authoritarian conservatives
never change their minds
grounds. To be sure,

like William Bennett, n163 George Will, n164 Lou Dobbs n165 and John Walters n166

may

, having declared the war on marijuana one in which we can never surrender. Yet some are incapable of public reason. As Freeman

writes, "there is no presumption that Social Darwinists, fundamentalists, neo-Nazis, or Southern slaveholders would be amenable to public reason, nor should any effort be made to accommodate their views." n167
Moreover, these drug warriors do not speak for all conservatives. Beyond such persistent voices as those of William F. Buckley and Milton Friedman, for example, the heroic dissents of Justices O'Connor, Rehnquist
and Thomas in Gonzales v. Raich show that some conservatives' principled commitment to federalism overcomes any misgivings they have about liberal social policy. n168 Yet let us even assume that all

social conservatives are strongly inclined toward marijuana

prohibition. Unanimity is not needed
moderate right value
autonomy
overlapping consensus here
will be
stronger

for [*331] reform, and whatever their differences, the hard left, moderate left, and

all

individual liberty, particularly

, building by the day. n169 It

Proposition 19-like initiatives in 2012 enact them into law, and

in the privacy of the home. In Rawlsian terms, there is substantial

even

if any of the states with current plans for

if the President can use his political

in his second term to convince those conservatives

skills and

capital

who respect cost/benefit analysis and constitutional

principle. As the President knows, some of them do.

TPA is key to the Environmental Goods Agreement

Kennedy 10/14/14 (Sandy, President of the Retail Industry Leaders
Association, Op-Ed: Congress Should Act Quickly To Renew TPA Legislation,
https://www.sourcingjournalonline.com/congress-act-quickly-renew-tpalegislation/)
The U.S. is currently involved in negotiations on several
outstanding trade agreements , each of which involve important policy updates for 21st
century trade and the retail industry: the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) with eleven countries throughout
the Asia Pacific region and the Trans-Atlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP) with the European
Union, would collectively cover 60 percent of global GDP and 50 percent of world trade. In addition,

ongoing negotiations under the World Trade Organization (WTO) for a Trade in Services
Agreement (TISA), Environmental Goods Agreement , and an update to the 1996
Information Technology Agreement would break down global trade barriers and
create new export opportunities for American services as well as
environmental and high tech goods. The success of these agreements
remains in jeopardy without the renewal of TPA

legislation.

Key to solve environmental destruction

McKenna 14 (Miles, Research Analyst for the World Bank Group's Trade

and Competitiveness Global Practice, Jaime de Melo, PhD in Economics from

the Johns Hopkins University, professor at the University of Geneva, Senior
Fellow at FERDI (Fondation pour les tudes et recherches dans le
dveloppement international), a CEPR fellow, a fellow of EU-GDN, and a nonresident fellow at the Brookings Institute, and Mariana Vijil, PhD in economics
from the French National Institute for Agricultural Research, research
associate at the Foundation for International Development Study and
Research, Sep 22 2014, The WTO Environmental Goods Agreement: Why
Even A Small Step Forward Is a Good Step,

http://blogs.worldbank.org/trade/wto-environmental-goods-agreement-whyeven-small-step-forward-good-step)
International trade has a critical role to play in environmental
protection and the effort to mitigate climate change. While it certainly isnt always framed this way, it is
important to realize that increased trade and economic growth are not necessarily incompatible with a cleaner
environment and a healthier climate. If we are going to move away from dirty fossil fuels and inefficient energy
processes at a rate necessary to limit the likely devastating results of a warmer planet, then we need enabling policies in
placeespecially when it comes to trade policy. Thats why, this week, a group of 14 World Trade Organization (WTO)
Members are meeting to begin the second round of negotiations on
effort

the Environmental Goods Agreement ( EGA )an

aimed at liberalizing trade in products that help make our world

cleaner and greener. These negotiations are building on a list of 54 environmental goods identified by
the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) forum in 2012. In a pioneering move, the APEC nations agreed to reduce

The list includes renewable and clean

water and waste treatment products, air pollution

import tariffs on these goods to 5 percent or less by 2015.

energy technologies,

control technologies, and environmental monitoring and assessment equipment.

Lower tariffs on these products should lead to lower prices, which can help
support emerging green industries across the globe by boosting trade in
environmental goods (EGs). At the same time, they can help meet national climate and energy targets, strengthen energy
security, and reduce dependency on fossil fuels.

Extinction
Valas 91

Rory A. Valas is currently an Attorney at Law for Valas & Associates. At the time of this writing
he was an Editor for the BOSTON COLLEGE ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS LAW REVIEW.
COMMENTS: TOXIC PALSGRAF: PROVING CAUSATION WHEN THE LINK BETWEEN CONDUCT
AND INJURY APPEARS HIGHLY EXTRAORDINARY Boston College Environmental Affairs Law
Review 18 B.C. Envtl. Aff. L. Rev. 773 SUMMER, 1991 lexis, allrev. This card continues from
the end of the paragraph to the opening footnote of that paragraph, N16 no text omitted.

Hazardous waste pollution creates a serious health risk to millions of

people. n16 Pollution causes or contributes to a large and increasing
number of deaths or serious debilitations from cancer, nervous system disorders, or respiratory
ailments. n17 The federal government has made progress by enacting and enforcing legislation to both regulate waste
disposal and effectuate a hazardous waste cleanup program. n18 Despite these actions to regulate waste disposal and
[*776] encourage waste cleanup, Congress has not passed any legislation providing a regulated system of compensation

n16 Billions of pounds of hazardous

waste are released into the environment every year. M. BROWN, LAYING WASTE:
THE POISONING OF AMERICA BY TOXIC CHEMICALS 293 (1980). Studies have found that environmental
factors cause 70% to 90% of all cancers. S. EPSTEIN, THE POLITICS OF CANCER 2 (1978);
for personal injuries that result from toxic pollution. n19

Comment, supra note 2, at 798.

Spec
-- Aff must specify which branch passes the plan they
dont
-- Vote Neg
1. Ground robs courts, congress, executive
counterplans, agent specific disads and case arguments
2. Conditionality resolved means a firm course of
action not specifying allows them to shift and clarify in
the 2AC
3. No solvency theres no actor as the United States,
only specific branches

CP
TheUnitedStatesshould:
Announceandimplementviolencetargetedenforcementagainstmajor
Mexicancriminalorganizationsandmandatepreventativeactionagainstthe
mostviolentorganizationsfordestruction.
Preemptstatemarihuanalegalizationmeasuresthatconflictwiththe
ControlledSubstancesAct.
Implementanationwidedrugtestingandpunishmentprogrambasedupon
HawaiisHOPEprogram.
Solvescartels
Lee14(Brianna,PolicyAnalyst/LatinAmericaExpert@CouncilofForeignRelations,
"Mexico'sDrugWar,"http://www.cfr.org/mexico/mexicosdrugwar/p13689)

WhileacknowledgingthatdecriminalizationwouldresultinfewerU.S.incarcerations,drugpolicyexpertMark Kleiman
questionsthisstrategyinForeignAffairs,arguingthatitwouldputmoredrugsintothehandsofusersandincreasethesizeof
Mexico'sexportmarket.Instead,headvocates focusingU.S.enforcementeffortsonthemostviolent

dealersanddealingorganizations whilesimultaneouslyworkingtoreduce thedrug

demandofcriminallyactiveheavyusers.Frequentdrugtestingandswiftbutmildprobation
andparolefortheseusershasseenremarkablesuccessinprogramslikeHawaii'sHOPE
program[PDF],whichhasreducedbothdruguseanddaysincarcerated.AmajorpieceoftheU.S.and
Mexicanstrategyagainstcartelshasbeentotargetsocalled"highvalue"individualsorlowlevel,highlyvisible"footsoldiers."But

VandaFelbabBrownoftheBrookingsInstitutionadvocatesaggressivelytargetingthemiddlelayer,whichisintegralto
theoperationalcapacityofcartelsandnotaseasilyreplaceable.Theirousteralsodoesnotresultinthesamenumberofpeople
violentlyvyingforleadershiproles.Sheandotherexpertssupportamorehierarchicalapproachto

targetingtraffickers, prioritizingthosewhoaremostviolent ratherthan"lashingoutinanindiscriminate

mannerwheneveranyintelligencecomesin."

