1NC

1
They read the resolution not the plan- must specify beyond legalize
Vote Neg
a. Makes the plan void for vagueness- undermines policy analysis
Kleiman and Saiger 90 lecturer public policy Harvard, consultant drug policy Rand, 1990, A SYMPOSIUM
ON DRUG DECRIMINALIZATION: DRUG LEGALIZATION: THE IMPORTANCE OF ASKING THE RIGHT
QUESTION, 18 Hofstra L. Rev. 527

Defining Legalization Legalization, like prohibition, does not name a unique strategy. Perhaps the most prominent inadequacy of
current legalization arguments is their failure to specify what is meant by "legalization ." Current drug policy
provides an illustration of this diversity. Heroin and marijuana are completely prohibited, 74 and cocaine can only be
used in rigidly specified medical contexts, not including any where the drug's psychoactive properties are exercised. 75 On the other hand, a
wide range of pain-killers, sleep-inducers, stimulants, tranquilizers and sedatives can be obtained with a doctor's prescription. 76
Alcohol is available for recreational use, but is subject to an array of controls including excise taxation, 77 limits on drinking ages, 78
limits on TV and radio advertising, 79 and retail licensing. 80 Nicotine is subject to age minimums, warning label requirements, 81 taxation, 82 and
bans on smoking in some public places. 83 [*541] Drug legalization can therefore be thought of as moving drugs along a spectrum of regulated statuses in the
direction of increased availability. However, while legalization advocates do not deny that some sort of controls will be required, their proposals

rarely
address the question of how far on the spectrum a given drug should be moved, or how to accomplish such a
movement. Instead, such details are dismissed as easily determined, or postponed as a problem requiring future
thought. 84 But the consequences of legalization depend almost entirely on the details of the remaining
regulatory regime. The price and conditions of the availability of a newly legal drug will be more powerful in shaping its consumption than the fact that the
drug is "legal." Rules about advertising, place and time of sale, and availability to minors help determine whether important aspects of the drug problem get better or
worse. The amount of regulatory apparatus required and the way in which it is organized and enforced will determine how much budget reduction can be realized
from dismantling current enforcement efforts. 85 Moreover, currently illicit drugs, because they are so varied pharmacologically, would not all pose the same range of
the problems if they were to be made legally available for non-medical use. They would therefore require different control regimes. These regimes might need to be as
diverse as the drugs themselves.

b. Neg ground- makes the 2AC a moving target.

2
Legalization violates U.S. treaty obligations
Posel, The US Independent, 13
(Susanne, Chief Editor, Investigative Journalist at TheUSIndependent.com, Marijuana Legalization Violates US
Gov Obligation to International Treaties, 5-3-13, http://www.occupycorporatism.com/marijuana-legalizationviolates-us-gov-obligation-to-international-treaties/, accessed 9-14-14) PM

Marijuana Legalization Violates US Gov Obligation to International Treaties The US government, in conjunction with
Department of Justice (DoJ) lawyers, are considering suing states that have passed marijuana legalization laws. For now, the federal
government is observing how recreational laws will affect punitive measures and how the federal laws in place are applicable. Illegal drugs from Mexico will be
directly impacted by the legalization of marijuana in the US. Attorney General Eric Holder explains: We have

treaty obligations with nations

outside of the US. There are a whole variety of things that have to go into the determination that we are in the process of making. The UN Office on Drugs
and Crime (UNODC) reports research on drug trafficking in the World Drug Report. The UN is monitoring the world heroin market and opium trade from the Lao
Peoples Democratic Republic to Afghanistan and tracing the flow of drugs through markets in the Russian Federation along its way to Easter Europe. Opium and
heroin markets are estimated at $33 billion annually. Global cocaine market that travels through the Near and Middle East, on to South-West Asia and Western and
Central Europe is worth about $88 billion. This cocaine is shipped from areas in the European Union to Colombia, Mexico or Central America. The shipments then
make their way into the US. In November of 2012, Raymond Yans, president of the International Narcotics Control Board (INCB) asserted

that the US
government has treaty obligations that preclude the legalization of marijuana in Colorado and Washington State. In fact, Yans points
out that these developments are in violation of the international drug control treaties . Stated in the 1961 UN Single
Convention on Narcotic Drugs (SCND), the new legalization of marijuana laws in Colorado and Washington must be overridden by the
federal government because there was a limit of the use of cannabis to medical and scientific purposes, according
to the SCND. Therefore narcotic drugs must be made available for medical purposes to all the States who signed the
treaty. This fact would be reflected in national laws within each sovereign nations and be fully in-line with international mandates.
Treaty obligations would also ensure that nations would comply with the SCND. The SCND is a combination of
many international drug trade treaties which outlines the limitations of the production, manufacture, export, import, distribution of,
trade in, use and possession of opiates, marijuana and cocaine to medicinal and scientific purposes . In Schedule 1, heroin, cocaine and
cannibus are the most restricted narcotics. The INCB was established to monitor nations and maintain compliance with the SCND. The legalization of marijuana
in Colorado and Washington State, according to Yans and the SCND, is a contradiction to the international law set forth in the treaty. Yans made it
clear that his organization was seeking to have the US government come back into compliance with the SCND with regard to the legalization of marijuana which is a
violation of international drug control treaties for the sake of protect[ing] the health and well-being of American citizens. The Global Initiative for Drug Policy
Reform states that: Although the objectives of the 1961 Convention made it clear that its aims were the improvement of the health and welfare of mankind, the
measures of success which have been used in the war on drugs approach have been the number of arrests, size of the seizures or severity of prison sentences . . .
these indicators may tell us how tough we are being, but they dont tell us how successful we are in improving the health and welfare of mankind. In essence, the
Obama administration is facing the choice of knowingly violating the SCND or finding a legal remedy against Colorado and
Washington for allowing marijuana for recreational use within state limits. The propaganda of pro-marijuana and anti-marijuana claims all method of reasons for
justification of their argument which serves to confuse the public while keeping the truth of the UN treaty out of the social meme while Obama figures out which side
of the fence he wants to be on.

That spills over collapses the treaty regime

Counts, J.D. Candidate at Harvard Law School, '14
Nathaniel, INITIATIVE 502 AND CONFLICTING STATE AND FEDERAL LAW, Gonzaga Law Review, 4-714,
http://www.law.gonzaga.edu/law-review/files/2014/04/1-Counts-Pgs-187-212.pdf, accessed 9-14-14) PM

In dealing with the conflicting state and federal law, enforcement decisions will affect the United States role as an
actor in international law and the direction of international cooperation in combatting illegal drug trade. First, if the
United States breaches its treaty obligations under the Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs and the Convention
Against Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drags and Psychotropic Substances, it would undermine the international rule of
law. A strong international rule of law is desirable "to establish and maintain order and enhance reliable
expectations" in international affairs.142 As there are no enforcement mechanisms for international legal obligations
equivalent to that which exists with domestic law the weight of obligations relies to some extent on comity among
the states involved.143 As long as states agree to limit their sovereignty and comply with international law states
will be more likely to respect one anothers reasonable expectations and fulfill then obligations.144 Both
conventions have provisions that read. "If there should arise between two or more Parties a dispute relating to the
interpretation or application of this Convention, the Parties shall consult together with a view to the settlement of the
dispute by...peaceful means of then own choice." and should this fail, they agree to jurisdiction before the
International Court of Justice (ICJ).145Despite this possibility of justifiability of breach, it is highly unlikely that
any state party would bring a case before the ICJ over domestic non-enforcement of the treaty obligations, as
diplomatic channels are more predictable and possible noncompliance with ICJ judgments weakens the international
rule of law.146 If the United States fails to enforce the CSA and allows the Washington legalization system to
succeed, it may signal to other states that the United States is willing to allow its domestic law overcome its
international law obligations and may not be reliable in international transnational enforcement efforts in the future.
It also signals to other states that they may allow their domestic law to inhibit effective enforcement of international
treaty obligations, which may undermine the United States goals in the future.

Extinction
Dyer, University of London Military History PhD, 2004
(Gwynne, 12/30/4, "The end of war," Toronto Star, l/n [accessed 8/15/10])

War is deeply embedded in our history and our culture, probably since before we were even fully human, but weaning ourselves away from it should not be a bigger
mountain to climb than some of the other changes we have already made in the way `we live, given the right incentives. And we have certainly been given the right
incentives: The holiday from history that we have enjoyed since the early '90s may

be drawing to an end, and another great-power

war, fought next time with nuclear weapons, may be lurking in our future.. The "firebreak" against nuclear weapons use that we
began building after Hiroshima and Nagasaki has held for well over half a century now. But the proliferation of nuclear weapons to new powers is a
major challenge to the stability of the system. So are the coming crises, mostly environmental in origin, which will hit
some countries much harder than others, and may drive some to desperation. Add in the huge impending shifts in the great-power system
as China and India grow to rival the United States in GDP over the next 30 or 40 years and it will be hard to keep things from
spinning out of control. With good luck and good management, we may be able to ride out the next half-century
without the first-magnitude catastrophe of a global nuclear war, but the potential certainly exists for a major dieback of human population. We cannot command the good luck, but good management is something we can choose to provide. It
depends, above all, on preserving and extending the multilateral system that we have been building since the end of World War II.
The rising powers must be absorbed into a system that emphasizes co-operation and makes room for them, rather than one
that deals in confrontation and raw military power. If they are obliged to play the traditional great-power game of winners and losers,
then history will repeat itself and everybody loses. Our hopes for mitigating the severity of the coming
environmental crises also depend on early and concerted global action of a sort that can only happen in a basically co-operative
international system. When the great powers are locked into a military confrontation, there is simply not enough
spare attention, let alone enough trust, to make deals on those issues, so the highest priority at the moment is to
keep the multilateral approach alive and avoid a drift back into alliance systems and arms races. And there is no
point in dreaming that we can leap straight into some never-land of universal brotherhood; we will have to confront these challenges and
solve the problem of war within the context of the existing state system.

3
Legalization tanks the pharmaceutical industry
Johnson, Oregon Cannabis Industry Association Executive Director, 2014,
(Anthony, "Cannabis Reform Opponents Are Largely Funded By Pharmaceutical Companies," The Weed Blog, 719, PAS) www.theweedblog.com/cannabis-opponents-largely-funded-pharmaceutical-companies/ 7-21-14

If you have followed the fight to end cannabis prohibition, than you have no doubt heard of the organizations Community Anti-Drug

Coalition of
America (CADCA) and the Partnership for Drug-Free Kids (formerly the Partnership for a Drug-Free America). These two groups are at the
forefront of the fight to maintain cannabis prohibition in America. They claim that they fight cannabis reform because they want to keep
America drug free. The Community Anti-Drug Coalition of America holds an annual event near Washington D.C.. This years event included numerous guest
speakers who talked about the harms of dangerous drugs, drug abuse, and the need to fight cannabis reform at all costs. The sad irony is that the event was sponsored
by Purdue Pharma, the manufacturer of OxyContin, which is a highly addictive drug that kills numerous people every year. To say that there is hypocrisy involved is
an understatement. The fact of the matter is that the

people leading the fight against cannabis reform have a direct financial
incentive to keep cannabis prohibition in place. Pharmaceutical companies have long funded cannabis opponents in
an attempt to keep Americans from replacing harmful pharmaceuticals with helpful cannabis . Per The Nation: The
Nation obtained a confidential financial disclosure from the Partnership for Drug-Free Kids showing that the groups
largest donors include Purdue Pharma, the manufacturer of OxyContin, and Abbott Laboratories , maker of the opioid
Vicodin. CADCA also counts Purdue Pharma as a major supporter, as well as Alkermes, the maker of a powerful and extremely controversial new painkiller called
Zohydrol. The drug, which was released to the public in March, has sparked a nationwide protest, since Zohydrol is reportedly ten times stronger than OxyContin.
Janssen Pharmaceutical, a Johnson & Johnson subsidiary that produces the painkiller Nucynta, and Pfizer, which manufactures several opioid products, are also
CADCA sponsors. For corporate donors, CADCA offers a raft of partnership opportunities, including authorized use of the CADCA logo for your companys
marketing, website, and advertising materials, etc.

Pharmaceutical revenue key to research and development

CBO, Congressional Budget Office, 2006,
("Research and Development in the Pharmaceutical Industry," CBO, October, Pg. 9-10, PAS)
www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/cbofiles/ftpdocs/76xx/doc7615/10-02-drugr-d.pdf 9-13-14

The pharmaceutical industry is one of the most research-intensive industries in the United States. Pharmaceutical

firms invest as much as five

times more in research and development, relative to their sales, than the average U.S. manufacturing firm.
Because increases in spending on drug R&D have been nearly matched by increases in revenue from drug sales,
the industrys R&D intensitythe ratio of research and development spending to total sales revenuehas not risen to the extent that
R&D expenditures have. Over the past 25 years, R&D intensity has grown by about 50 percent. Most of that growth occurred
in the 1980s; since then, the industrys R&D intensity has hovered around 19 percent, according to PhRMA (see Figure 2-2).10 A relatively close
relationship exists between drug firms current R&D spending and current sales revenue for two reasons. First,
successful new drugs generate large cash flows that can be invested in R&D (their manufacturing costs are usually very low
relative to their price). Second, alternative sources of investment capitalfrom the bond and stock marketsare not perfect substitutes
for cash flow financing. Those alternative sources of capital are more expensive because lenders and prospective new shareholders require
compensation (in the form of higher returns) for the additional risk they bear compared with the firm, which has more information about the drug under
development, its current status, and its ultimate chance of success.11 The National Science Foundation also estimates that the R&D

intensity of the
pharmaceutical industry has been fairly stable in recent years, ranging between about 8 percent and 10 percent since 1985. That estimate is
less than half of PhRMA's, in part because NSF includes less-R&D-intensive products not related prescription pharmaceuticals (such as vitamins, over-the-counter
drugs, reference chemicals sold to researchers for experiments, and consumer and animal care products). Even at that lower estimate, pharmaceuticals ranked as the
most R&D-intensive industry in the U.S. manufacturing sector for most of the 1990s, according to NSF (until it was overtaken by communications equipment, whose
R&D-intensity was 12.7 percent in 2003).

Disease causes extinction

Keating 9 Foreign Policy web editor, Joshua, The End of the World, 11-13-09,
http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2009/11/13/the_end_of_the_world?page=full,
history, plagues have brought civilizations to their knees. The Black Death killed
pandemic killed an estimated 50 million people, nearly 3 percent of the
world's population, a far greater impact than the just-concluded World War I. Because of globalization, diseases
today spread even faster - witness the rapid worldwide spread of H1N1 currently unfolding. A global outbreak of a
disease such as ebola virus -- which has had a 90 percent fatality rate during its flare-ups in rural Africa -- or a mutated drug-resistant
form of the flu virus on a global scale could have a devastating, even civilization-ending impact. How likely is it? Treatment of
deadly diseases has improved since 1918, but so have the diseases. Modern industrial farming techniques
have been blamed for the outbreak of diseases, such as swine flu, and as the worlds population grows and
humans move into previously unoccupied areas, the risk of exposure to previously unknown pathogens
increases. More than 40 new viruses have emerged since the 1970s, including ebola and HIV. Biological weapons
experimentation has added a new and just as troubling complication.
How it could happen: Throughout

more off more than half of Europe's population in the Middle Ages. In 1918, a flu

4
The Attorney General of the United States should remove marihuana from the
Controlled Substances Act. The fifty states and all relevant territories should
legalize marihuana.
The CP solves the whole case AND triggers the link the politics it would be a
MAJOR flip flop and would cause Congressional backlash
Walker, author of a book on weed and he writes articles and stuff, 14
(Jon, the aforementioned book is After Legalization: Understanding the future of marijuana policy, Holder
Continues to Dodge Obama Admins Responsibility to Reschedule Marijuana, 4-4-14,
http://justsaynow.firedoglake.com/2014/04/04/holder-continues-to-dodge-obama-admins-responsibility-toreschedule-marijuana/, accessed 10-23-14) PM
Attorney General Eric Holder

continues the Obama administration bizarre and dishonest behavior of pretending that
rescheduling is not within the power or duties of the executive branch. During a Congressional hearing Friday Holder was pressed for
why the administration chose to selectively enforce the Controlled Substance Act when it comes to marijuana in certain states but not push to change the law. Holder
responded, With regard to the whole question of the scheduling marijuana, we

would be more than glad to work with Congress if there is a

desire to look and re-examine how the drug is scheduled. As I said there is a great deal of expertize that exists in Congress, that is
something Congress would ultimately have to change and the administration would be glad to work with Congress if such a proposal is made.
He later added that he, thinks the responsibility for [rescheduling] resides with Congress . While Congress can pass a law
rescheduling marijuana, its input is not needed or normally sought. The Controlled Substance Act explicitly gives the
Attorney General the power to change the schedule of drugs without congressional involvement . The vast majority
of drug scheduling changes are done using this executive system. Its actually the duty of the Attorney General to
reschedule any drug, including marijuana, based on the latest science. Holder knows this is the case. And Im very skeptical if
he would be glad to work on such a proposal because his department has actively fought in court against
rescheduling. Sadly, it is not the first time the Obama administration feigned powerlessness on this issue. Obamas been purposely deceptive in
several media interviews about this issue. Ultimately, the real reason marijuana is Schedule I is because Holders
department fought to keep it there and he is the one who has the responsibility to move it from this category. Saying
this is something Congress would have to change is completely dishonest.