HOPESolvesCartels
Kleiman,'11[Mark,ProfessorofPublicPolicyattheLuskinSchoolofPublicAffairsatthe

UniversityofCalifornia,LosAngeles.HeisEditoroftheJournalofDrugPolicyAnalysis,the
authorofWhenBruteForceFails,andacoauthor,withJonathanCaulkinsandAngelaHawken,
ofDrugsandDrugPolicy,ForeignAffairs,Oct,
http://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/68131/markkleiman/surgicalstrikesinthedrugwars]
Mexico'sdifferentproblemcallsforadifferentstrategy:creatingdisincentivesforviolence
atthelevelofthelargesttraffickingorganizations .Thosesixorganizationsvaryintheiruseofviolence;total
violencewouldshrinkifmarketshareschangedinfavorofthecurrentlyleastviolentgroupsorifanygroupreduceditsviolencelevel.
Announcingandcarryingoutastrategyofviolencetargetedenforcementcouldachievebothends. TheMexicangovernment

couldcraftandannounceasetofviolencerelatedmetricstobeappliedtoeachorganization
overaperiodofweeksormonths.Suchascoringsystemcouldconsideragroup'stotal
numberofkillings,thedistributionofitstargets(amongotherdealers,enforcementagents,

ordinarycitizens,journalists,communityleaders,andelectedofficials),itsuseorthreatof
terrorism,anditsnonfatalshootingsandkidnappings.Mexicanofficialshavenodifficultyattributingeach
killingtoaspecifictraffickingorganization,inpartbecausetheorganizationsboastoftheirviolenceratherthantryingtohideit.At
theendofthescoringperiod,oronceitbecameclearthatoneorganizationrankedfirs t,thepolice

woulddesignatethemostviolentorganizationfordestruction .Thatmightnotrequirethearrestofthe
kingpins,aslongasthetargetedorganizationcameundersufficientlyheavyenforcementpressuretomakeituncompetitive. The

pointsofmaximumvulnerabilityfortheMexicantraffickingorganizationsmightnoteven
bewithinMexico.U.S.lawenforcementagenciesbelievethatforeverymajordomestic
distributionorganizationintheUnitedStates,theycanidentifyoneormoreofthesix
dominantMexicantraffickingorganizationsastheprimarysourceorsources.IftheU.S.Drug
EnforcementAdministrationweretoannouncethatitsdomestictargetselectionprocesswouldgivehighprioritytodistributors
suppliedbyMexico'sdesignated"mostviolentorganization,"theresultwouldlikelybeascrambletofindnewsources.

Econ
Growth is unsustainable complexity theory and law of
diminishing returns means growth has reached maximum
efficiency and will inevitably collapse
MacKenzie 8 (Debora, science journalist New Scientist, Why the
demise of civilisation may be inevitable, New Scientist, Vol. 197 Issue 2650,
p32-35, 4-2, http://www.climateark.org/shared/reader/welcome.aspx?
linkid=97741)

DOOMSDAY. The end of civilisation. Literature and film abound with tales of plague, famine and wars which
ravage the planet, leaving a few survivors scratching out a primitive existence amid the ruins. Every
civilisation in history has collapsed, after all. Why should ours be any different? Doomsday scenarios
typically feature a knockout blow: a massive asteroid, all-out nuclear war or a catastrophic pandemic (see
"Will a pandemic bring down civilisation?"). Yet there is another chilling possibility: what if the very nature
of civilisation means that ours, like all the others, is destined to collapse sooner or later? A few
researchers have been making such claims for years. Disturbingly, recent insights from fields such as

once a society develops

beyond a certain level of complexity it becomes increasingly fragile .
Eventually, it reaches a point at which even a relatively minor
disturbance can bring everything crashing down . Some say we have
already reached this point , and that it is time to start thinking about
how we might manage collapse. Others insist it is not yet too late, and that we can - we
complexity theory suggest that they are right. It appears that

must - act now to keep disaster at bay. Environmental mismanagement History is not on our side. Think of
Sumeria, of ancient Egypt and of the Maya. In his 2005 best-seller Collapse, Jared Diamond of the
University of California, Los Angeles, blamed environmental mismanagement for the fall of the Mayan
civilisation and others, and warned that we might be heading the same way unless we choose to stop
destroying our environmental support systems. Lester Brown of the Earth Policy Institute in Washington
DC agrees. He has long argued that governments must pay more attention to vital environmental
resources. "It's not about saving the planet. It's about saving civilisation," he says. Others think our
problems run deeper. >From the moment our ancestors started to settle down and build cities, we have
had to find solutions to the problems that success brings. "For the past 10,000 years, problem solving has
produced increasing complexity in human societies," says Joseph Tainter, an archaeologist at Utah State
University, Logan, and author of the 1988 book The Collapse of Complex Societies. If crops fail because
rain is patchy, build irrigation canals. When they silt up, organise dredging crews. When the bigger crop
yields lead to a bigger population, build more canals. When there are too many for ad hoc repairs, install a
management bureaucracy, and tax people to pay for it. When they complain, invent tax inspectors and a
system to record the sums paid. That much the Sumerians knew. Diminishing returns There is, however, a

Every extra layer of organisation imposes a cost in terms

of energy, the common currency of all human efforts, from building canals to educating scribes. And
increasing complexity, Tainter realised, produces diminishing returns . The
price to be paid.

extra food produced by each extra hour of labour - or joule of energy invested per farmed hectare -

We see the same thing today in a declining

number of patents per dollar invested in research as that research investment
mounts. This law of diminishing returns appears everywhere, Tainter says. To keep growing,
societies must keep solving problems as they arise. Yet each problem
solved means more complexity. Success generates a larger
population, more kinds of specialists, more resources to manage,
more information to juggle - and, ultimately, less bang for your buck.
Eventually, says Tainter, the point is reached when all the energy and resources
available to a society are required just to maintain its existing level
of complexity. Then when the climate changes or barbarians invade, overstretched institutions
diminishes as that investment mounts.

break down and civil order collapses. What emerges is a less complex society, which is organised on a
smaller scale or has been taken over by another group.

Tainter sees diminishing returns

as the underlying reason for the collapse of all ancient civilisations,

from the early Chinese dynasties to the Greek city state of Mycenae .
These civilisations relied on the solar energy that could be harvested from food, fodder and wood, and
from wind. When this had been stretched to its limit, things fell apart. An ineluctable process Western
industrial civilisation has become bigger and more complex than any before it by exploiting new sources of

There are increasing signs of

diminishing returns: the energy required to get each new joule of oil
is mounting and although global food production is still increasing, constant innovation
is needed to cope with environmental degradation and evolving pests and
energy, notably coal and oil, but these are limited.

diseases - the yield boosts per unit of investment in innovation are shrinking. "Since problems are
inevitable," Tainter warns, "this process is in part ineluctable." Is Tainter right? An analysis of complex
systems has led Yaneer Bar-Yam, head of the New England Complex Systems Institute in Cambridge,
Massachusetts, to the same conclusion that Tainter reached from studying history. Social organisations
become steadily more complex as they are required to deal both with environmental problems and with
challenges from neighbouring societies that are also becoming more complex, Bar-Yam says. This
eventually leads to a fundamental shift in the way the society is organised. "To run a hierarchy, managers
cannot be less complex than the system they are managing," Bar-Yam says. As complexity increases,
societies add ever more layers of management but, ultimately in a hierarchy, one individual has to try and
get their head around the whole thing, and this starts to become impossible. At that point, hierarchies give
way to networks in which decision-making is distributed. We are at this point. This shift to decentralised
networks has led to a widespread belief that modern society is more resilient than the old hierarchical
systems. "I don't foresee a collapse in society because of increased complexity," says futurologist and
industry consultant Ray Hammond. "Our strength is in our highly distributed decision making." This, he
says, makes modern western societies more resilient than those like the old Soviet Union, in which decision
making was centralised. Increasing connectedness Things are not that simple, says Thomas Homer-Dixon,
a political scientist at the University of Toronto, Canada, and author of the 2006 book The Upside of Down.
"Initially, increasing connectedness and diversity helps: if one village has a crop failure, it can get food
from another village that didn't." As connections increase, though, networked systems become
increasingly tightly coupled. This means the impacts of failures can propagate: the more closely those two
villages come to depend on each other, the more both will suffer if either has a problem.