5
Obamas waiting until the lame duck to announce a new attorney general now
Phelps, LAT, 10-14-14
(Timothy, Kathleen Hennessey, Obama to delay attorney general nomination until after election, 10-14-14,
http://www.latimes.com/nation/politics/politicsnow/la-na-nn-obama-attorney-general-election-20141014-story.html,
accessed 10-16-14) PM
President Obama

will wait until after the November election to name a nominee for attorney general, setting the stage for an
intense battle in the postelection Senate that could last until Christmas , a White House official said Tuesday. The delay, which
White House officials said came at the request of Senate Democrats, reflected concern about the effect Obamas pick might have on the midterm
election, when Republicans appear to be on the verge of taking control of the Senate. Some Democrats worry that a controversial nominee, such as Labor Secretary
Thomas E. Perez, could put vulnerable Democratic senators, such as Mary L. Landrieu of Louisiana and Mark Pryor of Arkansas, in a tougher spot. Senate leaders are
concerned the nomination will become a campaign issue in an already tight election, according to a White House official who was not authorized to speak publicly on
the matter. The White House similarly postponed moving forward with its immigration plan, partly out of concern it might hurt Democratic candidates in November.
White House officials said Tuesday that Obama

may still attempt to win Senate confirmation for his nominee during the lameduck session after the election, but they acknowledged the delay could push the vote back until after a new Senate
takes office in January. The confirmation process for such an important post normally takes about two months or more.
A formal nomination is now likely to come in early to mid-November. Obama has been deliberating over who should replace Atty. Gen.
Eric H. Holder Jr., who last month announced his plans to step down. White House officials said the president had narrowed the field but had not yet made his choice,
despite the fact that Holders departure had long been anticipated.

Major backlash to the CP Congress doesnt even want rescheduling

Flatow, 14
Nicole, How Medical Marijuana Went From Political Poison To Popular Policy, accessed 10-23-14,
http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2014/04/22/3423731/the-mainstreaming-of-medical-marijuana/, hec)
***Note --- Tom Angell is now chairman of Marijuana Majority

Even the most prominent organization opposing recreational marijuana proposals, Smart Approaches to Marijuana, explicitly endorses greater research on medical marijuana for cannabis-based
medicines. (although it opposes smoked marijuana and moving the drug from Schedule I.) And so medical marijuana has emerged as the moderate stance for politicians who feel pressured for

The Obama administration has taken a number of positions. The Department of Justice recently
pledged once again to avert prosecution of those individuals complying with state marijuana law. President Obama
conceded that alcohol is more dangerous than marijuana, but the administration has declined to take independent
action to reschedule the drug under the Controlled Substances Act. And after years of withholding a legal supply of marijuana for clinical research, a
the first time to take a position.

federal panel last month made a potentially momentous shift in allowing access to marijuana for a double-blind study on marijuana and post-traumatic stress disorder. Making A Hash Of The

Theres a lot of stuff on the table now that wouldve been unthinkable two
while public and political opinion are embracing medical marijuana, the law hasnt. In fact, there are still
people serving five- and ten-year minimum prison sentences for distributing medical marijuana in states where it is legal. There still exists a very significant gap
between the overwhelming public support and the willingness of politicians to take action on it, Angell said. Even if
you just look at the issue of just simply letting states set their own policy.
Law Longtime marijuana advocates are heartened by what they perceive as a tangible shift.
years ago, Angell said. But

That causes an early nomination for AG controversy is key to flip Obama

Lewis, The Week, 10-16-14
(Matt, What Obama's nakedly political moves say about our screwed-up polity, 10-16-14,
http://theweek.com/article/index/269955/what-obamas-nakedly-political-moves-say-about-our-screwed-up-polity,
accessed 10-22-14) PM

And that brings us to President Obama, who seems

to show little shame when it comes to shielding us from some of his political
calculations. And I don't mean hot mic moments like Obama's comments to then-Russian President Medvedev in 2012: "This is my last election. After my
election I have more flexibility." More and more, the president seems uninterested in even trying to hide the fact that he is making
policy moves based on political considerations in confessing he has to act one way until after the next election, at
which point he can act another way. The most obvious example was the administration's decision to delay immigration action until after the 2014
election for admittedly political purposes. As Politico reported, "President Barack Obama will delay plans to issue an executive order on immigration until the end
of the year, heeding the warnings of Democratic senators who feared a voter backlash ahead of the November elections." Obama isn't even pretending that he's
decided not to pursue a politically unpopular move, only to coincidentally have a change of heart after the election. He's explicitly postponing something for political
purposes. The ObamaCare website is also getting in on the action. "Enrollment on the Healthcare.gov website begins Nov. 15, or 11 days after the midterm vote, and
critics who worry about rising premium hikes in 2015 say that's no coincidence. Last year's inaugural enrollment period on the health-care exchange began Oct. 1,"
reports the Washington Times. Might

politics play a role in the timing regarding the naming of a new attorney general ? The LA
White House official confirmed Monday that the president would delay the decision. Senate Democrats,
who are struggling to hold control of the chamber, had expressed concern that the decision, depending on the nominee, could become a
campaign issue." It seems that the closer we get to an election, the more the Obama administration tamps down on any
negative news. As The Washington Post recently reported, the lead investigator in the Secret Service prostitution scandal claims he was told to "delay the report
Times notes that "a

of the investigation until after the 2012 election." Ann Coulter mocked this sort of posture in a Wednesday column under the headline "We'll tell you how dangerous
Ebola is after the election."

Obama waiting now means no nominee this year just a question of time
Sink, The Hill, 10-24-14
(Justin, Ex-White House counsel withdraws from AG race, 10-24-14,
http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/221841-ex-white-house-counsel-withdraws-from-ag-race, accessed 1025-14) PM
Republican congressional aides

have also questioned the feasibility of a lame-duck confirmation. The Senate does not
reconvene until Nov. 12, and if lawmakers took the same seven work weeks they did for Mukasey, the soonest they
could vote would be New Year's Eve, assuming a highly unlikely schedule in which they took no break for
Thanksgiving or Christmas.

Announcing early is key to Obamas choice for AG any alternative has to be too
GOP friendly
Dovere and Gerstein, Politico, 14
(Edward-Isaac, Josh, White House vexed on how to replace Holder, 10-9-14,
http://www.politico.com/story/2014/10/eric-holder-replacement-111745.html, accessed 10-21-14) PM
But time

is running short for Obama to act if he wants a nominee confirmed this year . Even accelerated, the
confirmation process typically requires weeks of ramp-up for internal vetting and preparations by the Senate Judiciary
Committee. That window begins to get tight by next week, well ahead of Nov. 4. And if the White House and Democrats are
waiting for the majority to be settled, theyll also have to game out the Louisiana and Georgia Senate races both
of which have the potential to decide the majority and are expected to go into runoffs. Georgias would be on Jan. 6, three days after the new
Congress is sworn in. By then, Obama could be stuck with having to settle for either a nominee that energized Republicans
would be willing to accept, or with an attorney general serving in an acting capacity for the remainder of his two
years in office. Holder has said hell stay around until a successor is confirmed, but that was not expected to be a very long window. If the Republicans
have a clear majority, I dont see how it makes sense to wait even if you cant get it done in the lame duck, its
better to do it in the lame duck, Trippi said. Democratic aides say that without Republican cooperation, the confirmation
process would likely take at least seven weeks. That allows about a month to prepare for a Senate Judiciary Committee

hearing, including by filing answers to an official questionnaire. After the hearing, theres typically a one-week period for senators to
send a nominee written questions and another week for the nominee to respond. Any senator on the panel can also
request a committee vote be put off for a week. If the president doesnt act until after the election, that would leave
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid with little room for error in getting the nomination to the floor before Christmas.

Liberal AG key to nat sec

Gerstein, Politico, 14
(Josh, Speculation narrows on Eric Holder replacement, 10-1-14, http://www.politico.com/story/2014/10/ericholder-replacement-111522.html, accessed 10-16-14) PM
The decision will signify what President Barack Obama wants his attorney general to prioritize and what he wants his own legal legacy to
be for the remainder of the administration. In the midst of the president stepping up Americas military approach to terrorism,
national security considerations will be central to the nomination. But the next attorney general will also be trusted
with key parts of Obamas domestic agenda: defending potential executive actions on immigration, trying to restore the
Voting Rights Act and surmounting the legal hurdles to implementing Obamacare.

Including an ISIS attack on the US

Hosenball, Reuters, 14
(Mark, Matt Spetalnik, Next U.S. attorney general faces daunting national security challenges, 9-26-14,
http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/09/27/us-usa-holder-security-idUSKCN0HM00Z20140927, accessed 10-22-14)
PM
At a time when heightened fears of government surveillance coincide with growing anxiety about global terrorism, the next top U.S.
law-enforcement officer will face daunting challenges to balance protection of Americans' security and the right to privacy. President Barack
Obama says he has not yet chosen a successor to U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder, who announced his resignation on Thursday, but whoever takes on the
job for the last two years of the tenure will have no easy task. War against Islamic State militants in Iraq and Syria has
raised fears that American Islamist fighters returning from the Middle East could plot attacks on U.S. soil, U.S. officials say. At the
same time, the Justice Department and other agencies must keep a watchful eye on the threat of home-grown U.S. extremists,
an increasing source of concern to law-enforcement officials across the country. But even with the focus on stepped-up counter terrorism, the
next attorney general will also need a deft political touch to deal with Americans' concerns over wide-ranging government surveillance exposed by former spy agency
contractor Edward Snowden. "The

challenges that the next attorney general will have to balance are enormous, said Julian Zelizer,
the new threats emerging overseas and all of the unfinished business (at home), its hard
to believe the next two years will be any easier than the last six. The White House is moving carefully to identify a replacement for Holder, who
a national security expert at Princeton University. "With

announced his resignation on Thursday. U.S. solicitor-general Donald B. Verrilli, former White House counsel Kathryn Ruemmler and Manhattan U.S. Attorney Preet
Bharara are seen as possible contenders.

Retal means extinction

Ayson 10 (Professor of Strategic Studies and Director of the Centre for Strategic Studies: New Zealand at the
Victoria University of Wellington (Robert, July. After a Terrorist Nuclear Attack: Envisaging Catalytic Effects.
Studies in Conflict & Terrorism, Vol. 33, Issue 7. InformaWorld.)
But these two nuclear worldsa non-state actor nuclear attack and a catastrophic interstate nuclear exchangeare not necessarily separable. It is just possible that

some sort of terrorist attack, and especially an act of nuclear terrorism, could precipitate a chain of events leading to a massive
exchange of nuclear weapons between two or more of the states that possess them. In this context, todays and tomorrows terrorist groups might
assume the place allotted during the early Cold War years to new state possessors of small nuclear arsenals who were seen as raising the risks of a catalytic
nuclear war between the superpowers started by third parties. These risks were considered in the late 1950s and early 1960s as concerns
grew about nuclear proliferation, the so-called n+1 problem. It may require a considerable amount of imagination to depict an especially plausible situation where an
act of nuclear terrorism could lead to such a massive inter-state nuclear war. For example ,

in the event of a terrorist nuclear attack on the

United States, it might well be wondered just how Russia and/or China could plausibly be brought into the picture ,
not least because they seem unlikely to be fingered as the most obvious state sponsors or encouragers of terrorist groups. They would seem far too responsible to be
involved in supporting that sort of terrorist behavior that could just as easily threaten them as well. Some possibilities, however remote, do suggest themselves. For
example,

how might the United States react if it was thought or discovered that the fissile material used in the act of
nuclear terrorism had come from Russian stocks,40 and if for some reason Moscow denied any responsibility for nuclear laxity? The correct
attribution of that nuclear material to a particular country might not be a case of science fiction given the observation by Michael May et al. that while the debris
resulting from a nuclear explosion would be spread over a wide area in tiny fragments, its radioactivity makes it [is] detectable, identifiable and collectable, and a
wealth of information can be obtained from its analysis: the efficiency of the explosion, the materials used and, most important some indication of where the
nuclear material came from.41 Alternatively, if the act of nuclear terrorism came as a complete surprise, and American officials refused to believe that a terrorist
group was fully responsible (or responsible at all) suspicion would shift immediately to state possessors. Ruling out Western ally countries like the
United Kingdom and France, and probably Israel and India as well, authorities in Washington would be left with a very short list consisting of North Korea, perhaps

Russia and China be definitely ruled out in this high stakes game of nuclear
the act of nuclear terrorism occurred against a backdrop of existing tension in Washingtons
relations with Russia and/or China, and at a time when threats had already been traded between these major powers, would officials and political
leaders not be tempted to assume the worst? Of course, the chances of this occurring would only seem to increase if the United States was already involved
Iran if its program continues, and possibly Pakistan. But at what stage would
Cluedo? In particular, if

in some sort of limited armed conflict with Russia and/or China, or if they were confronting each other from a distance in a proxy war, as unlikely as these
developments may seem at the present time. The reverse might well apply too: should a nuclear terrorist attack occur in Russia or China during a period of heightened
tension or even limited conflict with the United States, could Moscow and Beijing resist the pressures that might rise domestically to consider the United States as a
possible perpetrator or encourager of the attack? Washingtons early response to a terrorist nuclear attack on its own soil might also raise the possibility of an
unwanted (and nuclear aided) confrontation with Russia and/or China. For example, in

the noise and confusion during the immediate

aftermath of the terrorist nuclear attack, the U.S. president might be expected to place the countrys armed forces, including its
nuclear arsenal, on a higher stage of alert. In such a tense environment, when careful planning runs up against the friction of reality, it is just possible
that Moscow and/or China might mistakenly read this as a sign of U.S. intentions to use force (and possibly nuclear force) against them. In
that situation, the temptations to preempt such actions might grow, although it must be admitted that any preemption would probably still meet
with a devastating response. As part of its initial response to the act of nuclear terrorism (as discussed earlier) Washington might decide to order a
significant conventional (or nuclear) retaliatory or disarming attack against the leadership of the terrorist group and/or states seen to support that group.
Depending on the identity and especially the location of these targets, Russia and/or China might interpret such action as being far too
close for their comfort, and potentially as an infringement on their spheres of influence and even on their
sovereignty. One far-fetched but perhaps not impossible scenario might stem from a judgment in Washington that some of the main aiders and abetters of the
terrorist action resided somewhere such as Chechnya, perhaps in connection with what Allison claims is the Chechen insurgents long-standing interest in all
things nuclear.42 American pressure on that part of the world would almost certainly raise alarms in Moscow that might require a degree of advanced consultation
from Washington that the latter found itself unable or unwilling to provide.