"Complexity leads to higher vulnerability in some ways," says Bar-Yam. "This is not
widely understood." The reason is that as networks become ever tighter, they
start to transmit shocks rather than absorb them. "The intricate
networks that tightly connect us together - and move people, materials,
information, money and energy - amplify and transmit any shock," says Homer-Dixon.
"A financial crisis, a terrorist attack or a disease outbreak has almost instant destabilising effects, from one
side of the world to the other." For instance, in 2003 large areas of North America and Europe suffered
blackouts when apparently insignificant nodes of their respective electricity grids failed. And this year
China suffered a similar blackout after heavy snow hit power lines. Tightly coupled networks like these
create the potential for propagating failure across many critical industries, says Charles Perrow of Yale
University, a leading authority on industrial accidents and disasters. Credit crunch Perrow says

interconnectedness in the global production system has now

reached the point where "a breakdown anywhere increasingly means
a breakdown everywhere". This is especially true of the world's financial systems, where the
coupling is very tight. "Now we have a debt crisis with the biggest player, the US. The consequences could
be enormous." "A networked society behaves like a multicellular organism," says Bar-Yam, "random
damage is like lopping a chunk off a sheep." Whether or not the sheep survives depends on which chunk is
lost. And while we are pretty sure which chunks a sheep needs, it isn't clear - it may not even be
predictable - which chunks of our densely networked civilisation are critical, until it's too late. "When we
do the analysis, almost any part is critical if you lose enough of it," says Bar-Yam. "Now that we can ask
questions of such systems in more sophisticated ways, we are discovering that they can be very
vulnerable. That means civilisation is very vulnerable." So what can we do? "The key issue is really
whether we respond successfully in the face of the new vulnerabilities we have," Bar-Yam says. That means
making sure our "global sheep" does not get injured in the first place - something that may be hard to
guarantee as the climate shifts and the world's fuel and mineral resources dwindle. Tightly coupled
system Scientists in other fields are also warning that complex systems are prone to collapse. Similar
ideas have emerged from the study of natural cycles in ecosystems, based on the work of ecologist Buzz
Holling, now at the University of Florida, Gainesville. Some ecosystems become steadily more complex
over time: as a patch of new forest grows and matures, specialist species may replace more generalist
species, biomass builds up and the trees, beetles and bacteria form an increasingly rigid and ever more
tightly coupled system. "It becomes an extremely efficient system for remaining constant in the face of
the normal range of conditions," says Homer-Dixon. But unusual conditions - an insect outbreak, fire or
drought - can trigger dramatic changes as the impact cascades through the system. The end result may be
the collapse of the old ecosystem and its replacement by a newer, simpler one. Globalisation is resulting

in the same tight coupling and fine-tuning of our systems to a narrow range of conditions, he says.
Redundancy is being systematically eliminated as companies maximise profits. Some products are
produced by only one factory worldwide. Financially, it makes sense, as mass production maximises
efficiency. Unfortunately, it also minimises resilience. "We need to be more selective about increasing the
connectivity and speed of our critical systems," says Homer-Dixon. "Sometimes the costs outweigh the
benefits." Is there an alternative? Could we heed these warnings and start carefully climbing back down
the complexity ladder? Tainter knows of only one civilisation that managed to decline but not fall. "After
the Byzantine empire lost most of its territory to the Arabs, they simplified their entire society. Cities
mostly disappeared, literacy and numeracy declined, their economy became less monetised, and they
switched from professional army to peasant militia." Staving off collapse Pulling off the same trick will be
harder for our more advanced society. Nevertheless, Homer-Dixon thinks we should be taking action now.
"First, we need to encourage distributed and decentralised production of vital goods like energy and food,"
he says. "Second, we need to remember that slack isn't always waste. A manufacturing company with a
large inventory may lose some money on warehousing, but it can keep running even if its suppliers are
temporarily out of action." The electricity industry in the US has already started identifying hubs in the
grid with no redundancy available and is putting some back in, Homer-Dixon points out. Governments
could encourage other sectors to follow suit. The trouble is that in a world of fierce competition, private
companies will always increase efficiency unless governments subsidise inefficiency in the public interest.
Homer-Dixon doubts we can stave off collapse completely. He points to what he calls "tectonic" stresses
that will shove our rigid, tightly coupled system outside the range of conditions it is becoming ever more
finely tuned to. These include population growth, the growing divide between the world's rich and poor,

In
imposing new complex solutions we will run into the problem of
diminishing returns - just as we are running out of cheap and
plentiful energy. "This is the fundamental challenge humankind faces. We need to
allow for the healthy breakdown in natural function in our societies
in a way that doesn't produce catastrophic collapse, but instead
leads to healthy renewal," Homer-Dixon says. This is what happens in forests, which are a
financial instability, weapons proliferation, disappearing forests and fisheries, and climate change.

patchy mix of old growth and newer areas created by disease or fire. If the ecosystem in one patch
collapses, it is recolonised and renewed by younger forest elsewhere. We must allow partial breakdown
here and there, followed by renewal, he says, rather than trying so hard to avert breakdown by increasing

we are fast
running out of time. "The world can no longer afford to waste a day .
complexity that any resulting crisis is actually worse. Tipping points Lester Brown thinks

We need a Great Mobilisation, as we had in wartime," he says. "There has been tremendous progress in
just the past few years. For the first time, I am starting to see how an alternative economy might emerge.

But it's now a race between tipping points - which will come first, a
switch to sustainable technology, or collapse?" Tainter is not convinced that
even new technology will save civilisation in the long run. "I sometimes think of this as a 'faithbased' approach to the future," he says. Even a society reinvigorated by cheap new energy sources will
eventually face the problem of diminishing returns once more. Innovation itself
might be subject to diminishing returns, or perhaps absolute limits. Studies of the way cities
grow by Luis Bettencourt of the Los Alamos National Laboratory, New Mexico, support this idea. His team's
work suggests that an ever-faster rate of innovation is required to keep cities growing and prevent
stagnation or collapse, and in the long run this cannot be sustainable.

Transition away from growth is key any delay makes the

inevitable collapse more devastating
Barry 10 (Glen, President and Founder Ecological Internet. Ph.D. in Land
Resources from the University of Wisconsin-Madison, Resisting Global
Ecological Change, 1-5,
http://www.ecoearth.info/blog/2010/01/earth_meanders_resisting_globa.asp)
Shared survival requires powering down, going back to the land, and ecological
resistance. The human family faces imminent and (Copenhagen would suggest) inevitable
collapse of the biosphere the thin layer of life upon an otherwise lifeless planet that

makes Earth habitable. Marshes and rivers and forests and fish are far more than resources they and all
natural ecosystems are a necessity for humanitys existence upon Earth. A few centuries of historically

unprecedented explosion in human numbers and surging, albeit inequitable,

consumption and resultant resource use, ecosystem destruction and

pollution; is needlessly destroying being for all living things. Revolutionary

action such as ending coal use, reforming industrial agriculture and protecting and restoring old forests
and other natural ecosystems, is a requirement for the continuation of shared human being. Earth is
threatened by far more than a changing atmosphere causing climate change. Cumulative ecosystem
destruction not only in climate, but also water, forests, oceans, farmland, soils and toxics -- in the name
of progress and development -- threatens each of us, our families and communities, as well as the
Earth System in total and all her creatures. Any chance of achieving global ecological sustainability
depends urgently upon shifting concerns regarding climate change to more sufficiently transform ourselves

ecological, social and

economic collapse may be inevitable, but its severity , duration and
and society to more broadly resist global ecological change. Global

likelihood of recovery are being determined

by us

now . It does not look good

as the environmental movement has been lacking in its overall vision, ambition and implementation. The
growing numbers of ecologically literate global citizens must come forward to together start considering
ecologically sufficient emergency measures to protect and restore global ecosystems.

We need a

plan that allows humans and as many other species as possible to survive the
coming great ecological collapse, even as we work to soften the
collapse, and to restore to the extent practicable the Earths ecosystems. This

mandates full protection for all remaining large natural ecosystems and working to reconnect and enlarge

It is time for a hard radical turn back

to a fully functioning and restored natural Earth which will require again
biologically rich smaller remnants that still exist.

regaining our bond with land (and air, water and oceans), powering down our energy profligacy, and taking
whatever measures are necessary to once again bring society into balance with ecosystems. This may
mean taking all measures necessary to stop those known to be destroying ecosystems for profit. As
governments dither and the elite profit, it has become dreadfully apparent that the political, economic and
social structures necessary to stop human ecocide of our and all lifes habitats does not yet exist .