6
Text: The United States should limit the offenses of the Controlled Substances Act as
it applies to marihuana to include local manufacture. The 50 states and all relevant
territories should legalize nearly all marihuana in the United States except local
manufacture.
CP solves the case and allows big producers to compete plan locks them out
Fine 13 Freelance journalist for such organizations as the Washington Post, Salon, U.S. News and World
Report, Sierra, Wired, Outside, National Public Radio, and many other venues [Doug Fine, Will Marijuana
Farming in Mendocino County, California, Lead America to Pot?, Truthout, Intervied By Mark Karlin, July 19,
2013, http://tinyurl.com/mrxv9je
Why does the political class in DC persist in promoting a "reefer madness" image of marijuana as a dangerous drug? After all, even the Obama administration periodically

Congress has made no moves to ease up on federal

prosecution of marijuana growing and distribution, as it continues to finance a war on drugs that is fueled by taxpayer dollars and law enforcement and
contracted-industry financial incentives. But there is a populist revolt brewing. Beginning with state legalization of marijuana use for easing medical pain,
cracks down on states that have legally allowed the dispensing of medical marijuana.

the movement to fully decriminalize pot has picked up steam as the voters of Washington and Colorado approved an end to marijuana prohibition. As with many trends,

California is pointing the way. Doug Fine, author and rancher, detailed how the de facto tolerance for marijuana farmsand
use in Mendocino County is likely a harbinger for a new green economic revolution in the United States: a
legalized pot industry. Truthout talked with Fine about the issues covered in his book "Too High to Fail" and what he calls "the coming drug peace era." Get your
copy of "Too High to Fail" now with a $30 minimum contribution (including shipping and handling) to Truthout. Click here. Mark Karlin: Let's take a look at a recurring focus that
you adopt in "Too High to Fail." Why should marijuana be legalized for its positive economic impact on the US economy? How much tax revenue and spinoff economic

Following a year of field-side

research alongside farmers of Americas number one crop (cannabis), I believe most conventional estimates
about the size of the crop are way low. In Too High to Fail, I studied the progress of one California county,Mendocino, whose deciders
legalized and permitted the regional cannabis farmers, out of economic necessity. The sheriff signed on,
as did the local government. Why? $6 billion. That is a conservative estimate of the plants value to local
farmers (on paper) in one of Californias poorest counties. The way I came to that figure was that the 600,000 plants seized by law enforcement in
development could it create as legally taxed product that could be grown in the United States and sold here? Doug Fine:

2010 were estimated (also by law enforcement) to be 10 percent of the crop. I gave the 6 million plants that did make it to market a very low-end value of $1,000 per plant. In

cannabis is not just Americas number one cash crop, it is that by far . We shouldnt be surprised. One
hundred million Americans have used the plant, including the past three presidents. Tax that plant nationwide, and you not
just generate billions in tax revenue (Harvards Jeffrey Miron estimates $30 billion annually) but you cripple criminal enterprises, the way that the end of
other words,

alcohol prohibition pretty much put bootleggers out of work. California already generates $100 million annually from its medical cannabis industry, and thats with the majority of
farmers still operating underground until federal prohibition ends. Space is preventing me from getting into ancillary industries, but in Mendocino County alone the legalizing of
the local economic engine supported inspectors, contractors and flower trimmers (where skill and experience matter and are well-remunerated) dozens of jobs per farm. Mark
Karlin: We've engaged in a decades-long "war on drugs" that has resulted in the deaths of tens of thousands of people in Mexico and Latin America and enriched drug cartels.

ending
the war on cannabis will be devastating to criminal enterprises south of the border. This is whyLatin American
governments (as well as an increasing number of European ones) are lining up behind ending the drug war .The
Mendocino County, California, experiment I followed in Too High to Fail itself hurt criminal cartels by bringing the local industry
aboveground. The administrator of what was called the Zip-tie Program (for the bright yellow bracelets every permitted plant wore) is named Captain
Randy Johnson. A 27-year veteran of the force, most of those as a conventional drug warrior, Johnson told me that most important reason the program is an important
model nationwide is not just the revenue it raised (saving seven deputy jobs locally). Its that we brought an entire community back into the law-abiding fold.
Would the end of legal prohibition in the United States put the narcos out of business and reduce the dramatic death toll in Mexico? Doug Fine: Without question

South of the border, Bill Martin at Rice University estimates that up to 70 percent of cartel profits derive from cannabis (just as most drug war funding goes to the fruitless and
unnecessary war on cannabis). Whenever I throw these numbers out in debates with the last of the taxpayer-funded drug war boosters (theyre becoming rare), I hear, Oh,
thats exaggerated. Cannabis is only responsible for 50 percent of cartel proceeds, and theyve diversified. Hmm, Id hate to lose 50 percent of my income. Mark Karlin: What is
the story with the ongoing stigmatization of marijuana on a political level that is far out of touch with its use on a social level? How can it be more evil than alcohol when liquor
counts for far, far more road accidents, more addictions, deaths and violent encounters? Doug Fine: The war on drugs, Americas longest and most expensive (with a price tag
of $1 trillion to you and me already, with $40 billion more added to our tab every year), is based at core on a crucial lie: that cannabis is very dangerous. Now, Im a father, and I
want my kids to grow up in a safe, responsible society. Guess what? Even youth cannabis use rates go down, without fail, in places that legalize cannabis, whether completely
(Portugal) or for medicinal use (New England). So why does such a fundamental lie endure? The easiest way to understand it is through the concept of a tipping point. Along
with soft on crime, soft on drugs has, for 40 years, been something every politician fears hearing in an opponents television spot. The good news, for those interested in a
stronger, safer America, is that the Drug Peace tipping point has been reached. Across the nation, across all demographics, Americans want to end the Drug War. Forty percent
of Colorado Republicans voted to legalize cannabis in 2012, and youth turnout (the holy grail for Democrats since 18-year-olds got the vote in 1972) was up 12 percent in

Colorado in 2012 vs. the 2008 Yes We Can election. This is the issue that galvanizes all Americans. Even in my very conservative New Mexico valley, the cowgirl next to me in
the post office line might believe that our president was born in Kenya, but she knows from seeing our border region chaos with her own eyes that cannabis is not the problem
with our regions public safety. The war on cannabis is the problem (along with meth and prescription pill abuse). In fact, it was a massive raid of my AARP member retiree
rancher neighbor for something like a dozen cannabis plants that spurred me to write Too High to Fail. The raid, paid for by you and me, pointedly ignored criminal cartels
operating with impunity nearby. Eighty percent of Americans call the drug war a failure, which it is. Almost everyone is onto the myths and lies that allowed the war on cannabis
to endure for ten times longer than World War II. Mark Karlin: A lot of urban rumors have circulated that the cigarette industry is sitting on brand names and marketing plans for
selling marijuana when "the time is right." Where does big tobacco stand on marijuana legalization? Doug Fine: More than one tobacco company has, at some point during the

having spent so much time

with small farmers, I take to heart the views of Tomas Balogh, co-founder of the Emerald Growers Association
farmer trade group, which is creating a brand of Northern Californias sustainable, outdoor-cultivated,
third-generation cannabis culture. In his view, the cannabis crop is alreadydecentralized and farmercontrolled, and its up to consumers to keep it that way after legalization . As I often put it when Emerald Triangle farmers
speak of creating a top-shelf, regionally based international brand (like Champagne), If Napa is any model, get ready for the Bud and Breakfast. When prohibition
ends, some consumers will choose a Big Tobacco or Big Alcohol model, and somewill seek out the co-op, farmers market or
CSA farm. Thats why we have Dom Perignon and Two Buck Chuck. Mark Karlin: Obviously, the jury is still out on the how the recent legalization of possession in
war on drugs, said or done something that indicates it wasnt opposed to profiting from cannabis when the time was right. But

Washington and Colorado will play out. What do you think the passage of the two statewide propositions mean to the pace of legalization? Doug Fine: Its the fall of the Drug
Wars Berlin Wall the end of Americas worst policy since segregation. The tipping point has been reached I think well see cannabis removed from the Controlled
Substances Act entirely within five years. And not a moment too soon states want to regulate it and need the revenue. Another huge event was last weeks inclusion of hemp
cultivation provisions in the House side of the Farm Bill. Its imperative that the Senate come on board, too. Im researching a hemp book now, and it will play a significant role in
Americas energy independence. Already, a Kentucky utility company is planning to plant hemp on coal-damaged land to use to generate electricity via ethanol and other
processes. Mark Karlin: The Washington and Colorado votes came after years of inroads in state approvals of medical marijuana use. In at least some jurisdictions, the Obama
Department of Justice has pounced on medical marijuana dispensaries, including in California. Doesn't Eric Holder have better things to do with our taxpayer dollars? Doug

looking for
rationality in the execution of this war is an exercise in futility. At this point the drug war, having lost both
scientific and public support, operates on bureaucratic inertia, and even many of the law enforcers who
have to fight the war admit as much. The bottom line is that the people have spoken, their voices are only getting louder, and the people who are paid to
Fine: If theres one thing that pretty much full-time, front-line coverage of the cannabis plant during the drug wars final battles has taught me, its that

win elections realize this. This is why President Obama, in his first major post-re-election interview in December 2012 (with Barbara Walters) for the first time took a cannabis
legalization question seriously. He said he didnt yet support it, but he had bigger fish to fry than harassing Colorado and Washington. If you want to know why federal policy
suddenly became laissez-faire, its about public opinion in swing states. Arizona, just about as silver and red a state as a Goldwaterite could wish for, is polling at 56 percent in
support of regulating cannabis for adult use like alcohol. In heartland Illinois, 63 percent of voters support the about-to-be-enacted medicinal marijuana program. Heck, 60
percent of Kentuckians favor medical cannabis. The fact is, if President Obama were to step to the podium next week and announce that he was returning to his pre-2008 drug
policy position, which called the Drug War an utter failure, his favorable numbers would go up in key swing states. This is true for anyone whod like to succeed the president
by spurring an energized youth turnout in 2016. Mark Karlin: How does marijuana-growing in Mendocino County, which you feature prominently in your book, present a model
for future breakthroughs in marijuana becoming a national and legal homegrown industry? Doug Fine: As a sustainability journalist who lives on a solar-powered goat ranch,

the Mendocino Zip-tie model is a vital one if smallindependent farmers are to retain a foothold in the
industry that is born around Americas number one cash crop after prohibition ends. The craft beer model
is illustrative here. Yes, Coors et al. control the corner store, but the microbrew sector is worth $10 billion annually. The
Emerald Triangle farmers of Northern California acutely realize this they are developing what MichaelPollan
calls supermarket pastoral. This is the story that an organic food provider tells on her packaging we imagine the chickens who lay our eggs playing
cards and attending square dances. If any cannabis cultivating region can brand itself as top shelf , the way we have fine wines coming
from Washington to Vermont, it can beat Wall Streets offerings . And as with wine and craft beer, farmers in plenty of places
besides California, such as Oregon, Kentucky, Louisiana and Colorado, to name a few, that can claim to
have top-shelf cannabis farmers. The most marketablebranding model, I believe, will be family-owned, outdoor
cultivating sustainable farmers explaining that theyre just growing a plant that the original American
colonist cannabis farmers (including Thomas Jefferson and George Washington) did. When the kind of people who shop at farmers markets start asking how
their cannabis is grown, models like this will be huge ; I think even bigger than for high-end wine and beer.

Spills over to the rest of ag

Kennedy, award-winning journalist and communications professional who has
covered international news, including business reportage, for MSN Money, CNN,
NPR, Reuters Television and AOLs Daily Finance web site, 13
(Bruce, "Greener marijuana: can a budding industry grow sustainable agriculture?," 10-30-13,
http://www.theguardian.com/sustainable-business/hubs-energy-efficiency1, accessed 9-13-14) PM
Will marijuana innovations move into mainstream commercial agriculture? Cary Mitchell, a professor of
horticulture at Purdue University, thinks the marijuana industry's work with LED technology might have practical
applications in mainstream commercial agriculture. He's the director of a $4.9m project to evaluate and improve
LED lighting for America's so-called "specialty crop industry" greenhouse-grown fruits, vegetables, nursery plants

and other crops. Specialty crops bring in around $50bn annually, and their producers, like the commercial marijuana
growers, are looking for ways to decrease energy costs while increasing greenhouse yields. "They've undoubtably
been doing this for years and years," Mitchell says about the cannabis growers' use of LEDs. "Since they don't
publish their research, we don't really know how far they've taken the optimization. They probably are ahead of the
specialty crop commercial production industry." Medical marijuana producers, meanwhile, say they realize their
industry has an environmental responsibility to its customers and communities, especially if it is to become further
decriminalized. As Khalatbari said: "The point is ... how can we make this practice more sustainable, because [this
is] an industry that's really reached 5% of its potential, maybe, in this country, with so many states still to come
online."

Big ag is key to food production and GMOs---collapse of agri-consolidation is worse

for every impact
Michael Grunwald 9, a senior correspondent at Time magazine, is the author of The Swamp: The Everglades,
Florida, and the Politics of Paradise. The Case for Big Ag: Industrial farming pollutes rivers, distorts politics, and
hurts rural communities. But it might just save the rainforest,
http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/2009/0907.grunwald.html, DOA: 9-23-14, y2k
Were going to need more food. And were going to need our food growers to use less land. It sounds like were going to
needindustrial agriculture. In the future, for the same reason we wont want to sacrifice valuable cropland for biofuels, we wont want to sacrifice it for low-yield organic
kale either. As much as we love Michael Pollans delicious prose, as much as we feel we ought to love locally grown, pesticide-free, genetically unmodified, naturally
fertilized, antibiotic-free, multigrain whatever, were going to need the worlds farmland to produce as much sustenance as
possible on as little ground as possible, so that we can leave the Amazon alone. Just as well have to increase people-per-acre urban
densities to rein in exurban sprawl, well have to increase calorie-per-acre farm production to rein in agricultural sprawl. Michelle Obamas little garden is a lovely gesture, but its
not going to feed a world where food demand is rising much faster than food supply, where overpumping is lowering water tables and
imperiling agriculture in China and India, and where grain reserves dwindled to an all-time low last year. To feed that world, well need Big Ag to do what it does best.
This will require a jolting paradigm shift. Industrial farmers have a well-earned reputation in policy circles as obesity-promoting, pesticide-spewing, water-wasting, energy-hogging,
Hmm.

illegal-alien-hiring, politician-buying corporate welfare queens who wax hypocritical about family farmers and the "heartland" while driving small farms out of business and hollowing out rural
towns. Their subsidies help deplete aquifers, destroy rivers, intensify Third World poverty, and scuttle free trade deals that would boost the nonagricultural sectors of the U.S. economy. But now

high yields look like the best way to limit agriculture to a sustainable footprint that would leave enough trees
and marshes to avoid a planetary emergency, it might be time for good-government types, environmentalists, anti-hunger activists, free trade supporters, health
that their

advocates, and other perennial Big Ag bashers to start thinking about how to work with them. Those taxpayer-supported amber waves of grain have environmental benefits as well as costs. That
doesnt mean we have to support agro-fuelsalthough we should support efforts to convert crop waste into energy as long as it doesnt remove land from production. We dont have to support
egregious subsidies for multimillionaire farmers, eitheralthough given the hopeless politics of the issue it might make sense to agree to support them if theyre tied to soil, water, and energy

we ought to recognize and encourage the potential of genetically modified crops to produce high-yield,
drought-resistant crops that require fewer petroleum-based fertilizers and pesticides. And we ought to acknowledge
that agricultural consolidation, while painful for family farmers and rural communities, is not only inevitable but in many ways desirable. Big
Ag can use the advantages of bigness not only to boost production (by buying the best seeds and inputs and
tractors) but to reduce waste (with precision GPS gadgets that adjust spraying and watering according to the topography of the
field). We might even rethink our opposition to those icky confined-feeding operations, especially when theyre clumping together (more greenhouse-friendly) chickens rather than cows. In
conservation requirements. But

exchange, maybe those feedlots could stop destroying the Chesapeake Bay. That would be Big Ags end of the bargain: Eliminate its most egregious and least sustainable practices. Stop farming
to the edge of the river, and stop draining wetlands. Keep the cows out of the stream, and more runoff on the farm. Stop spreading petroleum-based fertilizer when and where it isnt needed. Stop

The industry made strides dealing with its erosion problems in response to federal
incentives; perhaps it could clean up the rest of its act with proper inducements. Big Ag has been so politically successful for so long that it
might resist any compromise, but the farm lobby knows its cue-the-violins baloney about humble tillers of the heartland soil
might not justify redistribution from taxpayers to agro-industrialists fore ver. And one positive by-product of the trend toward corporate farming is
that corporations tend to worry about their images. If agriculture keeps producing more than 30 percent of the worlds emissions,
including the deforestation effect, its going to get stuck with the mother of all image problems. Brazil is an interesting example. Its larger producers
creating a massive dead zone in the Gulf of Mexico.

make our Big Ag look like Jeffersonian yeomen, and theyve become international pariahs to the save-the-rainforest crowd. But theyre much lighter on the land than the slash-and-burn
subsistence farmers on the Amazon frontier. Its probably too late for another green revolution; were bumping up against the limits of photosynthesis, and global yield increases have dwindled to
about 1 percent per year. And there would be social costs to a large-scale expansion of industrial agriculture in Africa and the rest of the low-yield Third World, as well as political costs; its no
coincidence that the worlds biggest soybean farmer is also the governor of a large Brazilian province on the Amazon frontier. But agricultural consolidation is going to continue no matter what;
economies of scale create huge efficiencies, and they give large producers at least some counterweight against the vastly consolidated processing, shipping, and retailing industries. Searchingers

World hunger and global warming are

two of the great challenges of this century, and they are inextricably linked through agriculture and the land. About
five million children already die of nutrition-related causes every year, and about fifteen million acres of carbon-rich forests already get converted into farms every
year. As the world population rises, both of those figures are likely to explode unless agricultural productivity can explode
epiphanies remind us that if its going to happen eventually, it might as well happen now, while theres still a rainforest to save.

as well. So by all means, we should ask industrial farmers to clean up their act. But first, we might want to beg them to save the
planet and feed the world.

Shortage causes nuclear war

FDI 12, Future Directions International, a Research institute providing strategic analysis of Australias global
interests; citing Lindsay Falvery, PhD in Agricultural Science and former Professor at the University of
Melbournes Institute of Land and Environment, Food and Water Insecurity: International Conflict Triggers &
Potential Conflict Points, http://www.futuredirections.org.au/workshop-papers/537-international-conflict-triggersand-potential-conflict-points-resulting-from-food-and-water-insecurity.html
There is a growing appreciation that the conflicts in the next century will most likely be fought over a lack of
resources. Yet, in a sense, this is not new. Researchers point to the French and Russian revolutions as conflicts induced by a
lack of food. More recently, Germanys World War Two efforts are said to have been inspired, at least in part, by its
perceived need to gain access to more food. Yet the general sense among those that attended FDIs recent workshops, was that the scale of the
problem in the future could be significantly greater as a result of population pressures, changing weather, urbanisation, migration, loss of
arable land and other farm inputs, and increased affluence in the developing world. In his book, Small Farmers Secure Food, Lindsay Falvey, a participant in
FDIs March 2012 workshop on the issue of food and conflict, clearly expresses the problem and why countries across the globe are starting to take note. .
He writes (p.36), if people are hungry, especially in cities, the state is not stable riots, violence, breakdown of law and order and migration
result. Hunger feeds anarchy. This view is also shared by Julian Cribb, who in his book, The Coming Famine, writes that if large regions of
the world run short of food, land or water in the decades that lie ahead, then wholesale, bloody wars are liable to follow. He
continues: An increasingly credible scenario for World War 3 is not so much a confrontation of super powers and their allies, as a
festering, self-perpetuating chain of resource conflicts. He also says: The wars of the 21st Century are less likely to be global conflicts with
sharply defined sides and huge armies, than a scrappy mass of failed states, rebellions, civil strife, insurgencies, terrorism and genocides, sparked by bloody
competition over dwindling resources. As another workshop participant put it, people do not go to war to kill; they go to war over resources, either to protect or to
gain the resources for themselves. Another observed that hunger results in passivity not conflict. Conflict is over resources, not because people are going hungry. A

study by the International Peace Research Institute indicates that where food security is an issue, it is more likely to
result in some form of conflict. Darfur, Rwanda, Eritrea and the Balkans experienced such wars. Governments,
especially in developed countries, are increasingly aware of this phenomenon. The UK Ministry of Defence, the CIA, the US Center for Strategic
and International Studies and the Oslo Peace Research Institute, all identify famine as a potential trigger for conflicts and
possibly even nuclear war.

Cartels
Legalization wont collapse cartels- institutional problems
Hope, Bloomberg, 14
(Alejandro, Legal U.S. pot wont bring real peace to Mexico, accessed 6-9-14,
http://www.japantimes.co.jp/opinion/2014/01/24/commentary/world-commentary/legal-u-s-pot-wont-bring-realpeace-to-mexico-2/#.U5Zc_vldWSo, hec)

does this creeping legalization of marijuana in the U.S. spell doom for the Mexican drug cartels? Not quite. The
illegal marijuana trade provides Mexican organized crime with about $1.5 billion to $2 billion a year. Thats not chump change, but according to a number of estimates, it
represents no more than a third of gross drug export revenue. Cocaine is still the cartels biggest money-maker
and the revenue accruing from heroin and methamphetamine arent trivial. Moreover, Mexican gangs also obtain income from extortion,
kidnapping, theft and various other types of illegal trafficking. Losing the marijuana trade would be a blow to their finances, but it certainly wouldnt put them
out of business. But surely Mexico would experience less violence if marijuana was legal? Yes, to some extent, but the decline wouldnt be sufficient to
radically alter the countrys security outlook. In all likelihood, marijuana production and marijuana-related violence are highly correlated geographically.
So

Marijuana output is concentrated in five states (Chihuahua, Durango, Sinaloa, Michoacan and Guerrero) that accounted for approximately a third of all homicides committed in Mexico in 2012.

we can estimate that the full elimination of the illegal marijuana

trade would reduce Mexicos homicide rate to 18 per 100,000 inhabitants from 22 still about four times the U.S. rate. Well, but
couldnt the Mexican government gain a peace dividend by redirecting some resources from marijuana prohibition to other law enforcement objectives? Yes,
but the effect would probably be modest. Only 4 percent of all Mexican prison inmates are serving time exclusively for marijuana-related crimes. In 2012, drug
Assuming improbably that half of all murders in those areas were marijuana-related,

offenses represented less than 2 percent of all crime reports in the country. When it comes to only federal crimes (7 percent of the total), the share of drug offenses rises to 20 percent, but that

Whatever the legal

status of marijuana, Mexico needs to tackle its many institutional malfunctions. Its police forces are underpaid, undertrained, under
motivated and deeply vulnerable to corruption and intimidation. Its criminal justice system is painfully slow, notoriously inefficient and
deeply unfair. Even with almost universal impunity, prisons are overflowing and mostly ruled by the inmates themselves. Changing that reality will take
many years. Some reforms are under way, some are barely off the ground. As a result of a 2008 constitutional reform, criminal courts are being transformed, but progress across states
percentage has been declining since 2007. So the legalization of marijuana wont free up a huge trove of resources to be redeployed against predatory crime.

has been uneven. With a couple of local exceptions, police reform has yet to find political traction. The federal Attorney Generals Office is set to become an independent body, but not before
2018. The reformist zeal that Mexican President Enrique Pena Nieto has shown in other policy areas (education, energy, telecommunications) is absent in security and justice. Security policy
remains reactive, driven more by political considerations than by strategic design. And results have been mixed at best: Homicides declined moderately in 2013, but both kidnapping and extortion

Marijuana legalization in the U.S. wont alter that dynamic. In the final analysis, Mexico doesnt have a
drug problem, much less a marijuana problem: It has a state capacity problem. That is, its institutions are too weak to protect the life, liberty
and property of its citizens. Even if drug trafficking might very well decline in the future, in the absence of stronger
institutions, something equally nefarious will replace it.
reached record levels.

Legalization doesnt collapse cartels- they are diversified

Killebrew 11 (Robert. June. Colonel Robert Killebrew, usa (Ret.), is a senior Fellow at the Center for a New
American security. Criminal Insurgency in the Americas and Beyond Prism. Published by the Center for
Complex Operations. Vol 2. No. 3) 5/30/14 RK

No subject is liable to be more controversial than the question of whether to legalize drugs in the United States. The
often repeated belief that legalization would defeat the cartels breaks down on the data. As stated previously, the drug cartels
have reached a stage of development that would ensure their continued operation during any transition to
legalized drugs on the part of the United States and beyond. It is highly unlikely that the legalization of drugs

some or even all drugsin the United States would end the threat from these organizations. The cartels and other drug
trafficking organizations are multifaceted criminal enterprises dedicated to making profits from any activity
that brings in money. Although the majority of their income comes from illicit drugs, they also engage in other violent
and white-collar crimes. The assorted cartelsthe Mexican cartels, the FARC, and other organizationsare a new kind of
transnational criminal organization, taking advantage of the global black economy not only to move drugs,
but also to support human trafficking, prostitution, identity theft, arms trading, illicit financial transactions,
and so forth. They have powerful state sponsors in a global network of illicit commerce. For the United States to turn to
legalization as a primary strategy against the cartels would be a shot in the dark, particularly when other strategies to
decrease drug use have been effective.

Cartels can sell their products cheaper to compete with legalization

Korcherga 13 (Angela. 5/15. Angela Kocherga is the Belo KHOU 11 News Border Bureau Chief and covers
the southwest border and interior of Mexico on television and online.
Angela reports extensively on the drug war in Mexico and its impact on families on both sides of the border. she has
brought viewers stories from Nuevo Laredo, Reynosa and Ciudad Juarez, Mexico's murder capital. Legalized
marijuana increases competition for Mexican drug cartels http://www.khou.com/community/bios/68118027.html)
6/3/14 RK

Mexican drug cartels

fighting each other for smuggling routes face increasing competition in the U.S. where legalization
drug war in Mexico may have helped U.S. growers gain a

in some states has increased the amount of marijuana available. The

foothold in some regions. The majority of this weed is coming from California, a little bit of it is coming from Colorado, said a narcotics officer with the El
Paso Police Department who works undercover. According to the DEA, the amount of marijuana from Mexico seized in the El
Paso area declined by nearly half starting in 2009 as drug cartels clashed violently just across the border in
Juarez. As they fought for control of smuggling routes, narcotics officers in El Paso began to see more U.S. grown pot,
especially a variety known as Kush. Its more potent, but higher priced than Mexican marijuana. On a recent afternoon, officers arrested
two people on drug charges in a quiet El Paso neighborhood. The woman is a soldier at Fort Bliss. Officers said her boyfriend was a dealer who sold Kush in the home
they shared. This guy has a little bit more than the usual street dealer: half a pound of Kush. Youre looking at $3,000 to $4,000, said an undercover officer on the
scene. A one-pound bundle of Kush known on the streets as a baby is worth $8,000. One medical marijuana patient in Las Cruces, who did not want his name used ,
said there are still plenty of people who can only afford the less expensive Mexican marijuana he referred to as gas tank pot because its often compressed and
smuggled across international border crossings hidden in vehicles. Supporters

of legalization, predict it will reduce the need to rely

on marijuana smuggled across the border by criminal organizations. But others doubt drug cartels will give up on their
No. 1 cash crop without a fight. I think theyll compete in an economic battle with American marijuana
producers because it doesnt serve their interest to get into a violent clash with Americans on U.S. soil, said
Howard Campbell, a professor at the University of Texas El Paso, and author of Drug War Zone. I think the Mexican cartels
are rational business organizations. said Campbell. Even though theyre very violent in Mexico, what theyll do with
the growing legalization in the U.S. is figure out ways to get their product to the American consumer. There are
already signs that cartels in Mexico are adapting. Weve had one seizure that theyve told us that its Mexican Kush, not very good quality,
but its coming. Experts expect the quality to improve as Mexican growers perfect their crop . The quantity
smuggled across the border in the El Paso area is starting to increase now that violence has subsided in Juarez.
Law enforcement officers do not expect cartels in Mexico to get out of the marijuana business once U.S. consumers
can find a legal supply. If all the states legalized it the Mexicans would somehow snake their way into it
because they can produce a cheaper product. They can produce more of it, said the undercover narcotics officer.

Cartels wont cause a failed state

Selee, Shirk, and Olson 10 (Andrew, David, and Eric. 3/28. Andrew Selee is the director of the Mexico
Institute at the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars. David Shirk is a fellow at the center and an
associate professor at the University of San Diego. Eric Olson is senior adviser at the center. Five myths about
Mexico's drug war http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/03/26/AR2010032602226.html)
6/26/14

Violence in Mexico has escalated dramatically in recent years . In 2009 alone, at least 6,500 people were killed in apparent drug-related incidents, and
more than 2,000 have already died in such violence this year. The recent killings of three people linked to the U.S. Consulate in Ciudad Juarez (just across the border from El Paso) have left

Clinton lamented the "cycle of violence and crime

that has impacted communities on both sides of the border" and pledged continued U.S. engagement. With Washington's
support, the Mexican government has been pursuing an aggressive multiyear campaign to confront criminal groups tied to the drug trade. To understand those efforts'
chances of success, let's look beyond common misperceptions about Mexico's plight. 1. Mexico is descending
into widespread and indiscriminate violence. The country has certainly seen a big rise in drug violence, with cartels fighting for control of major
narcotics shipment routes -- especially at the U.S. border and near major seaports and highways -- and branching into kidnapping, extortion and other illicit
activities. Ciudad Juarez, in particular, has been the scene of major battles between two crime organizations and accounted for nearly a third of drug-linked
deaths last year. But the violence is not as widespread or as random as it may appear. Though civilians with no evident ties to the drug trade
have been killed in the crossfire and occasionally targeted, drug-related deaths are concentrated among the traffickers. (Deaths among
military and police personnel are an estimated 7 percent of the total.) A major reshuffling of leaders and alliances is occurring among the top organized crime
groups, and, partly because of government efforts to disrupt their activities, violence has jumped as former allies battle each other. The bloodshed is also geographically
concentrated in key trafficking corridors, notably in the states of Sinaloa, Chihuahua and Tamaulipas. While the violence underscores weaknesses in the
government's ability to maintain security in parts of the country, organized crime is not threatening to take over the federal government.
Mexico is not turning into a failed state. 2. The Mexican government lacks the resources to fight the cartels. Last week, the
many wondering whether the situation is hopeless. In Mexico last week, Secretary of State Hillary Rodham

Mexican newspaper Milenio released a survey indicating that 59 percent of Mexicans believe the cartels are winning the drug war; only 21 percent believe the government is prevailing. Such

the battle against organized crime is not a lost cause. Thanks to a genuine commitment by Mexican officials and greater
important cartel leaders have been arrested over the past several years. Some cartels, such as
Arellano Felix in Tijuana, have been seriously weakened. The Mexican government has the tools to succeed , but it must redirect its
efforts. To date, its campaign against drug traffickers has relied on the massive deployment of federal security forces, both police and military. But their
"presence and patrol" strategy presents only a minor inconvenience to criminal groups, which work around it by shifting their trafficking routes. To strengthen law
enforcement and restore public confidence, there is an urgent need to modernize and professionalize Mexico's police and
courts. The 2008 passage of constitutional reforms in this area was a good start. As they are implemented, the changes will transform the
country's judiciary from one that relies on closed courtrooms and mostly written evidence into a system where evidence is
presented in open court. The federal government has also made strides in developing a professional national police force. It is devoting resources to the improvement of state and local
forces and boosting investigative capabilities, including creating a national police database that allows authorities to track crimes in different parts of the country. 3 . Endemic
corruption allows the cartels to flourish. Corruption does continue to be a major challenge for Mexico. In 1997, for instance, the country's drug czar was found to
be on the take from the Juarez cartel, and last year, the Federal Investigative Agency was dissolved after a third of the force was placed under investigation for corruption. But there
appears to be a real commitment by honest officials to root out malfeasance . Recent arrests and prosecutions
have brought down the head of Mexico's Interpol office, senior officials in the attorney general's office, three state public security
chiefs, hundreds of state and local police officers, and a few mayors and local police commanders. Meanwhile, Mexico is slowly cultivating
a culture of lawfulness, thanks to courageous journalists and new civic organizations calling for greater accountability. Far more can be done, but this is a good start. 4.
Drug violence is a Mexican problem, not a U.S. one. Hardly. Mexico and the United States share a 2,000-mile border, and our southern neighbor is also our
assessments are well founded, but

cooperation with the United States,

third-largest trading partner. Since the drug cartels run a binational business -- moving drugs from south to north and weapons from north to south -- both the problem and the solution will

Perhaps the top contribution the United States could make is to redouble its efforts to reduce
American demand for illegal narcotics. The trafficking in Mexico is driven overwhelmingly by U.S. consumption -- especially of cocaine, marijuana, heroin and
inevitably involve Washington.

methamphetamine -- which is estimated to exceed $60 billion annually. Moreover, the U.S. government estimates that $18 billion to $39 billion flows south each year as a result of American
sales of illegal narcotics. Some of this money is invested in high-caliber weapons purchased in the United States and taken across the border illegally. Little surprise that in Mexico on Tuesday,
Clinton referred to "our shared responsibility to combat and defeat organized transnational crime." In a positive development, the White House Office of National Drug Control Policy announced
this month that it will seek more funding for programs to reduce U.S. demand for illicit drugs -- with a 13 percent increase for prevention and 4 percent for treatment. Such funding pales in

Mexican drug violence is spilling over into the United States.