The
three hundred year old hyper-capitalistic and nationalistic growth machine eating
ecosystems is not going to willingly stop growing . But unless it does,
human and most or all other life will suffer a slow and excruciating
apocalyptic death. Actions can be taken now to soften ecological
collapse

while maximizing the likelihood that a humane and ecologically whole Earth remains to be

renewed.

Growth causes warming and extinction

Barry 8 (Dr. Glen, President and Founder Ecological Internet, Economic

Collapse and Global Ecology, 1-14,
http://www.countercurrents.org/barry140108.htm)
Given widespread failure to pursue policies sufficient to reverse deterioration of the biosphere and avoid ecological

the best we can hope for may be that the growth-based

economic system crashes sooner rather than later Humanity and the Earth are
collapse,

faced with an enormous conundrum -- sufficient climate policies enjoy political support only in times of rapid economic
growth. Yet this

growth is the primary factor driving

greenhouse gas

emissions and other environmental ills. The growth machine has

pushed the planet well beyond its ecological carrying capacity, and
unless constrained, can only lead to

human

extinction

and an end to

complex life. With every economic downturn, like the one now looming in the United States, it becomes more difficult and
less likely that policy sufficient to ensure global ecological sustainability will be embraced. This essay explores the
possibility that from a biocentric viewpoint of needs for long-term global ecological, economic and social sustainability; it
would be better for the economic collapse to come now rather than later. Economic growth is a deadly disease upon the
Earth, with capitalism as its most virulent strain. Throw-away consumption and explosive population growth are made
possible by using up fossil fuels and destroying ecosystems. Holiday shopping numbers are covered by media in the same
breath as Arctic ice melt, ignoring their deep connection. Exponential economic growth destroys ecosystems and pushes
the biosphere closer to failure. Humanity has proven itself unwilling and unable to address climate change and other
environmental threats with necessary haste and ambition. Action on coal, forests, population, renewable energy and
emission reductions could be taken now at net benefit to the economy. Yet, the losers -- primarily fossil fuel industries and
their bought oligarchy -- successfully resist futures not dependent upon their deadly products. Perpetual economic

growth, and necessary climate and other ecological policies, are fundamentally incompatible. Global ecological
sustainability depends critically upon establishing a steady state economy, whereby production is right-sized to not
diminish natural capital. Whole industries like coal and natural forest logging will be eliminated even as new opportunities
emerge in solar energy and environmental restoration. This critical transition to both economic and ecological
sustainability is simply not happening on any scale. The challenge is how to carry out necessary environmental policies
even as economic growth ends and consumption plunges. The natural response is going to be liquidation of even more
life-giving ecosystems, and jettisoning of climate policies, to vainly try to maintain high growth and personal consumption.
We know that humanity must reduce greenhouse gas emissions by at least 80% over coming decades. How will this and
other necessary climate mitigation strategies be maintained during years of economic downturns, resource wars,
reasonable demands for equitable consumption, and frankly, the weather being more pleasant in some places? If efforts
to reduce emissions and move to a steady state economy fail; the collapse of ecological, economic and social systems is
assured. Bright greens take the continued existence of a habitable Earth with viable, sustainable populations of all
species including humans as the ultimate truth and the meaning of life. Whether this is possible in a time of economic
collapse is crucially dependent upon whether enough ecosystems and resources remain post collapse to allow humanity

It may be better for the Earth

and humanity's future that economic collapse comes sooner rather
than later, while more ecosystems and opportunities to return to
nature's fold exist. Economic collapse will be deeply wrenching -- part Great Depression, part African
to recover and reconstitute sustainable, relocalized societies.

famine. There will be starvation and civil strife, and a long period of suffering and turmoil. Many will be killed as balance
returns to the Earth. Most people have forgotten how to grow food and that their identity is more than what they own. Yet
there is some justice, in that those who have lived most lightly upon the land will have an easier time of it, even as those
super-consumers living in massive cities finally learn where their food comes from and that ecology is the meaning of life.

Economic collapse now means humanity and the Earth ultimately

survive to prosper again. Human suffering -- already the norm for many, but hitting the currently

materially affluent -- is inevitable given the degree to which the planet's carrying capacity has been exceeded. We are a
couple decades at most away from societal strife of a much greater magnitude as the Earth's biosphere fails.

Humanity can take the bitter medicine now, and recover

emerging better for it;

while

or our total collapse can be a final,

fatal death swoon. A successful revolutionary response to imminent

global ecosystem collapse would focus upon bringing down the
Earth's industrial economy now . As society continues to fail
miserably to implement necessary changes to allow creation to continue,
maybe the best strategy to achieve global ecological sustainability is
economic sabotage to hasten the day. It is more fragile than it looks. Humanity is a
marvelous creation. Yet her current dilemma is unprecedented. It is not yet known whether she is able to adapt, at some
expense to her comfort and short-term well-being, to ensure survival. If she can, all futures of economic, social and

it is better from a long-term biocentric

viewpoint that the economic growth machine collapse now, bringing
forth the necessary change, and offering hope for a planetary and
human revival. I wish no harm to anyone, and want desperately to avoid these prophesies foretold by
ecological collapse can be avoided. If not

ecological science. I speak for the Earth, for despite being the giver of life, her natural voice remains largely unheard over
the tumult of the end of being.

Economic decline doesnt cause war

Ferguson 6 (Niall, Professor of History Harvard University, Foreign

Affairs, 85(5), September / October, Lexis)

Nor can economic crises explain the bloodshed. What may be the most familiar causal
chain in modern historiography links the Great Depression to the rise of fascism and the outbreak of World

Germany started the war in Europe only

after its economy had recovered. Not all the countries affected by the Great
Depression were taken over by fascist regimes, nor did all such regimes start
wars of aggression. In fact, no general relationship between economics and
conflict is discernible for the century as a whole. Some wars came after
periods of growth, others were the causes rather than the consequences of
economic catastrophe, and some severe economic crises were not
followed by wars.
War II. But that simple story leaves too much out. Nazi

Growth causes war

--Resource wars
--Struggle for expansion --World Wars --Full war
chests
Trainer 2 (Ted, Senior Lecturer of School of Social Work University of New
South Wales, If You Want Affluence, Prepare for War, Democracy & Nature,
Vol. 8, No. 2, EBSCO)
If this limits-to-growth analysis is at all valid, the implications for the problem of global peace and conflict

If we all remain determined to increase our living

standards, our level of production and consumption, in a world where resources are already scarce,
and security are clear and savage.

where only a few have affluent living standards but another 8 billion will be wanting them too, and which
we, the rich, are determined to get richer without any limit, then

nothing is more guaranteed

than

that there will be increasing levels of conflict and violence. To put it another way, if we insist
on remaining affluent we will need to remain heavily armed. Increased conflict in at least the following
categories can be expected. First, the present

conflict over resources between the rich elites and

the poor majority in the Third World must increase, for example, as development under globalisation
takes more land, water and forests into export markets. Second, there are conflicts between the Third
World and the rich world, the major recent examples being the war between the US and Iraq over control
of oil. Iraq invaded Kuwait and the US intervened, accompanied by much high-sounding rhetoric (having
found nothing unacceptable about Israels invasions of Lebanon or the Indonesian invasion of East Timor).
As has often been noted, had Kuwait been one of the worlds leading exporters of broccoli, rather than oil,
it is doubtful whether the US would have been so eager to come to its defence. At the time of writing, the
US is at war in Central Asia over terrorism. Few would doubt that a collateral outcome will be the
establishment of regimes that will give the West access to the oil wealth of Central Asia. Following are
some references to the connection many have recognised between rich world affluence and conflict.
General M.D. Taylor, US Army retired argued ... US military priorities just be shifted towards insuring a
steady flow of resources from the Third World. Taylor referred to fierce competition among industrial
powers for the same raw materials markets sought by the United States and growing hostility
displayed by have-not nations towards their affluent counterparts.62 Struggles are taking place, or are in
the offing, between rich and poor nations over their share of the world product; within the industrial world
over their share of industrial resources and markets.63 That

more than half of the people on

are poorly nourished while a small percentage live in historically unparalleled luxury is
a sure recipe for continued and even escalating international conflict.64 The oil embargo
this planet