Despite the violent confrontations between drug-trafficking organizations in Mexico, there has been little of the same spectacular violence
on the American side of the border, even though the cartels operate with U.S.-based distribution networks. El Paso, one of the least violent cities
comparison to law enforcement budgets, but it's a step in the right direction. 5.

in the United States, sits right across from Ciudad Juarez, the most violent in Mexico. This points to important institutional differences. In Mexico, a crime has only a 1 to 2 percent chance of

the greater likelihood of arrest in the United States leads traffickers to keep most of their
violent activities south of the border. Of course, drug violence does occur here, but not with the severity or impunity found in Mexico. For better or worse, the United
leading to a conviction and jail time;

States and Mexico are in this together. It is hard to imagine a solution that does not involve a joint strategy to disrupt organized crime; a shift in U.S. drug policy to address consumption; shared
efforts to improve Mexican law enforcement and judicial institutions; and continued cooperation to foster greater economic opportunity in Mexico.

Mexico is not on the brink of collapse

Paredes 14 (Martin. 2/28. Martn Paredes, Author at El Paso News Organization. George Friedman: Mexico is
not a Failed State http://www.elpasonews.org/2014/02/george-friedman-mexico-failed-state/) 6/6/14 RK

A Failed State is generally defined as a country that has lost some or all control over its sovereignt y. The fact is that
Mexico, even at the height of the Mexican Drug War never relinquished control over its sovereignty. I am sure some of
you will argue that there were and are pockets of criminality in Mexico that seem to surpass the governments ability to
maintain control. However, all of that rhetoric ignores a fundamental reality; a failed state has a failed economy and an
ineffective government. So, lets take a look at those two functions. Has the Mexican economy faltered? The World Bank ranks
Mexicos economy as the second largest economy south of the Rio Bravo (Rio Grande), behind Brazil. This month Moodys rated
Mexico as A3, the first time the country has received an A rating in its entire history. Keep in mind that the rating is derived from actions taken by two
administrations under two different political parties. I

wish George Friedman would explain to everyone how it is that a country on

the verge of collapse is able to attain an A rating for its economy. Somehow, I dont expect he will, as it isnt something he can sell to the
news outlets and his subscribers looking for doom-and-gloom coming from Mexico. Somehow, a country on the verge of collapse, according to George Friedman is on
the road to becoming the United States number one automobile exporter this year. Again, how

is it that a country on the verge of collapse

continues to build enough automobiles to outpace Canada and Japan? Clearly, the Mexican economy is not on the
verge of collapse and therefore the countrys government is in full control. So, lets a take a look at the transition of power. On December
1, 2012, President Enrique Pea Nieto took office. Mexico had effectively transitioned power from one government to another.
Former President Felipe Calderon Hinojosa, who initiated the Mexican Drug War, democratically relinquished power in a
transition from one party to another. Both US president Barack Obama and leftist president Hugo Chavez both agreed that the transfer of power was
properly completed. In other words, two opposing political ideologies both agreed that Mexicos electoral process was
completed properly under the law. In fact, Mexico has now transitioned power from one party, to another and back to the original party making Mexico
a two-party country. So much for the notion that Mexico was on the verge of collapse. The problem of the drug cartels is a
significant problem for Mexico but it is a geopolitical problem with many facets at work at the same time. For the most part
Mexico has risen to the occasion and has demonstrated that far from being a failed state, it is in fact an economically growing
country in full control of its sovereignty. As much as the naysayers want it to be, the facts are that Mexico is not some backwards country on the
border holding the US back. Rather it is a country that the US should be proud to call a friend. Unfortunately, for people like George Friedman and those who
subscribe to his voodoo research the facts are just inconvenient things that should be ignored.

Cartels dont have ties with terrorist groups

Sullivan and Beittel 13 (Mark and June. Mark Sullivan is a Specialist in Latin American Affairs. June
Beittel is an Analyst in Latin American Affairs. Latin America: Terrorism Issues
http://fas.org/sgp/crs/terror/RS21049.pdf) 6/27/14 RK

Over the years, the

United States has been concerned about threats to Latin American and Caribbean nations from
various terrorist or insurgent groups that have attempted to influence or overthrow elected governments. Although Latin America
has not been the focal point in the war on terrorism, countries in the region have struggled with domestic terrorism for decades and
international terrorist groups have at times used the region as a battleground to advance their causes. The State Departments annual Country Reports on Terrorism
highlights U.S. concerns about terrorist threats around the world, including in Latin America. The 2011 report (issued in July 2012) maintained that terrorist attacks in
the Western Hemisphere rose by 40% from 2010 to 2011, with 343 attacks in 2010 and 480 attacks in 2011.1 The

majority of terrorist attacks in

the region were reported to be perpetrated by terrorist organizations in Colombia (the Revolutionary Armed
Forces of Colombia and the National Liberation Army) and by other radical leftist Andean groups, such as the Shining Path in Peru.
Overall, the report maintained that the threat of a transnational terrorist attack remained low for most countries in the
hemisphere. U.S. policymakers have expressed concerns over the past several years about Irans deepening relations with several

Latin American countries, especially Venezuela, and its activities in the region. These concerns were reflected once again in the 2011 terrorism report,
which cited a foiled plot in 2011 to assassinate the Saudi Ambassador to the United States in Washington, D.C. by an Iranian operative who thought he was working
with a member of a Mexican drug trafficking organization (but was actually a U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration informant). The terrorism report also cited U.S.
sanctions against several Venezuelan companies for violating U.S. sanctions against Iran. One

of the main concerns about Irans increasing

relations with the region is its ties to Hezbollah, the radical Lebanon-based Islamic group that the Department of State designated a Foreign
Terrorist Organization in 1997. While the State Department asserted in its 2011 terrorism report that there were no known
operational cells of either Hezbollah or Al Qaeda or in the hemisphere, it noted that ideological sympathizers in South America and
the Caribbean continued to provide financial and moral support to these and other terrorist groups in the Middle East and South Asia. The report also stated that there
were credible reports that Hezbollah sympathizers and supporters engaged in fundraising and support activity in Venezuela. There

has been significant

U.S. concern in recent years about the increasing and brutal violence of Mexicos drug trafficking organizations , with
as many as 65,000 drug trafficking-related deaths in Mexico from 2007 through 2012. In response to some concerns that these criminal organizations may be adopting
terrorist tactics, the State Department asserted in its 2010 and 2011 terrorism reports that there

is no evidence of ties between the Mexican

Drug Trafficking Organizations (DTOs) and terrorist groups. The State Department maintains that there is no evidence that
these criminal organizations have aims of political or territorial control, aside from seeking to protect and expand the impunity with
which they conduct their criminal activity. In terms of Latin American countries abilities to combat terrorism, the State
Department maintained in the terrorism report that regional governments took modest steps to improve their counterterrorism
capabilities and tighten border security but that progress was limited by corruption, weak government institutions, insufficient interagency cooperation,
weak or nonexistent legislation, and a lack of resources. The State Department lauded Mexico in its report, maintaining that regular exchange
of intelligence and information with Mexico was crucial in thwarting an Iranian plot in 2011 targeting the Saudi Ambassador to
the United States that involved attempting to enlist criminal elements from a Mexican drug trafficking organization. The State Department also cited the InterAmerican Committee Against Terrorism (CICTE) at the Organization of American States as important for U.S. cooperation on terrorism with the region.

Unipolarity doesnt create peace

Fettweis 10 Christopher Fettweis, Professor of Political Science at Tulane University, 2010, Dangerous Times?
The International Politics of Great Power Peace, p. 172-174
primary attack on restraint, or justification for internationalism, posits that if the United States were to withdraw from the world, a
variety of ills would sweep over key regions and eventually pose threats to U.S. security and/or prosperity. These problems might take three
The

forms (besides the obvious, if remarkably unlikely, direct threats to the homeland): generalized chaos, hostile imbalances in Eurasia, and/or failed states. Historian Arthur Schlesinger was typical

All of these concerns either implicitly or explicitly assume that the

presence of the United States is the primary reason for international stability, and if that presence were withdrawn chaos would ensue. In other
words, they depend upon hegemonic-stability logic. Simply stated, the hegemonic stability theory proposes that international peace is only possible when there
when he worried that restraint would mean "a chaotic, violent, and ever more dangerous planet."69

is one country strong enough to make and enforce a set of rules. At the height of Pax Romana between 27 BC and 180 AD, for example, Rome was able to bring unprecedented peace and security
to the Mediterranean. The Pax Britannica of the nineteenth century brought a level of stability to the high seas. Perhaps the current era is peaceful because the United States has established a de
facto Pax Americana where no power is strong enough to challenge its dominance, and because it has established a set of rules that are generally in the interests of all countries to follow. Without
a benevolent hegemon, some strategists fear, instability may break out around the globe.70 Unchecked conflicts could cause humanitarian disaster and, in today's interconnected world, economic
turmoil that would ripple throughout global financial markets. If the United States were to abandon its commitments abroad, argued Art, the world would "become a more dangerous place" and,
sooner or later, that would "redound to Americas detriment."71 If the massive spending that the United States engages in actually provides stability in the international political and economic

There are good theoretical and empirical reasons, however, to believe that U.S
hegemony is not the primary cause of the current era of stability. First of all, the hegemonic-stability argument
overstates the role that the United States plays in the system. No country is strong enough to police the world on its
own. The only way there can be stability in the community of great powers is if self-policing occurs, if states have
decided that their interests are served by peace. If no pacific normative shift had occurred among the great powers that was filtering down
through the system, then no amount of international constabulary work by the United States could maintain stability. Likewise, if it is true that such a
shift has occurred, then most of what the hegemon spends to bring stability would be wasted. The 5 percent of the worlds population that live in the
United States simply could not force peace upon an unwilling 95. At the risk of beating the metaphor to death, the United States maybe
patrolling a neighborhood that has already rid itself of crime. Stability and unipolarity may be simply coincidental.
In order for U.S. hegemony to be the reason for global stability, the rest of the world would have to expect reward for good behavior and fear punishment for bad. Since the end of
the Cold War, the United States has not always proven to be especially eager to engage in humanitarian interventions
abroad. Even rather incontrovertible evidence of genocide has not been sufficient to inspire action. Hegemonic stability can only take credit for influencing those decisions that would have
systems, then perhaps internationalism is worthwhile.

ended in war without the presence, whether physical or psychological, of the United States. Ethiopia and Eritrea are hardly the only states that could go to war without the slightest threat of U.S.

most of the world today is free to fight without U.S. involvement, something else must be at work.
Stability exists in many places where no hegemony is present. Second, the limited empirical evidence we have suggests that
there is little connection between the relative level of U.S. activism and international stability. During the 1990s the United
intervention. Since

States cut back on its defense spending fairly substantially. By 1998 the United States was spending $100 billion
less on defense in real terms than it had in I990.72 To internationalists, defense hawks, and other believers in hegemonic stability, this
irresponsible "peace dividend" endangered both national and global security. "No serious analyst of American military capabilities," argued Kristol and Kagan, "doubts that the
defense budget has been cut much too far to meet America's responsibilities to itself and to world peace."7' If the pacific trends were due not to U.S. hegemony but a strengthening norm against

The verdict from the past two decades is fairly plain:

The world grew more peaceful while the United States cut its forces. No state seemed to believe that its security was
endangered by a less-capable Pentagon, or at least none took any action that would suggest such a belief. No militaries
were enhanced to address power vacuums; no security dilemmas drove mistrust and arms races; no regional balancing
occurred once the stabilizing presence of the U.S. military was diminished. The rest of the world acted as if the threat of international war was
not a pressing concern, despite the reduction in U.S. capabilities. The incidence and magnitude of global conflict
declined while the United States cut its military spending under President Clinton, and it kept declining as the Bush Administration ramped spending back
up. No complex statistical analysis should be necessary to reach the conclusion that the two are unrelated. It is also worth
noting for our purposes that the United States was no less safe.
interstate war, however, one would not have expected an increase in global instability and violence.

Economy
State pensions up stock market expansion and tax revenue
Bloomberg, October 9, 2014
(State Pension funding showing strength, http://www.pionline.com/article/20141009/ONLINE/141009847/statepension-funding-showing-strength)
U.S. state pension funds are strengthening for the first time in six years as rising contributions and rallying stocks
ease a fiscal strain thats vexed municipal leaders since the recession. The median state pension system last year had 69.3% of the
assets needed to meet promised benefits, up from 68.7% in 2012, according to data compiled by Bloomberg. It was the first increase since the
start of the 18-month recession that ravaged retirement assets and led some officials to skip payments as tax revenue
sank. Buoyed as the Standard & Poors 500 index set record highs, the nations 100 largest public pension funds earned about $448
billion in 2013, the most in at least five years, U.S. Census data show. At the same time, governments added a record $95
billion to their pension funds as they socked away rebounding tax revenue toward obligations to retirees.

State pensions have already hit lowest point wont fall any further and will improve
rapidly

Chappatta, Oct 9, 2014

The stabilization in pension-funding gaps marks an encouraging sign for states and municipalities, potentially
providing officials with more breathing room to allocate budgetary resources toward services and infrastructure as
well as retiree benefits. They had less leeway in the aftermath of the financial crisis, when local governments shortchanged pension
contributions by the most in at least a decade, exacerbating the level of underfunding, according to data from the Center for Retirement Research at
Boston College. The

Bloomberg data for 2013, the latest available, underscore the findings in a June report from S&P

that said funding levels have likely bottomed out and are poised to improve along with climbing stocks.

Tax revenue is a joke not material

Flynn, Bond Buyer Economic Correspondent, 14
(Hillary, States' Ratings Won't Get High Off Pot, accessed 8-13-14, http://www.bondbuyer.com/news/marketsnews/states-ratings-wont-get-high-off-pot-1065210-1.html, hec)
Marijuana legalization has failed to live up to the hype in terms of its impact on state economies, according to the three major
rating agencies. "We do not anticipate an impact [from revenues from taxes on legalized marijuana] on the states' rating," Andrea Unsworth, an analyst at Moody's Investors Service who has

rating agencies have all said the

impact of projected marijuana revenues on Colorado and Washington, the two states that legalized marijuana this year, will be minimal.
Laura Porter, the lead analyst on Washington at Fitch Ratings doesn't even consider the tax revenues in Washington because
they are "not material enough for the state to be a rating factor," a Fitch spokeswoman wrote in an email. Standard & Poor's said the revenues aren't mentioned in its reports,
a spokesman at S&P wrote in an email. The revenue impact to date contrasts a 2012 report by Washington's Office of Financial Management that
written about marijuana legalization's impact on Colorado and Washington's state economies, wrote in an email to The Bond Buyer. The

estimated revenues from taxes on legalized marijuana could reach up to $1.9 billion over five years, averaging
nearly $400 million annually -- almost eight times the current projections for the first two years of legalization in that state. The Cato Institute estimated in a
September 2010 report that if the federal government legalized marijuana it would save roughly $8.7 billion per year from government
expenditures on enforcement of prohibition. Thomas Doe, the founder and CEO of Municipal Market Advisors, told Fortune in January that legalization would be a "real positive for states that
are struggling right now'', and said it would create "significant" revenue to help fund infrastructure gaps and pension obligations. "[Standard & Poor's] factors in gains from marijuana sales in

the revenues from taxes on legalized marijuana

do not contribute that much to the state's general fund. Unsworth wrote in an April report on legalized marijuana in Colorado that "Projected
tax revenues would constitute a small percentage (1.4%) of the state's available general fund dollars". This is even after the
governor of Colorado's office increased its projected revenue estimates in February, revising its projection for first-year marijuana sales and excise
tax revenues up by 40% to $98 million from $70 million, according to an April report by Unsworth. Revenue estimates for fiscal 2015 total $134 million. Marijuana legalization's
fiscal impact on Washington is even more inconsequential. In June the state estimated that from 2015 to 2017 total revenues from fees and taxes
looking at revenue, but does not specifically break it out at this time," the spokesman wrote. This is because

would total $51.2 million, and $138.5 million from 2017 to 2019, according to a July report by Unsworth. This is less than 3% of the state's total budgeted revenues. "The marijuana excise and

These revenues will

likely remain a small fraction of overall state and local funds, even if revenues increase beyond the initial
estimates."
sales tax revenues were not factored into the budgets for either of the states, and are not included in the state budgets until 2015," Unsworth wrote in the email. "

Tax evasion undermines revenue- gains are hard to discern

Evans, Drug Free Projects Coalition Executive Director, 13
(David, The Economic Impacts Of Marijuana Legalization, accessed 6-8-14,
http://www.globaldrugpolicy.org/Issues/Vol%207%20Issue%204/The%20Economic%20Impacts%20of
%20Marijuana%20Legalization%20final%20for%20journal.pdf, hec)
Although marijuana advocates claim that marijuana taxation, licensing, and industry could generate more than $8.7 billion
in government revenue, (6) the value of gains cannot be gauged at this time because revenues from licensing and industry vary by state (7).
Additionally, tax revenue projections are inherently uncertain because they rely on questionable assumptions about the
unknown impact of black market supply on consumer demand in regulated markets. Tax expert and attorney Pat
Oglesby conducted an analysis of existing marijuana tax proposals (8). Oglesby claims that Washington States legalization proposal
(Initiative 502), which includes restrictions on advertising and drugged driving and has three distinct excise taxes, could generate approximately $500 million in state
revenue (9). Oglesby also acknowledges the possibility that Colorados taxation scheme could generate between $47 million and $100 million in revenue, (10) but
he concludes

the projections are completely unreliable because the states regulatory framework is fundamentally
flawed (11). Finally, he finds Oregons plan (Measure 80) created a conflict of interest because medical marijuana is sold privately at cost but under the
legalization plan marijuana would be sold at a controlled cost, though he admits money can be made under a state-controlled marijuana monopoly (12). Voters in
Oregon rejected the plan. Finally, Oglesby

notes that the economic impact of legalization depends on various other factors that
the possible emergence of new jobs, the likelihood of tax evasion, and
legalizations probable impact on alcohol consumption (13).
cannot be assessed at this time, including

Tax revenue doesnt account for social costs

Evans, Drug Free Projects Coalition Executive Director, 13
(David, The Economic Impacts Of Marijuana Legalization, accessed 6-8-14,
http://www.globaldrugpolicy.org/Issues/Vol%207%20Issue%204/The%20Economic%20Impacts%20of
%20Marijuana%20Legalization%20final%20for%20journal.pdf, hec)
Substantial Implementation Costs Marijuana is unique from tobacco and alcohol as well as other drugs in that it can be grown with minimal effort and is presently
illegal. There

are costs associated with changing its legal status and then regulating it. The problem is that these costs
cannot be priced into the market through taxation and licensing schemes. Although Colorado recently legalized
marijuana and is currently spending money to regulate it, little tax revenue has been earned. In fact, according to a recent report on the condition
of Colorados medical marijuana industry, [in 2012] the State of Colorado collected $5.4 million in sales tax on medical marijuana purchases . . . . [and] experienced

a $5.7 million budget shortfall because of medical marijuana regulation. (84) However, nobody has any real idea about revenue (85). Similarly ,

there will be
costs related to implementing education and prevention programs to mitigate the increase in substance abuse
and dependence. Government agencies involved in healthcare, social services, and law enforcement would incur
the immediate brunt of economic costs in addressing the spike in medical complaints, accidental injuries, and
crime. These are additional infrastructure costs. Aggregate Burden Outweighs Benefit Legalization will not only have devastating consequences
for health, crime, and productivity, it is a waste of taxpayer dollars that could much more wisely be spent on more effective
deficit-reducing measures. Likewise, if the public buys marijuana, this diverts funds from the national economy
that are available for more productive purposes like education, research, and prevention. Even if tobacco use has so far been
shown to cause more health harms than marijuana it does not follow that legalization is a justifiable policy shift in light of its harms. Tobacco causes more
harm because more people use it. If marijuana is legalized that situation may change, especially if a large
marijuana industry arises as it did with tobacco. The scholarly opinion and historical evidence are clear that if drugs are legalized, then the
rates of drug use and addiction will climb. This will lead to misery, more deaths, social disorder and massive spending (86).

No impact- their evidence isnt reverse causal- economic decline doesnt lead to war
prefer new data
Drezner 14
(Daniel, IR prof at Tufts, The System Worked: Global Economic Governance during the Great Recession, World Politics, Volume 66. Number 1,
January 2014, pp. 123-164)

The final significant outcome addresses a dog that hasn't barked: the effect of the Great Recession on cross-border
conflict and violence. During the initial stages of the crisis, multiple analysts asserted that the financial crisis would
lead states to increase their use of force as a tool for staying in power.42 They voiced genuine concern that the
global economic downturn would lead to an increase in conflictwhether through greater internal repression,
diversionary wars, arms races, or a ratcheting up of great power conflict. Violence in the Middle East, border
disputes in the South China Sea, and even the disruptions of the Occupy movement fueled impressions of a surge in
global public disorder. The aggregate data suggest otherwise, however. The Institute for Economics and Peace has
concluded that "the average level of peacefulness in 2012 is approximately the same as it was in 2007."43 Interstate
violence in particular has declined since the start of the financial crisis, as have military expenditures in most
sampled countries. Other studies confirm that the Great Recession has not triggered any increase in violent conflict,
as Lotta Themner and Peter Wallensteen conclude: "[T]he pattern is one of relative stability when we consider the
trend for the past five years."44 The secular decline in violence that started with the end of the Cold War has not
been reversed. Rogers Brubaker observes that "the crisis has not to date generated the surge in protectionist
nationalism or ethnic exclusion that might have been expected."43

2NC

Treaties
Turns casecant create effective international drug policy
Collins 11 (John Collins is a PhD candidate in the Department of International History at the London School of
Economics, De-emphasising the Single Convention - The Lessons of Drug Control History, 10/11/11
http://www.globalpolicyjournal.com/blog/11/10/2011/de-emphasising-single-convention-lessons-drug-controlhistory date accessed: 9/28/14) TM
By misreading the Single Convention as sui generis, and a direct product of US
drug control imperialism, reform advocates risk overlooking many of the historical forces that helped create - and
continue to underpin - the system. For example, some regime critics are drawn to a repealist narrative - one that suggests that
the path to change is through a retraction of the Single Convention . The problem with such a conception is that it is likely to
lead down the path of most resistance. The Single Convention was the product of an extremely complex interplay of
forces: geopolitical, economic, cultural, diplomatic and personal. It would be impossible now to reach a consensus at the international level
on the future shape of the control system outside of the Single Convention . The realisation of this fact helps explain the almost paranoid
defensive crouch that has long characterised the regime and its bureaucrats. The transnational bureaucracies and layers of civil society that underpin the system are over a century old. The
regime has survived two world wars and the geopolitical tides of the twentieth century. In the pantheon of
international cooperation it certainly qualifies as one of the great survivors. The odds that it will simply pack-up shop or
cede control of the issue to a new epistemic community are very poor . Understanding the broader historical forces,
rather than focusing intently on their manifestation through treaty documents like the Single Convention, is therefore important for critics. Meaningful change will
be most likely to occur when the regime internalises an understanding of its own failures and its bureaucrats begin to see their own
futures as dependent on moving away from the failed norms and policies of the past. Such a change will not happen in a revolutionary manner . Instead it
will be evolutionary and incremental. To expect anything more is to underestimate the forces of bureaucratic inertia as well as the byzantine
These observations have practical as well as analytic significance.

structures of international politics. The means to effect such an outcome is beyond the scope of this article. Nevertheless, for the social entrepreneurs and international networks working to effect
change, a strong understanding of ones opponents is always a useful tool. Historical lessons can have some pretty practical uses in this regard.

AT: Non Unique

International drug regime is at a tipping point
Bewley-Taylor 12 (Dave Bewley Taylo-- Senior Lecturer, Department of Political and Cultural Studies,
College of Arts and Humanities, Swansea University, UK, "Towards revision of the UN drug control conventions",
Transnational Institute Series on Legislative Reform of Drug Policies, Transnational Institute, date accessed:
9/27/14) TM
Since this stance runs counter to the rigid interpretative positions held by some parts of the UN drug control apparatus, and many other States
Parties, tensions within the international treaty system , or what has usefully been called the global drug prohibition regime,3

are currently pronounced. Witness, for example, the critical statements and positions of the International
Narcotics Control Board (INCB or Board), the independent and quasi-judicial control organ for the implementation of the treaties. 4
What can be called soft defecting states, those choosing to deviate from the prohibitive ethos of the conventions
whilst remaining within what they deem to be the confines of their treaty commitments,5 are regularly
criticized by the Board for engagement, in some cases at a subnational level, with a range of tolerant policy approaches. Prominent
among these are harm reduction interventions aiming to reduce the link between injecting drug use and HIV/AIDS (particularly drug
consumption rooms/safe injection facilities), medical marijuana schemes and the decriminalization of drug
possession for personal use.6 Despite the positions of the Board, the detailed and robust legal justifications put forward
by many states demonstrate that the policy choices are defensible within the boundaries of the existing treaty
framework. Moreover, they are further justified, and in some cases required, by national constitutional guarantees
and concurrent obligations in international law. That national constitutional principles should operate as the locus for
determining the appropriateness of certain policies (such as the criminalisation of personal possession of illicit substances) is specifically written
into the drug control conventions.7 Although revealing their considerable flexibility, the process of soft defection also inevitably

highlights the limited plasticity of the conventions they can only bend so far .8 The very act of justifying the legality of
various policy options relative to the treaty framework emphasises an inescapable fact. Should they wish to do so, states already pushing
at the limits of the regime would only be able to expand further national policy space , particularly in relation to
production and supply, via an alteration in their relationship to the conventions and the prohibitive norm at the
regimes core. Within such a context, growing and much needed attention is being devoted to the legal technicalities of treaty revision.

US reengaging in international treaties now

Moss, member of the UNA-USAs Task Force on Human Rights, 10,
(Lawrence C., counselor at Human Rights Watch, Renewing Americas Commitment to
International Law, 2010, United Nations Association of The United States of America,
http://www.academia.edu/2593461/Renewing_Americas_Commitment_to_International_Law, accessed 9-1714) PM

In their presidential campaigns, President Obama and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton both pledged
to seek ratification of certain key treaties, and Administration officials have
broadly signaled intent to address the great divide between the US and other
nations on some key issues. The Administration has reengaged vigorously with
UN climate change negotiations, although it will have great difficulty delivering the domestic policy
changes that are needed to participate in a new binding international agreement. Congress fulfilled the
Administrations request to pay nearly $1 billion in dues that are owed to the UN under the
provisions of the UN Charter. Secretary Clinton has declared that the US supports the
International Criminal Court, and that advancing Roosevelts third freedom the freedom from want
must be central to our foreign policy. Addressing the UN Human Rights Council, Assistant Secretary Esther
Brimmer affirmed the full range of human rights under the Universal Declaration,
declaring that we cannot pick and choose which of these rights we embrace nor select who among us are entitled to
them. Indeed, an administration committed to universal health care and addressing poverty and inequality should

readily embrace the established international norms that lend support to these domestic goals. The Obama
Administration has already taken concrete steps toward the acceptance of new
treaty obligations. The US signed the Convention on the Rights of Persons With
Disabilities and has promised to review its former opposition to the landmines
convention. In May 2009, the Administration formally asked the Senate to ratify 17
treaties, including the nuclear test ban treaty (CTBT), the womens rights convention (CEDAW) and the
UN Convention on the Law of the Sea. The White House specifically listed 12 that it was not seeking Senate
action on, however, including the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR), the
American Convention on Human Rights, Protocol II to the Geneva Conventions, the Vienna Convention on the Law
of Treaties, the Convention on Biological Diversity and three ILO conventions. The many others not listed at all
include the childrens rights convention (CRC), the International Criminal Court statute, the migrant workers
convention (ICRMW), protocols to the core human rights treaties and the conventions on enforced disappearances,
landmines and cluster munitions. Moreover, the Administration has not called on the Senate to avoid attaching
reservations, understandings and declarations that nullify the intent of treaties and bar their domestic
implementation. Supporting the Administrations initial request for treaty ratifications and building the consensus
needed to ratify many other key outstanding treaties will require a sustained effort. Repudiation of the violations of
the Geneva Conventions and the Convention Against Torture in the treatment of alleged terrorist detainees is a vital
first step in rebuilding US credibility on human rights and international law. From this starting point, Americans
need to look at just how deeply estranged we have become from a broad range of widely accepted international
norms, an estrangement that has gone on for many years through many Administrations.

A2 Link turn
Plan shakes faith in international treatiescauses treaty violations
Haase 14 (Heather J. Haase the Chair, New York City Bar Association Committee on Drugs & the Law Special
Subcommittee on International Drug Law & Policy The 2016 Drugs UNGASS: What does it mean for drug
reform?,2014 http://drogasenmovimiento.files.wordpress.com/2014/01/13-10-14-the-2016-drugs-ungasse28093what-does-it-mean-for-drug-reform_.pdf date accessed: 9/26/14) TM
But why? With all of the progress made in reform around the world lately, many especially in the US are asking if the
UN is even relevant to domestic drug reform at this point. With the recent marijuana laws passed in Colorado and Washington and the
proposed legislation in Uruguay not to mention decriminalization measures enacted in Portugal and a growing number of other countries reform seems
inevitable. At some point, the argument goes, the UN system will simply be overtaken by real world reform on
the ground. Why even bother with advocacy at the UN? This is not an easy question to answer; however, I truly believe that to be effective, reform
efforts must be made at every level locally, nationally, and globally. It may be true that reform efforts in the US and around the
world have made significant progress in the last 10 years. But there is still a long way to go marijuana is still not completely legal anywhere in the world (despite
state laws to the contrary, marijuana still remains illegal under federal law throughout the US), and many human rights abuses continue to be carried out against drug
users throughout the world in the name of drug control. Meanwhile,

the international drug control treaties the 1961 Single

Convention on Narcotic Drugs and its progeny remain in place and, in fact, enjoy nearly universal adherence by 184
member states. That so many countries comply at least technically, if not in spirit with the international drug treaty system, shows just how highly the
international community regards the system. As well it should the UN system is invaluable and even vital in many
areas, including climate change, HIV/AIDS reduction, and, most recently, the Syrian chemical weapons crisis (and dont forget
that the international drug treaty system also governs the flow of licit medication). While it is not unheard of for a country to disregard a treaty , a system in
which countries pick and choose which treaty provisions suit them and ignore the rest is, shall we say, less than ideal. But
beyond the idea of simple respect for international law, there are practical aspects of reform to consider. The drug problem is a
global one, involving not only consuming countries but producing and transit countries as well. Without global cooperation, any changes will
at best be limited (marijuana reform in Washington and Colorado hardly affects the issue of human rights abuses in Singapore or the limitations on harm
reduction measures in Russia). At worst, reform efforts enacted ad hoc around the world could be contradictory and
incompatible - as might be the result if, for example, Colombia and the US opted for a regulated market without the
cooperation of Costa Rica or Honduras, both transit countries. Finally, no matter what you think about the treaties and the UN drug
control system, or how significant you believe them to be in the grand scheme of things, they are here for the time being, and are necessary to
any discussion about drug reform.