placed on the US by OPEC in the early 1970s prompted the US to make it clear that it was prepared to go
to war in order to secure supplies. President Carter last week issued a clear warning that any attempt to
gain control of the Persian Gulf would lead to war. It would be regarded as an assault on the vital
interests of the United States.65 The US is ready to take military action if Russia threatens vital American
interests in the Persian Gulf, the US Secretary of Defence, Mr Brown, said yesterday.66 Klares recent book
Resource Wars discusses this theme in detail, stressing the coming significance of water as a source of

demand for many key materials is growing at an unsustainable

rate. the incidence of conflict over vital materials is sure to grow. The wars of
the future will largely be fought over the possession and control of vital economic goods.
international conflict. Global

resource wars will become, in the years ahead, the most distinctive feature of the global security
environment.67 Much of the rich worlds participation in the conflicts taking place throughout the world is
driven by the determination to back a faction that will then look favourably on Western interests. In a
report entitled, The rich prize that is Shaba, Breeze begins, Increasing rivalry over a share-out between
France and Belgium of the mineral riches of Shaba Province lies behind the joint Franco Belgian paratroop
airlift to Zaire. These mineral riches make the province a valuable prize and help explain the Wests
extended diplomatic courtship 68 Then there is potential conflict between the rich nations who are after
all the ones most dependent on securing large quantities of resources. The resource and energy intensive
modes of production employed in nearly all industries necessitate continuing armed coercion and
competition to secure raw materials.69 Struggles are taking place, or are in the offing, between rich and
poor nations over their share of the world product, within the industrial world over their share of industrial
resources and markets 70 Growth, competition, expansion and war Finally, at the most abstract level,

warfare
appears as a normal and periodic form of competition within the capitalist world economy.
world wars regularly occur during a period of economic expansion. 71 War is
an inevitable result of the struggle between economies for expansion.72 Choucri and
North say their most important finding is that domestic growth is a strong determinant of
national expansion and that this results in competition between nations and war.73 The First and
the struggle for greater wealth and power is central in the literature on the causes of war.

Second World Wars can be seen as being largely about imperial grabbing. Germany,
Italy and Japan sought to expand their territory and resource access. Britain already held much of the
world within its empire which it had previously fought 72 wars to take! Finite
of expanding populations and increasing per capita demands

resources in a world
create a situation ripe for

international violence.74 Ashley focuses on the significance of the quest for economic growth.
War is mainly explicable in terms of differential growth in a world of scarce and unevenly distributed

So long as the dynamics of differential growth

remain unmanaged, it is probable that these long term processes will sooner or later
carry major powers into war.75 Security The point being made can be put in terms of
resources expansion is a prime source of conflict.

security. One way to seek security is to develop greater capacity to repel attack. In the case of nations this
means large expenditure of money, resources and effort on military preparedness. However there is a
much better strategy; i.e. to live in ways that do not oblige you to take more than your fair share and
therefore that do not give anyone any motive to attack you. Tut! This is not possible unless there is global
economic justice. If a few insist on levels of affluence, industrialisation and economic growth that are
totally impossible for all to achieve, and which could not be possible if they were taking only their fair
share of global resources, then they must remain heavily armed and their security will require readiness to

if we want affluence we must

prepare for war. If we insist on continuing to take most of the oil and other resources while many
use their arms to defend their unjust privileges. In other words,

suffer intense deprivation because they cannot get access to them then we must be prepared to maintain
the aircraft carriers and rapid deployment forces, and the despotic regimes, without which we cannot
secure the oil fields and plantations. Global peace is not possible
and that is not possible unless rich countries move to The Simpler Way.

without global justice ,

Drug Trade
CartelledviolenceisdecreasingnowMexicansecurityeffortsare
increasinglysuccessful
Higa14(Daniel,"Mexico:Homicidesdecrease,butkidnapping,extortionrising,"

http://infosurhoy.com/en_GB/articles/saii/features/main/2014/06/02/feature01)
MEXICOCITYThankstotheinterventionoffederalforces,thearrestofmajordruglords

and
theweakeningofcriminalgroups, thehomiciderateinMexicoisdecreasing ,accordingtothe
MinistryoftheInterior.BetweenJanuaryandMarch2014,therewere4,497homicides,comparedto18,447duringallof2013.In
2012,authoritiesregistered21,732killingsafterrecording22,853thepreviousyear,accordingtotheNationalPublicSecuritySystem.
Wecanconfirmthehomiciderateisonthedecreaseandoneofthereasonsisthatthe

federalforcespresenceincertainregionshasledtothecontrolofviolence, LeonelFernndez
Novelo,aresearcherfortheNGOMxicoEvala,said.Authoritieshavestruckhardagainst
violentcriminalstructures,suchasLosZetasandtheKnightsTemplar, resultinginadecreaseinthese
groupsuseofviolenc e ,accordingtoJorgeKawas,anexpertinsecurityandintelligenceandan
associateattheCenterforInterdisciplinaryMexicanBritishResearchinMexicoCity.Thegovernmenthasfocusedits

effortsonthemostbloodthirstycriminalorganizationsandhasattackedtheiroperational
leadership,whichhashurttheirabilitytoreorganizethemselvesquickly, andtheyhave
fragmented ,hesaid.FromDecember2012toMay2014,theMexicangovernmenthasapprehendedorkilled80highranking
criminals,themostprominentbeingJoaqunElChapoGuzmn,theheadoftheSinaloacartel;LosZetasleadersMiguelngel
Trevio,aliasZ40;GaldinoMelladoCruz(Z9)andFernandoMartnezMagaa(Z16);inadditiontoKnightsTemplar
leadersNazarioMorenothefounderofthecriminalorganizationandEnriquePlancartethecartelsNo.2leaderbothbeing

killedinmilitaryoperations.Atthesametime,organizedcrimegroupscannolongersustainthecostsof

extremeviolence,accordingtoAthanasiosHristoulas,aresearcheroftheAutonomousInstitute
ofTechnologyofMexico.Theviolencereachedatippingpoint ,hesaid. Themostpowerful
criminalgroupshavebeenweakenedincertainaspects ,soitslikelytheyhavebeenforcedtoreach
agreementsandformalliancestosafeguardtheirterritoriesandtheirmarkets.ForPresidentEnriquePeaNietosadministration,this
isthedirectresultofhisofficialstrategytofightorganizedcrime.Thesecurityandlawenforcementpolicyhas

managedtoreduceviolence,lowerthecrimerate,breakupvariouscriminalorganizations
andreducetheiroperationalcapacityinseveralregionsofthecountry ,MinisteroftheInterior
MiguelngelOsorioChongsaid.Wehaveappliedfocusedstrategiesthathavesucceeded,andinonlyayearandahalf,thereisa
noticeabledifferenceinstatessuchasMichoacn,NuevoLen,Chihuahua,NayaritandGuerrero.

Taxationfailstheirmodelsarewrong.
Evans13[DGEvans,Esq.,ExecutiveDirector,DrugFreeProjectsCoalition;THE
ECONOMICIMPACTSOFMARIJUANALEGALIZATION;JournalofGlobalDrugPolicy
andPractice;12/30/2013;http://www.globaldrugpolicy.org/Issues/Vol%207%20Issue%204/The
%20Economic%20Impacts%20of%20Marijuana%20Legalization%20final%20for
%20journal.pdf]
Althoughitisnotnecessarilyimpropertotaxgoodsandservicesthatharmconsumers,marijuanaslegal
statusand
socialeffectsrendertaxationproblematic .Theremaybesignificantandquestionable

disparitiesbetweenprojectedandactualtax
revenuesduetovariationinregionaldemand
formarijuana,futuredemandfortaxablemarijuana,revenueallocationamonglevelsofgovernment,

and

regulatorycomplianceandenforcement.Inmanyinstances,thepublicexpenseofimplementingandenforcing
taxationcompoundstheaggregatecostofmarijuanasnegativeeffectsonhealth,safety,andproductivity.Ontheotherhand,the
researchonlegalizationpredictsareductionincriminaljusticecosts,thoughlawenforcementbudgetsaremorelikelytoremain

substantiallyintact.Asurveyofavailableresearchregardingthefiscalimpactofmarijuanafound
anumberofeconomicanalysesthataddressthefiscalcostsassociatedwithexistinglaws
butnonethataddressthecostsoflegalization.Becausethedatarequiredforaformalcostbenefitanalysisis
notavailableatthistime,invokingfiscalrhetorictoadvancethelegalizationagendaisnotmerely