Tix

o/v

Turn econ Obama will pick Perez to ensure lame duck confirmation its the least
controversial choice
Gerstein, Politico, 14
(Josh, Speculation narrows on Eric Holder replacement, 10-1-14, http://www.politico.com/story/2014/10/ericholder-replacement-111522.html, accessed 10-22-14) PM
The conventional wisdom is that anyone whos been confirmed before would be easier to get confirmed again. Perez
has been confirmed twice, which would seem to be to his advantage his Labor nomination ran into trouble, in part because it got sucked
into a larger political fight over confirmations. While Perez did face sharp questions about his behind-the-scenes efforts to head off a Supreme Court
ruling that could have undermined traditional civil rights cases, hes already been vetted, and already been through the process, which
could have an appeal for a White House looking to move quickly.

Early announcement would be DIFFERENT Obama perceives the tight window of

the lame duck
Holland, Reuters, 10-14-14
(Steve, Obama to nominate new attorney general after November 4 elections, 10-14-14,
http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/10/14/us-usa-politics-obama-idUSKCN0I31ZL20141014, accessed 10-18-14)
PM
President Barack Obama

will wait until after Nov. 4 congressional elections to nominate a new U.S. attorney general, a White
decision to delay allows Obama more time to pick a replacement for Attorney General Eric Holder
and means the new nominee will not get mired in election-year politics in the final weeks of the congressional election campaign. A
delay in the announcement had been sought by some Senate Democrats who wanted to avoid a fresh controversy ahead of the elections. Obama is
considering a number of people with legal experience for the position, including former White House counsel Kathy Ruemmler, Labor
Secretary Tom Perez and U.S. Solicitor General Don Verrilli. One factor Obama may consider in picking a new attorney general is
whether the nominee can get confirmed during the forthcoming "lame duck" session of Congress, the period after the elections and
House official said on Tuesday. The

before the new Congress takes over in January.

Keeping Perez at DOL is key to the White House economic agenda- including
raising the minimum wage.
LUCY MCCALMONT, 10/23/14
Tom Perez slams Chris Christie on minimum wage, Politico, http://www.politico.com/story/2014/10/tom-perezchris-christie-minimum-wage-112142.html#ixzz3H7q2SYD4
Perez hasnt had much of a public profile and isnt known for being a major presence one-on-one, hes the kind of guy who acknowledges how
boring a topic upskilling is, then launches into a deeply detailed discussion of the Labor Departments upskilling programs. But behind a microphone, he gets fiery
impressing even usually dismissive White

House aides whove come to trust him to carry the administrations message on his
own, and even give him the rare speaking slot ahead of the president when they travel together. Already, the White Houses domestic agenda,
and most of whats in President Barack Obamas midterm stump speech, is almost entirely the Department of Labor
agenda hes been putting together. Name the topic: minimum wage, job training, community college, student loans, the Working
Families Summit, every executive order about government contractors (for the minimum wage, equal pay, LGBT non-discrimination
protections, fair labor practices), even the Latino side of My Brothers Keeper.

Wage increases boost the economy

Covert 2/18 What Really Happens When You Raise The Minimum Wage, BRYCE COVERT, FEBRUARY 18,
2014, http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2014/02/18/3303201/cbo-minimum-wage/#
But businesses may respond to a higher minimum wage in other ways. In

a paper for the Center for Economic and Policy Research,

John Schmitt argues that they can benefit from improved efficiency and lower turnover. A higher wage may
lead employers to push employees to work harder, which can be preferable to cutting hours or workers. In
fact, the majority of fast food restaurants in Georgia and Alabama said they would respond to a minimum
wage increase with higher performance standards. A higher wage can also make it easier to recruit and
retain workers, which can improve the bottom line. Dealing with turnover can be costly: replacing someone can cost as much as 20 percent
of her salary. Other studies have found that while some job losses may occur, there can still be an economic
net gain thanks to the fact that so many workers will have more money to spend . A $10.10 minimum wage
would mean a direct raise for 16.7 million workers, according to the Economic Policy Institute, who would
then have more money in their pockets to spend on goods and services, boosting the economy. It also found that
a gradual increase to $10.10 by 2016 would in crease wages by $35 billion, which would boost GDP growth
by about $22 billion. The Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago found that even when potential job losses are
taken into account, an increase in the minimum wage to $9, as President Obama proposed in his 2013 State of the Union, would
increase household spending by $28 billion, or 0.2 percent of GDP. That extra spending stimulates the economy,
which can lead to more job growth. There is also real world evidence that minimum wage increases dont
hurt jobs. David Madland and Keith Miller analyzed minimum wage increases at the state level over two
decades and found no clear evidence that the minimum-wage increases affect aggregate job creation
when unemployment rates are high. After looking at the increases during times 7 percent unemployment or more, the rate actually declined 52
percent of the time and in a few cases remained unchanged. The authors also point to five other studies that did the same statelevel analysis while controlling for other factors that could impact employment and similarly found no
discernable effect on employment levels.

A2 ISIS
ISIS will use nuclear or chemical weapons- has the money, motive, and means
JOSEPH CIRINCIONE, Sept 30, 2014
(president of Ploughshares Fund, a global security foundation) ISIS will be in position to get nuclear
weapons if allowed to consolidate power, resources, says expert, New York Daily News,
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/world/isis-nukes-allowed-consolidate-expert-article-1.1958855
The risk of a terrorist attack using nuclear or chemical weapons has just gone up. ISIS is willing to kill large
numbers of innocents, and it has added three capabilities that catapult the threat beyond anything seen before:
control of large, urban territories, huge amounts of cash, and a global network of recruits. British Home Secretary
Theresa May warned that if ISIS consolidates its control over the land it occupies, We will see the worlds first
truly terrorist state with the space to plot attacks against us. Its seizure of banks and oil fields gave it more than
$2 billion in assets. If ISIS could make the right connection to corrupt officials in Russia or Pakistan, the group
might be able to buy enough highly enriched uranium (about 50 pounds) and the technical help to build a crude
nuclear device. Militants recruited from Europe or America could help smuggle it into their home nations. Or ISIS
could try to build a dirty bomb, conventional explosives like dynamite laced with highly radioactive materials.
The blast would not kill many directly, but it would force the evacuation of tens of square blocks contaminated with
radioactive particles. The terror and economic consequences of a bomb detonated in the financial districts of London
or New York would be enormous. ISIS could also try to get chemical weapons, such as deadly nerve gases or
mustard gas. Fortunately, the most likely source of these terror weapons was just eliminated.

ISIS is using chemical weapons in terror attacks

Alessandria Masi, October 23, 2014
(reporter) ISIS Militants Have Chemical Weapons, Allegedly Used Chlorine Gas In Attack On Iraqi Forces: Report,
International Business Times, http://www.ibtimes.com/isis-militants-have-chemical-weapons-allegedly-usedchlorine-gas-attack-iraqi-forces-1711856
The Islamic State group is in possession of chlorine and used it in at least one attack on Iraqi security forces last
month, according to the Washington Post. An Iraqi Defense Ministry supported the report, making it the first
documented instance of chemical weapons use by the militant group. However, it is by no means the first accusation
that ISIS militants used chlorine gas in attacks in both Iraq and Syria. When ISIS seized large portions of Iraq and
Syria, it became a growing concern that militants could obtain chemical weapons; Syria has known chemical
weapons, and Iraq may have some left over from the Saddam Hussein regime. Earlier this summer, ISIS seized a
city in Iraq housing a former chemical weapon production plant that contained nerve gas. ISIS obtained chlorine for
this particular attack from Iraqi water treatment plants in territory the militants now control. They use it just to
create terror, an Iraqi official told the Washington Post. But of course we are very concerned.

A2 FS K
ISIS threat is high- homegrown attacks and open Canadian border
CBS News, October 23, 2014
Former CIA Official: I Am Now More Worried About Terrorist Threat In US Than I Have Been For A Long, Long
Time, http://washington.cbslocal.com/2014/10/23/former-cia-official-i-am-now-more-worried-about-terroristthreat-in-us-than-i-have-been-for-a-long-long-time/

A former CIA official is concerned about the possibility of a terrorist attack in the United States
following the deadly shooting at the Canadian Parliament building on Wednesday. CBS News senior
security contributor Mike Morell, the former deputy director of the CIA, explained to CBS This
Morning Thursday that the U.S. is in a very dangerous time here due to several terror threats
overseas. I am now more worried about a terrorist threat in the United States than I have been for a
long, long time, Morell told CBS News. We have the self-radicalization problem ourselves. Weve
got the possibility that ISIS might send fighters here to conduct attacks. We still have al-Qaeda in
Pakistan, al-Qaeda in Yemen and the Khorasan group planning attacks. And we have the fact that
what Edward Snowden did has made it much more difficult for law enforcement and intelligence to
track these guys, so we are at, I think, a very dangerous time here. Morell stated that he was
worried about those radicalized in Canada easily crossing the border into the U.S. Im much more
concerned about the Canada border than I am the Mexican border because its much easier to come
across the border, Morell said. To stop somebody who has been radicalized in Canada from
coming across that border requires that you know about them, that the Canadians know about them
and tell us, and that they try to cross that border illegally. Theres many, many ways to cross that
border illegally, so I worry about that.

Cartels

Ext- Institutions
The aff gets it backwards Institutional problems are what leads to violence like
cartels Extend Hope 14 The Mexican government has an inefficient criminal
justice system and a history of corruption Legalization wont do anything except
lead to another criminal action to take hold
Our evidence is comparative- institutional problems outweigh drugs
Humphreys 14 (Keith. 2/6. Keith Humphreys is a professor of psychiatry and behavioral medicine at the
Stanford University School of Medicine. http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/ten-milessquare/2014/02/us_marijuana_legalization_and048938.php) 6/3/14 RK
Alejandro estimates that national

U.S. marijuana legalization would deprive the Mexican drug trafficking

organizations of 1.5 to 2 billion dollars in revenue, but he is not confident that this would result in any
reduction in violence or crime more generally. He sees the basic drivers of lawlessness in Mexico as more
fundamental: In the final analysis, Mexico doesnt have a drug problem, much less a marijuana problem: It has a
state capacity problem. That is, its institutions are too weak to protect the life, liberty and property of its
citizens. Even if drug trafficking might very well decline in the future, in the absence of stronger institutions, something
equally nefarious will replace it. I broadly agree with Alejandros analysis, and would add one other point: recent historical experience
also does not support the idea that reduced drug trafficking revenues will pacify the Mexican cartels. U.S. cocaine
consumption has fallen dramatically since 2006 and cocaine is a far more lucrative drug for the Mexican cartels than is
marijuana. Yet the period in which the U.S. cocaine consumption decline was hitting the cartels in the pocketbook
coincided with the great surge of cartel-related violence in Mexico. These realities force honest analysts to return
to the basic principle that there is no inherent connection between illegal markets and violence. Whether those
who engage in transactional crimes are also violent and/or directly challenge the state varies based on the context, time
and place. Irrespective of what happens regarding marijuana markets, the state capacity question that Alejandro raises
will be central to the future security of the Mexican people.

Ext- Not Cartels

Mexico isnt close to state failure- assumes drug organization control
Friedman 10 (George. 4/6. George Friedman is the Chairman of Stratfor, a company he founded in 1996 that is
now a leader in the field of global intelligence. Friedman guides Stratfor's strategic vision and oversees the
development and training of the company's intelligence unit. Dr. Friedman is the author of The New York Times
best-seller The Next Decade, which forecasts the major events and challenges that will test America and its
presidents over the course of the next decade. Dr. Friedman's previous book, The Next 100 Years, was also a New
York Times best-seller and was published in over 20 languages. His other books on warfare and intelligence include
America's Secret War, The Future of War and The Intelligence Edge. Mexico and the Failed State Revisited
http://www.stratfor.com/weekly/20100405_mexico_and_failed_state_revisited) 6/5/14 RK

STRATFOR argued March 13, 2008, that Mexico was nearing the status of a failed state. A failed state is one in which the central
government has lost control over significant areas of the country and the state is unable to function. In revisiting this issue, it seems to us that the Mexican
government has lost control of the northern tier of Mexico to drug-smuggling organizations, which have significantly greater
power in that region than government forces. Moreover, the ability of the central government to assert its will against these
organizations has weakened to the point that decisions made by the state against the cartels are not being implemented or are being implemented in a way
that would guarantee failure. Despite these facts, it is not clear to STRATFOR that Mexico is becoming a failed state . Instead, it
appears the Mexican state has accommodated itself to the situation. Rather than failing, it has developed strategies
designed both to ride out the storm and to maximize the benefits of that storm for Mexico. First, while the Mexican
government has lost control over matters having to do with drugs and with the borderlands of the United States, Mexico City's
control over other regions -- and over areas other than drug enforcement -- has not collapsed (though its lack of control over
drugs could well extend to other areas eventually). Second, while drugs reshape Mexican institutions dramatically, they also, paradoxically,
stabilize Mexico. We need to examine these crosscurrents to understand the status of Mexico.

No terr i/l
Cartels dont have ties with terrorist groups
Sullivan and Beittel 13 (Mark and June. Mark Sullivan is a Specialist in Latin American Affairs. June
Beittel is an Analyst in Latin American Affairs. Latin America: Terrorism Issues
http://fas.org/sgp/crs/terror/RS21049.pdf) 6/27/14 RK

Over the years, the

United States has been concerned about threats to Latin American and Caribbean nations from
various terrorist or insurgent groups that have attempted to influence or overthrow elected governments. Although Latin America
has not been the focal point in the war on terrorism, countries in the region have struggled with domestic terrorism for decades and
international terrorist groups have at times used the region as a battleground to advance their causes. The State Departments annual Country Reports on Terrorism
highlights U.S. concerns about terrorist threats around the world, including in Latin America. The 2011 report (issued in July 2012) maintained that terrorist attacks in
the Western Hemisphere rose by 40% from 2010 to 2011, with 343 attacks in 2010 and 480 attacks in 2011.1 The

majority of terrorist attacks in

the region were reported to be perpetrated by terrorist organizations in Colombia (the Revolutionary Armed
Forces of Colombia and the National Liberation Army) and by other radical leftist Andean groups, such as the Shining Path in Peru.
Overall, the report maintained that the threat of a transnational terrorist attack remained low for most countries in the
hemisphere. U.S. policymakers have expressed concerns over the past several years about Irans deepening relations with several
Latin American countries, especially Venezuela, and its activities in the region. These concerns were reflected once again in the 2011 terrorism report,
which cited a foiled plot in 2011 to assassinate the Saudi Ambassador to the United States in Washington, D.C. by an Iranian operative who thought he was working
with a member of a Mexican drug trafficking organization (but was actually a U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration informant). The terrorism report also cited U.S.
sanctions against several Venezuelan companies for violating U.S. sanctions against Iran. One

of the main concerns about Irans increasing

relations with the region is its ties to Hezbollah, the radical Lebanon-based Islamic group that the Department of State designated a Foreign
Terrorist Organization in 1997. While the State Department asserted in its 2011 terrorism report that there were no known
operational cells of either Hezbollah or Al Qaeda or in the hemisphere, it noted that ideological sympathizers in South America and
the Caribbean continued to provide financial and moral support to these and other terrorist groups in the Middle East and South Asia. The report also stated that there
were credible reports that Hezbollah sympathizers and supporters engaged in fundraising and support activity in Venezuela. There

has been significant

U.S. concern in recent years about the increasing and brutal violence of Mexicos drug trafficking organizations , with
as many as 65,000 drug trafficking-related deaths in Mexico from 2007 through 2012. In response to some concerns that these criminal organizations may be adopting
terrorist tactics, the State Department asserted in its 2010 and 2011 terrorism reports that there

is no evidence of ties between the Mexican

Drug Trafficking Organizations (DTOs) and terrorist groups. The State Department maintains that there is no evidence that
these criminal organizations have aims of political or territorial control, aside from seeking to protect and expand the impunity with
which they conduct their criminal activity. In terms of Latin American countries abilities to combat terrorism, the State
Department maintained in the terrorism report that regional governments took modest steps to improve their counterterrorism
capabilities and tighten border security but that progress was limited by corruption, weak government institutions, insufficient interagency cooperation,
weak or nonexistent legislation, and a lack of resources. The State Department lauded Mexico in its report, maintaining that regular exchange
of intelligence and information with Mexico was crucial in thwarting an Iranian plot in 2011 targeting the Saudi Ambassador to
the United States that involved attempting to enlist criminal elements from a Mexican drug trafficking organization. The State Department also cited the InterAmerican Committee Against Terrorism (CICTE) at the Organization of American States as important for U.S. cooperation on terrorism with the region.