irresponsible ,itisalsodeceitful .Ineffect,itdefiestransparency,misdirectspublicdebate,

andbeliesacorporatepurposetoprivatizeprofitsandsocializelosses,subordinatingthe
interestsoftaxpayerstothoseofthemarijuanaindustry.OverviewRecentestimatesoflegalizations
impactongovernmentspendingpredictpossiblesavingsandrevenuesbutdonotreflecttheeconomiccostsof
departing fromcurrentpolicy.Thetruefiscalimpactwilldependonthecostsgenerated
byrepealingcurrentlaws,plusthecostsofimplementingandenforcingproposedreforms,
minusanytaxrevenuesandsavingsthatmightaccrue.Repealingcurrentlawswillgenerate
additionalcostsduetoconsequencesstemmingfromtheincreaseinmarijuanause,abuse,
anddependence.Implementingandenforcingreformswillrequireupfrontspendingtoestablisharegulatoryframeworkand
ongoingspendingtocollecttaxes,regulateretailersanddistributors,andprotectusersandnonusersalike.Evenifitisnot
possibletoestimatetheseadditionalcostsatthistime,itisremisstoignorethem.Accordingly,thepresentandpostlegalization
effectsofmarijuanausemustbeexaminedtogainanunderstandingoftheireconomicimpact.

Marijuana doesnt stop cartels theyll shift to worse

options
Bender 13[StevenBender,Professor,SeattleUniversitySchoolofLaw;Overdose:TheFailureof
theU.S.DrugWarandAttemptsatLegalization:ARTICLE:JOINTREFORM?:THEINTERPLAYOF
STATE,FEDERAL,ANDHEMISPHERICREGULATIONOFRECREATIONALMARIJUANAAND
THEFAILEDWARONDRUGS;2013AlbanyGovernmentLawReview6Alb.Gov'tL.Rev.359;
Lexis]
Gauging the effect of U.S. legalization requires some sense of the economic importance of marijuana to the
Mexican drug cartels. Unfortunately, the nature of the beast of an illegal enterprise with diffuse money
laundering throughout the hemisphere is that estimates of revenues vary widely, both as to the dollar
amount of overall revenues and the percentage role that marijuana plays in cartel proceeds from a variety
of drugs. No doubt by any measure those revenues are enormous, with the swing in estimated
annual revenue to Mexican cartels ranging from one estimate of $ 80 billion to a U.S. government estimate
of $ 13.8 billion - with $ 8.5 billion of that revenue coming from marijuana and the vast amount coming
from U.S. sales. n174 According to this government estimate, marijuana comprises more than 60% of
cartel revenue, with the remainder coming from cocaine and methamphetamine trafficking, as well as
other illicit drugs and activities. n175 As I speculated in Run for the Border, if this estimate is accurate,
legalization of marijuana should have a "cataclysmic effect" on the Mexican cartels, n176 allowing crossborder enforcement to better focus on remaining (and more dangerous) illicit drugs for which U.S. demand
is less pervasive. Presumably, the south-of-the-border violence might ultimately ease as the cartels

there are many reasons to be less

optimistic about the impact [*388] of state legalization on Mexican
trafficking, even if that reform takes hold nationally. First, some commentators
discount the estimate that marijuana plays such a key role in cartel
revenues, with one commentator suggesting a more accurate figure
falls in the range of 15-to-26%. n177 Having become the gateway for illicit drugs from
South and Central America into the United States, Mexican cartels might also send
succumb to this economic squeeze. Yet

their product elsewhere , such as Canada or within Mexico, n178

redouble their efforts to export drugs that remain illicit in the
United States, such as cocaine and methamphetamine, or

concentrate on expanding demand for these illicit drugs as cartels

did within Mexico when enhanced U.S.-border enforcement prompted
them at times to liquidate their inventory to Mexican users. n179 Presumably, legalization within the
United States that leaves minors unable to purchase marijuana lawfully
might reserve some of that illicit market to cartels, yet the likelihood is that,
as with alcohol, this demand would be supplied through fake identification or by friends and relatives
purchasing lawful marijuana for minors. Some commentators have looked to the tobacco market and
speculated that should government tax legal marijuana too steeply, an illicit market might emerge, n180
perhaps to be supplied by the cartels [*389] rather than by licensed domestic producers operating

given the history of spraying of illicit marijuana crops

with toxic chemicals, the lesser environmental policing in Mexico , and
outside the law. Still,

the reality that some marijuana has been smuggled, while soaked in gasoline or perfume, in such

presumably most U.S.

users would be willing to pay extra for the assurance of some quality
and safety control over the production of legalized marijuana. Surely,
unsanitary conveyances as the inside of a full septic tank truck, n181

too, the cost of bribes that divert a fair share of cartel revenue is an expense that lawfully produced

however, Mexican drug cartels of late

have augmented their drug profits with other enterprises for which
their infrastructure of vast capital, weaponry, manpower, and graft
is well suited. These sidelines include kidnapping the family members of the
wealthy for ransom, n182 trafficking undocumented immigrants and
sex workers into and within the United States, n183 and robbing undocumented
immigrants, whether from Mexico or Central America, who aim to reach U.S. employers. n184 The
most ominous scenario ahead is one in which the drug cartels
expand these other ventures to replace marijuana revenues .
marijuana need not duplicate. Most alarmingly,

Immigration is driven and limited by job opportunities available within the United States and thus depends

cartels searching for replacement revenue

presumably would be drawn to expand their kidnappings or their
role in illicit sex markets, such as those for underage prostitutes. n185 Overall, then, the
on labor demand. Therefore,

impact of legalization on cartel revenues, and the surging violence within Mexico, is hard to predict.

Drug shift makes cartel violence WORSE

Felbab-Brown 10 (Vanda, Foreign Policy Fellow, Brookings Institution, ""5
Expert Takes on How U.S. Marijuana Legalization Would Affect Mexico," 11/1,
http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2010/11/5-expert-takes-on-howus-marijuana-legalization-would-affect-mexico/65498/)
What will be the effects on the Mexican drug trade if California
legalizes marijuana? Andreas: Marijuana's potential tax revenue has been
overstated. Bonner: I hope it doesn't pass: it would be a real slap in the face
for Mexico. Almost 30,000 people have died in drug-related homicides [since
2006]. Some of those have been police and military who have been fighting
the drug traffickers there. Selee: The biggest effect of passing prop 19 would
be to generate a serious debate over drug policy for the first time in many
years in this country. I can't see prop 19 creating the conditions for a...
market in which marijuana is not controlled by organized crime. FelbabBrown: In one outcome, cartels' market [for marijuana] would be
threatened and so they would try to move into other illegal markets
as they are doing already. The fight over the heroin, cocaine, and
methamphetamine markets would intensify and lead to even
greater escalations of violence .

1NC US/Russia War

No escalation disagreements remain limited
Weitz 11 (Richard, senior fellow at the Hudson Institute and a World Politics
Review senior editor 9/27/2011, Global Insights: Putin not a Game-Changer
for U.S.-Russia Ties, http://www.scribd.com/doc/66579517/Global-InsightsPutin-not-a-Game-Changer-for-U-S-Russia-Ties)
Fifth, there will inevitably be areas of conflict between Russia and the United States
regardless of who is in the Kremlin. Putin and his entourage can never be happy with having NATO be
Europe's most powerful security institution, since Moscow is not a member and cannot become one.

Similarly, the Russians will always object to NATO's missile defense efforts since
they can neither match them nor join them in any meaningful way. In the case of Iran, Russian officials
genuinely perceive less of a threat from Tehran than do most Americans, and Russia has more to lose from
a cessation of economic ties with Iran -- as well as from an Iranian-Western reconciliation. On the other

these conflicts can be managed, since they will likely remain limited
and compartmentalized. Russia and the West do not have
fundamentally conflicting vital interests of the kind countries would
go to war over. And as the Cold War demonstrated, nuclear weapons are a great
pacifier under such conditions. Another novel development is that Russia is much
more integrated into the international economy and global society than the
Soviet Union was, and Putin's popularity depends heavily on his economic
track record. Beyond that, there are objective criteria, such as the smaller size of the
Russian population and economy as well as the difficulty of controlling
modern means of social communication, that will constrain whoever is in
charge of Russia.
hand,

No nuclear strike
Graham 7 (Thomas Graham, senior advisor on Russia in the US National
Security Council staff 2002-2007, 2007, "Russia in Global Affairs The
Dialectics of Strength and Weakness
http://eng.globalaffairs.ru/numbers/20/1129.html)

An astute historian of Russia, Martin Malia, wrote several years ago that Russia has at different times
been demonized or divinized by Western opinion less because of her real role in Europe than because of
the fears and frustrations, or hopes and aspirations, generated within European society by its own

mounting Western concerns about

Russia are a consequence of Russian policies that appear to undermine Western interests, but they are
also a reflection of declining confidence in our own abilities and the efficacy of our own
policies. Ironically, this growing fear and distrust of Russia come at a time when Russia is
arguably less threatening to the West, and the United States in particular, than it has
been at any time since the end of the Second World War. Russia does
not champion a totalitarian ideology intent on our destruction, its military
poses no threat to sweep across Europe, its economic growth depends on
constructive commercial relations with Europe, and its strategic arsenal while
still capable of annihilating the United States is under more reliable control than it has
been in the past fifteen years and the threat of a strategic strike approaches
zero probability. Political gridlock in key Western countries, however, precludes the creativity, riskdomestic problems. Such is the case today. To be sure,

taking, and subtlety needed to advance our interests on issues over which we are at odds with Russia
while laying the basis for more constructive long-term relations with Russia.

1NC US/China War

No US-China war economics
Shor 12 (Francis, Professor of History Wayne State, Declining US
Hegemony and Rising Chinese Power: A Formula for Conflict?, Perspectives
on Global Development and Technology, 11(1), pp. 157-167)
While the United States no longer dominates the global economy as it did
during the first two decades after WWII, it still is the leading economic power in
the world. However, over the last few decades China, with all its internal
contradictions, has made enormous leaps until it now occupies the
number two spot. In fact, the IMF recently projected that the Chinese economy would
become the world's largest in 2016. In manufacturing China has displaced the US in so many areas,
including becoming the number one producer of steel and exporter of four-fifths of all of the textile
products in the world and two-thirds of the world's copy machines, DVD players, and microwaves

a significant portion of this manufacturing is still owned

by foreign companies, including U.S. firms like General Motors . [5]
On the other hand, China is also the largest holder of U.S. foreign
ovens. Yet,

reserves , e.g. treasury bonds . This may be one of the reasons

mitigating full-blown conflict with the U.S. now, since China has such a
large stake in the U.S. economy, both as a holder of bonds and as the leading exporter of goods to the
U.S. Nonetheless, "the U.S. has blocked several large scale Chinese investments and buyouts of oil
companies, technology firms, and other enterprises." [6] In effect, there are still clear nation-centric
responses to China's rising economic power, especially as an expression of the U.S. governing elite's
ideological commitment to national security.

No war China abides by international law and keeps a

low profile
Haixia 12 (Qi, Lecturer at Department of International Relations Tsinghua
University, Football Game Rather Than Boxing Match: ChinaUS Intensifying
Rivalry Does not Amount to Cold War, Chinese Journal of International
Politics, 5(2), Summer, p. 105-127,
http://cjip.oxfordjournals.org/content/5/2/105.full)
Keeping Low Profile China's strategy of keeping low profile constitutes
the political foundation of the superficial friendship between the
United States and China. After 1989, in the face of sanctions and blockades from the
West, Deng Xiaoping told Chinese policy makers: In short, my views about the international situation
can be summed up in three sentences. First, we should observe the situation coolly. Second, we should
hold our ground. Third, we should act camly. Dont be impatient; it is no good to be impatient. We
should be calm, calm and again calm, and quietly immerse ourselves in practical work to accomplish
something something for China.48 Deng Xiaoping's counterstrategy was later summed up as
keeping a low profile. It was in 1995 that then Chinese Foreign Minister Qian Qichen first introduced
this principle of Chinese policy to the world.49 In 1998, President Jiang Zemin summarized the policy
as observe calmly, cope with affairs calmly, never seek leadership, hide brightness and cherish
obscurity, get some things done.50 The white paper on China's Peaceful Development issued in 2011

China abides by
international law and the generally recognized principles
governing international relations, and eagerly fulfills its
international responsibility. China has actively participated in
reforming international systems, formulating international rules
and addressing global issues. It supports the development of other developing
countries, and works to safeguard world peace and stability .51
notes that, As a responsible member of the international community,

1NC Terror
Their impact is irresponsible fearmongering there is NO
capacity for terrorists to acquire and execute a nuclear
attack
Mueller and Stewart 12 [John Mueller is Senior Research Scientist at the Mershon
Center for International Security Studies and Adjunct Professor in the Department of Political Science, both
at Ohio State University, and Senior Fellow at the Cato Institute in Washington, D.C. Mark G. Stewart is
Australian Research Council Professorial Fellow and Professor and Director at the Centre for Infrastructure
Performance and Reliability at the University of Newcastle in Australia, The Terrorism Delusion,
International Security, Vol. 37, No. 1 (Summer 2012), pp. 81110, Chetan]

the official and popular reaction to the terrorist attacks

September 11, 2001, has been substantially deluded massively
disproportionate to the threat that al-Qaida has ever actually
presented either as an international menace or as an inspiration or model to homegrown amateurs.
Applying the extensive datasets on terrorism that have been generated over the
last decades, we conclude that the chances of an American perishing at the hands of a terrorist at
It seems increasingly likely that
of

present rates is one in 3.5 million per yearwell within the range of what risk analysts hold to be
acceptable risk.40 Yet, despite the importance of responsibly communicating risk and despite the costs
of

irresponsible fearmongering , just about the only official who has ever openly put the

threat presented by terrorism in some sort of context is New Yorks Mayor Michael Bloomberg, who in 2007

people should get a life and that they have a greater chance of
being hit by lightning than of being a victim of terrorisman observation
pointed out that

that may be a bit off the mark but is roughly accurate.41 (It might be noted that, despite this unorthodox
outburst, Bloomberg still managed to be re-elected two years later.) Indeed, much of the reaction to the
September 11 attacks calls to mind Hans Christian Andersens fable of delusion, The Emperors New
Clothes, in which con artists convince the emperors court that they can weave stuffs of the most
beautiful colors and elaborate patterns from the delicate silk and purest gold thread they are given. These
stuffs, they further convincingly explain, have the property of remaining invisible to anyone who is
unusually stupid or unfit for office. The emperor finds this quite appealing because not only will he have
splendid new clothes, but he will be able to discover which of his officials are unfit for their postsor in
todays terms, have lost their effectiveness. His courtiers, then, have great professional incentive to
proclaim the stuffs on the loom to be absolutely magnificent even while mentally justifying this conclusion
with the equivalent of absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. Unlike the emperors new
clothes,

terrorism does of course exist. Much of the reaction to the

threat, however, has a distinctly delusionary quality . In Carles view, for
example, the CIA has been spinning in self-referential circles in which our premises were
flawed, our facts used to fit our premises, our premises determined, and our fears justified
our operational actions, in a self-contained process that arrived at a
conclusion dramatically at odds with the facts. The process projected evil
actions where there was, more often, muddled indirect and unavoidable complicity, or not much at all.
These delusional ratiocinations, he further observes, were all sincerely, ardently held to have
constituted a rigorous, rational process to identify terrorist threats in which the avalanche of reporting
confirms its validity by its quantity, in which there is a tendency to reject incongruous or contradictory
facts as erroneous, because they do not conform to accepted reality, and in which potential dissenters are
not-so-subtly reminded of career dangers: Say what you want at meetings. Its your decision. But you are
doing yourself no favors.42 Consider in this context the alarming and profoundly imaginary estimates of
U.S. intelligence agencies in the year after the September 11 attacks that the number of trained al-Qaida
operatives in the United States was between 2,000 and 5,000.43 Terrorist cells, they told reporters, were
embedded in most U.S. cities with sizable Islamic communities, usually in the run-down sections, and
were up and active because electronic intercepts had found some of them to be talking to each
other.44 Another account relayed the view of experts that Osama bin Laden was ready to unleash an
11,000 strong terrorist army operating in more than sixty countries controlled by a Mr. Big who is based

FBI
Director Robert Mueller assured the Senate Intelligence Committee on February 11,
2003, that, although his agency had yet to identify even one al-Qaida
in Europe, but that intelligence had no idea where thousands of these men are.45 Similarly,

cell in the United States, I remain very concerned about what we

are not seeing, a sentence rendered in bold lettering in his prepared text. Moreover, he
claimed that such unidentified entities presented the greatest
threat, had developed a support infrastructure in the country, and had achieved both the ability
and the intent to inflict signi ficant casualties in the US with little warning.46 Over the course of time,

such essentially delusionary thinking has been internalized and

institutionalized in a great many ways. For example, an extrapolation of
delusionary proportions is evident in the common observation that,
because terrorists were able, mostly by thuggish means, to crash
airplanes into buildings, they might therefore be able to construct a
nuclear bomb. Brian Jenkins has run an internet search to discover how often variants of the term

al-Qaida appeared within ten words of nuclear. There were only seven hits in 1999 and eleven in 2000,
but the number soared to 1,742 in 2001 and to 2,931 in 2002.47 By 2008, Defense Secretary Robert Gates
was assuring a congressional committee that what keeps every senior government leader awake at night
is the thought of a terrorist ending up with a weapon of mass destruction, especially nuclear.48 Few of
the sleepless, it seems, found much solace in the fact that an al-Qaida computer seized in Afghanistan in
2001 indicated that the groups budget for research on weapons of mass destruction (almost all of it

In the wake of the

killing of Osama bin Laden, officials now have many more al-Qaida
computers, and nothing in their content appears to suggest that the
group had the time or inclination, let alone the money, to set up and
staff a uranium-seizing operation, as well as a fancy, super-hightechnology facility to fabricate a bomb. This is a process that
requires trusting corrupted foreign collaborators and other
criminals, obtaining and transporting highly guarded material,
setting up a machine shop staffed with top scientists and
technicians, and rolling the heavy, cumbersome, and untested
finished product into position to be detonated by a skilled crewall
while attracting no attention from outsiders.50 If the miscreants in the American
focused on primitive chemical weapons work) was $2,000 to $4,000.49

cases have been unable to create and set off even the simplest conventional bombs, it stands to reason

none of them were very close to creating, or having anything to

do with, nuclear weaponsor for that matter biological , radiological,
or chemical ones. In fact, with perhaps one exception, none seems to have even
that

dreamed of the prospect;

and the exception is Jos Padilla (case 2), who apparently mused

at one point about creating a dirty bomba device that would disperse radiationor even possibly an
atomic one. His idea about isotope separation was to put uranium into a pail and then to make himself into

Even if a weapon were

made abroad and then brought into the United States, its detonation
would require individuals in-country with the capacity to receive and
handle the complicated weapons and then to set them off. Thus far, the
talent pool appears, to put mildly, very thin.
a human centrifuge by swinging the pail around in great arcs.51

LegalizationdecksrelationsexposesUStoclaimsofhypocrisyandraises
concernsaboutUSreliability
Murrayetal11(Chad,AshleeJackson,AmandaC.Miralro,NicolasEiden,Intelligence
AnalystatSRAInternational(Murray)andMAsinLatinAmericanStudies@George
WashingtonUniv.,"MexicanDrugTraffickingOrganizationsandMarijuana:ThePotential
EffectsofU.S.Legalization,"
https://elliott.gwu.edu/sites/elliott.gwu.edu/files/downloads/acad/lahs/mexicomarijuana
071111.pdf)

RelationsbetweentheU.S.andMexicowilldeteriorateintheshorttermiftheU.S.
legalizesmarijuana .RelationsbetweentheUnitedStatesandMexicohaveimprovedover
thelastdecade,andPresidentObamaandPresidentCalderncontinuetoworkdiligentlyto
maintainrelationsandcombatdrugs.However,thisrelationshipis

likelytodecay evenif
theUnitedStateslegalizesmarijuanainonlyadefactomanneronthestatelevel.LastyearPresident
CaldernopenlyexpressedhisdistasteforProposition19beforeitwasdefeatedinNovember.Hebelievesthatany
formoflegalizationofmarijuanaintheUnitedStateswouldbe asignofhypocrisy asevident
whenhestated,Ithinkthey[UnitedStates]haveverylittlemoralauthoritytocondemnaMexicanfarmerwhoforhungerisplanting
marijuanatosustaintheinsatiableNorthAmericanmarketfordrugs.86AlthoughPresidentCaldernhasacknowledgedthefactthat
thedrugpolicydebateneedstotakeplace,hehasbeenadamantthatlegalizationintheUnitedStatesisnotthebestpolicy.Inaddition,
otherLatinAmericanleaders,suchasJuanManuelSantosofColombia,haveexpressedtheirsupportofPresidentCaldernsposition
onthelegalizationofmarijuana.PresidentCaldernandothersbelievethatthelegalizationofmarijuana

intheUnitedStateswoulddelegitimizetheMexicanwarondrugs. Somescholarsnotethatifthe

UnitedStateslegalizedmarijuana,theMexicanpopulacewouldbeleftwondering, What
teamareyou[UnitedStates]playingfor? 87Mexicohasspentalotofbloodandtreasure
fightingagainstDTOsoverthelastfewyears,andsomefeelthatthelegalizationofmarijuana intheUnited

States,nomatterhowwellintentioned,wouldbenegatingthoseefforts.ProofoftheseriousnessofMexicosdedication
tothedrugwarisevidencedbytherecenttensionsbetweentheUnitedStatesandMexico.Relationsbetweenthetwocountrieshave
beenterseeversinceWikileaksrevealedthatAmbassadorPascualwrotethathedidnotbelievethatPresidentCalderncouldwinthe
warondrugs.ThiscausedsuchstrifethatAmbassadorPascualresignedinMarch2011.PresidentCaldernhasbeendedicatedto
helpingMexicocombatdrugs,andhewasunwillingtoallowaU.S.Ambassadortoopenlycriticizehisefforts.IfPresidentCaldern
wasthisforcefuloftheWikileaksincident,thelegalizationofmarijuanaintheU.S. wouldlikelybetrying

onthebilateralrelationship.Howfarthisdistancingwouldgoisupfordebate,givenMexicosdependenceonU.S.
tradeandcounternarcoticsaidprograms.WerePresidentCaldernnolongerinofficeandU.S.stateslegalizedmarijuana,theeffects
wouldlikelytobesimilar,althoughmaybenotassevere.IfthePRIweretoreturntopower,itislikelythattheywouldbeginto
distancethemselvesfromtheUnitedStates,astheydidinthepast.ThePRIpreferredtohandleDTOsthroughaseriesoftacit
agreementsthatmaintainedorderinsteadofcollaboratingwiththeU.S.Inthissense,thefalloutbetweentheUnitedStatesand
Mexicomightnotbeassevere,butitislikelythatMexicowouldstillpublicallyreprimand

theUnited

Statesactions.Eitherway,thelegalizationofmarijuanaintheUnitedStates wouldharmU.S.Mexico
relations andtheUnitedStatesshouldconsidertherepercussionsbeforeinitiatingpolicyreform.

TurnstheAff
Storrs6(K.LarrySpecialistinLatinAmericaatCRS,ReportforCongressCongressional

ResearchService,118,http://opencrs.cdt.org/rpts/RL33244_20060118.pdf)
MexicoislinkedwiththeU nited S tatesthroughtradeandinvestment,migrationandtourism,
environmentandhealthconcerns,andfamilyandculturalrelationships. Mexicoisthesecondmost
importanttradingpartneroftheU nitedS tates,andthistradeiscriticaltomanyU.S.industriesand
bordercommunities.Mexicandescendantsconstitute64%(or24million)ofthegrowing
Hispanicpopulationof37.4millionpeopleintheUnitedStates,withasignificantpresencein
CaliforniaandTexasandotherstates.Moreover,Mexicoisthelargestsourceoflegalmigrantsto
theUnitedStates(21%ofthetotalin2002)andbyfarthelargestsourceofundocumented
migrants(57%ofthetotalin2004,accordingtoestimates). Italsoistheprincipaltransitorsource
countryforillicitdrugsanditisapossibleavenuefortheentryofterroristsintotheUnitedStates.Asa
result,cooperationwithMexico

isessentialindealingwithmigration,drugtrafficking

,
and
border,
terrorism,health,environment,andenergyissues.3