Pensions

Ext Improving
State pensions have already hit lowest point wont fall any further and will improve
rapidly

Chappatta, Oct 9, 2014

The stabilization in pension-funding gaps marks an encouraging sign for states and municipalities, potentially
providing officials with more breathing room to allocate budgetary resources toward services and infrastructure as
well as retiree benefits. They had less leeway in the aftermath of the financial crisis, when local governments shortchanged pension
contributions by the most in at least a decade, exacerbating the level of underfunding, according to data from the Center for Retirement Research at
Boston College. The

Bloomberg data for 2013, the latest available, underscore the findings in a June report from S&P

that said funding levels have likely bottomed out and are poised to improve along with climbing stocks.

No internal link
Tax revenue is a joke not material
Flynn, Bond Buyer Economic Correspondent, 14
(Hillary, States' Ratings Won't Get High Off Pot, accessed 8-13-14, http://www.bondbuyer.com/news/marketsnews/states-ratings-wont-get-high-off-pot-1065210-1.html, hec)
Marijuana legalization has failed to live up to the hype in terms of its impact on state economies, according to the three major
rating agencies. "We do not anticipate an impact [from revenues from taxes on legalized marijuana] on the states' rating," Andrea Unsworth, an analyst at Moody's Investors Service who has

rating agencies have all said the

impact of projected marijuana revenues on Colorado and Washington, the two states that legalized marijuana this year, will be minimal.
Laura Porter, the lead analyst on Washington at Fitch Ratings doesn't even consider the tax revenues in Washington because
they are "not material enough for the state to be a rating factor," a Fitch spokeswoman wrote in an email. Standard & Poor's said the revenues aren't mentioned in its reports,
a spokesman at S&P wrote in an email. The revenue impact to date contrasts a 2012 report by Washington's Office of Financial Management that
estimated revenues from taxes on legalized marijuana could reach up to $1.9 billion over five years, averaging
nearly $400 million annually -- almost eight times the current projections for the first two years of legalization in that state. The Cato Institute estimated in a
September 2010 report that if the federal government legalized marijuana it would save roughly $8.7 billion per year from government
written about marijuana legalization's impact on Colorado and Washington's state economies, wrote in an email to The Bond Buyer. The

expenditures on enforcement of prohibition. Thomas Doe, the founder and CEO of Municipal Market Advisors, told Fortune in January that legalization would be a "real positive for states that
are struggling right now'', and said it would create "significant" revenue to help fund infrastructure gaps and pension obligations. "[Standard & Poor's] factors in gains from marijuana sales in

the revenues from taxes on legalized marijuana

do not contribute that much to the state's general fund. Unsworth wrote in an April report on legalized marijuana in Colorado that "Projected
tax revenues would constitute a small percentage (1.4%) of the state's available general fund dollars". This is even after the
governor of Colorado's office increased its projected revenue estimates in February, revising its projection for first-year marijuana sales and excise
tax revenues up by 40% to $98 million from $70 million, according to an April report by Unsworth. Revenue estimates for fiscal 2015 total $134 million. Marijuana legalization's
fiscal impact on Washington is even more inconsequential. In June the state estimated that from 2015 to 2017 total revenues from fees and taxes
looking at revenue, but does not specifically break it out at this time," the spokesman wrote. This is because

would total $51.2 million, and $138.5 million from 2017 to 2019, according to a July report by Unsworth. This is less than 3% of the state's total budgeted revenues. "The marijuana excise and

These revenues will

likely remain a small fraction of overall state and local funds, even if revenues increase beyond the initial
estimates."
sales tax revenues were not factored into the budgets for either of the states, and are not included in the state budgets until 2015," Unsworth wrote in the email. "

Tax evasion undermines revenue- gains are hard to discern

Evans, Drug Free Projects Coalition Executive Director, 13
(David, The Economic Impacts Of Marijuana Legalization, accessed 6-8-14,
http://www.globaldrugpolicy.org/Issues/Vol%207%20Issue%204/The%20Economic%20Impacts%20of
%20Marijuana%20Legalization%20final%20for%20journal.pdf, hec)
Although marijuana advocates claim that marijuana taxation, licensing, and industry could generate more than $8.7 billion
in government revenue, (6) the value of gains cannot be gauged at this time because revenues from licensing and industry vary by state (7).
Additionally, tax revenue projections are inherently uncertain because they rely on questionable assumptions about the
unknown impact of black market supply on consumer demand in regulated markets. Tax expert and attorney Pat
Oglesby conducted an analysis of existing marijuana tax proposals (8). Oglesby claims that Washington States legalization proposal
(Initiative 502), which includes restrictions on advertising and drugged driving and has three distinct excise taxes, could generate approximately $500 million in state
revenue (9). Oglesby also acknowledges the possibility that Colorados taxation scheme could generate between $47 million and $100 million in revenue, (10) but
he concludes

the projections are completely unreliable because the states regulatory framework is fundamentally
flawed (11). Finally, he finds Oregons plan (Measure 80) created a conflict of interest because medical marijuana is sold privately at cost but under the
legalization plan marijuana would be sold at a controlled cost, though he admits money can be made under a state-controlled marijuana monopoly (12). Voters in
Oregon rejected the plan. Finally, Oglesby

notes that the economic impact of legalization depends on various other factors that
the possible emergence of new jobs, the likelihood of tax evasion, and
legalizations probable impact on alcohol consumption (13).
cannot be assessed at this time, including

Ext No impact

History proves
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 War II. But that simple
story leaves too much out. Nazi 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.

-- No timeframe
Russett 83 (Bruce, Dean Acheson Professor of International Relations and Political Science Yale
University, Prosperity and Peace: Presidential Address, International Studies Quarterly, 27(4), p. 384)

The optimism argument seems strained to me, but elements of Blaineys former thesis, about the need to mobilize
resources before war can be begun, are more plausible, especially in the 20th century. Modern wars are fought by
complex organizations, with complex and expensive weapons. It takes time to design and build the weapons that
military commanders will require, and it takes time to train the troops who must use them. Large bureaucracies must
plan and obtain some consensus on those plans; and even in a dictatorship the populace in general must be prepared,
with clear images of who are their enemies and of the cause that will justify war with them. In short, preparations for
war take time. Just how long a lag we should expect to find between an economic downturn and subsequent war
initiation is unclear. But surely it will be more than a year or two, and war may well occur only after the economy
is recovering.

1NR
Disease outweighs and causes war- causes government collapse- turns case
Brown and Chalk 3 Jennifer Brown, RAND S&T policy analyst, Ph.D. in public health from Harvard
University, Codirected the congressionally mandated Advisory Panel to Assess Domestic Response Capabilities for
Terrorism Involving WMD, and Peter, RAND senior political scientist, Ph.D. in political science from the
University of British Columbia, correspondent for Jane's Intelligence Review and associate editor of Studies in
Conflict and Terrorism, one of the foremost journals in the international security field, adjunct professor at the
Postgraduate Naval School in Monterey, California, and contractor for the Asia Pacific Center for Security Studies
in Honolulu, HI, and the United States Institute of Peace, "The Global Threat of New and Reemerging Infectious
Diseases; Reconciling U.S. National Security and Public Health Policy," 2003,
www.rand.org/pubs/monograph_reports/MR1602.html

The argument that the transnational spread of disease poses a threat to human security rests on the simple proposition that it seriously
threatens both the individual and the quality of life that a person is able to attain within a given society, polity or state. Specifically, this occurs in at least six ways.

First and most fundamental, disease killsfar surpassing war as a threat to human life. AIDS alone is expected to have killed
over 80 million people by the year 2011, while tuberculosis (TB), one of the viruss main opportunistic diseases, accounts for three million deaths every year,
including 100,000 children. 2 1 In general, a staggering 1,500 people die each hour from infectious ailments, the vast bulk of which are caused
by just six groups of disease: HIV/AIDS, malaria, measles, pneumonia, TB, and dysentery and other gastrointestinal disorders. 22 Second, if left unchecked,

disease can undermine public confidence in the states general custodian function, in the process eroding a
politys overall governing legitimacy as well as undermining the ability of the state itself to function. When
large-scale outbreaks occur, such effects can become particularly acute as the ranks of first responders and medical
personnel are decimated, making it doubly difficult for an already stressed government to respond adequately. During the
initial weeks of the anthrax attacks in fall 2001, the lack of coordination at the federal level, especially with regard to communication, led to a loss of confidence by
some citizens, especially postal workers in Washington, D.C. Potentially exposed individuals were given conflicting advice on antibiotic treatment and the efficacy of
the anthrax vaccine. The general public, largely because of inconsistent information enunciated by government officials, bought Cipro, the antibiotic approved for the
treatment of anthrax, in large numbers. Similarly, in 1996, Japan suffered a severe food poisoning epidemic caused by Escherichia coli O157. Over the course of two
months, eight people died and thousands of others were sickened. The perceived inability of the Tokyo government to enact an appropriate response generated
widespread public criticism, compounding popular dissatisfaction with an administration that was still reeling from the effects of the previous years Kobe earthquake.
As one commentator remarked at the height of the crisis, The cries against government authorities are growing louder by the day. . . . The impression here [in Japan]
is too much talk and not enough action has led to yet another situation that has spun out of control. 23 Third, disease

adversely affects the economic

foundation upon which both human and state security depends. The fiscal burden imposed by the HIV/AIDS epidemic
provides a case in point. Twenty-five million people are currently HIV-positive in subSaharan Africa, costing already impoverished governments billions of
dollars in direct economic costs and loss of productivity. Treating HIV-related illnesses in South Africa, the worst-hit country on the continent, is expected to generate
annual increases in healthcare costs in excess of US$500 million by 2009 (see Chapter Three). 2 4 South

and Southeast Asia are expected to

surpass Africa in terms of infections by the year 2010. If this in fact occurs, demographic upheaval could tax and widely
destabilize countries with fragile economies and public health infrastructures. Economies will be greatly affected by
the loss of a stable and productive workforce as well as from a reduction of external capital investment, potentially
reducing general gross domestic product (GDP) by as much as 20 percent. 25 Fourth, disease can have a profound, negative impact
on a states social order, functioning, and psyche. In Papua New Guinea, for instance, AIDS has severely distorted the wa n t o k systemwhich
formalizes reciprocal responsibilities, ensuring that those who hit hard times will be taken care of by extended familybecause of the fear and stigma attached to the
disease. 26 The Ebola outbreak that hit the crowded Ugandan district of Gulu in late 2000 caused people to completely withdraw from contact with the outside world,
reducing common societal interactions and functions to a bare minimum. 27 Epidemics may also lead to forms of post-traumatic stress. A number of analyses have
been undertaken to assess the long-term psychological effects on those who have been continually subjected to poor sanitary conditions and outbreaks of disease. The
studies consistently document the extreme emotional stress suffered by these people and the difficulty of integrating them back into normal society. 28 Fifth, the
spread of infectious

diseases can act as a catalyst for regional instability. Epidemics can severely undermine defense
force capabilities (just as they distort civilian worker productivity). By galvanizing mass cross-border population
flows and fostering economic problems, they can also help create the type of widespread volatility that can quickly
translate into heightened tension both within and between states. This combination of military, demographic, and fiscal effects has
already been created by the AIDS crisis in Africa. Indeed, the U.S. State Department increasingly speculates that the disease will
emerge as one of the most significant conflict starters and possibly even war outcome determinants during the next decade.

Disease causes government collapse- turns case

Brown and Chalk 3 Jennifer Brown, RAND S&T policy analyst, Ph.D. in public health from Harvard
University, Codirected the congressionally mandated Advisory Panel to Assess Domestic Response Capabilities for
Terrorism Involving WMD, and Peter, RAND senior political scientist, Ph.D. in political science from the
University of British Columbia, correspondent for Jane's Intelligence Review and associate editor of Studies in
Conflict and Terrorism, one of the foremost journals in the international security field, adjunct professor at the
Postgraduate Naval School in Monterey, California, and contractor for the Asia Pacific Center for Security Studies
in Honolulu, HI, and the United States Institute of Peace, "The Global Threat of New and Reemerging Infectious
Diseases; Reconciling U.S. National Security and Public Health Policy," 2003,
www.rand.org/pubs/monograph_reports/MR1602.html

This report has highlighted infectious disease as a serious risk both to the international system and to the United States.
The overall threat is being driven by globalization, inadvertent consequences stemming from modern medical and agricultural practices, behavioral changes,
environmental factors such as climatic change, and the growing danger of bioterrorism. The study specifically recognizes that microbial

challenges cannot
be territorially bounded and, therefore, need to be understood and dealt with in a larger global context. Further, the analysis delineates disease as a highly
pervasive influence that not only impinges on security in terms of traditional conceptions of state stability, but, more
insidiously, directly undermines and weakens the essential socioeconomic foundations upon which any effective
polity ultimately depends. The urgency of the infectious disease challenge currently confronting the global community cannot be ignored. People in
both the developed and the developing worlds are being exposed on a daily basis to new and reemerging pathogens,
a pattern that is continually exacerbated by factors as wide-ranging as globalization, the use and misuse of medical and
agricultural technological advances, unsustainable urbanization, environmental degradation, and changing social and
behavioral patterns. The impact of HIV/AIDS in South Africa exemplifies the extreme challenges that a country and its
citizens can face at all levels when a deadly disease afflicts a large portion of the populace. The behavior of both individuals
and the society as a wholesuch as the prevalence of unprotected sex, the poor treatment of women, and the lack of a proactive response by the governmenthas

its consequences, in terms of human life, confidence in government, political

stability, and world standing. The HIV/AIDS epidemic has, in fact, left South Africa unprepared to meet its external
military and, arguably, internal security obligations; incapable of fully meeting its economic potential; and ill-equipped
to provide for the most basic social and health needs of its citizens. The United States has a myriad of programs and processes for
exacerbated the spread of HIV as well as amplified

combating the threat of infectious disease, most of which rest in local and state hands. While the CDC provides a level of integration for these assets and federal
dollars have been set aside to help improve their effectiveness, overall national

coordination and management remain ad hoc and

disparate. Just as important, authority and resources vary widely across jurisdictions, at both the federal and the state and local levels. The result has been
an underfunded and poorly coordinated public health infrastructure that is currently serving to impede U.S. disease
surveillance, prevention, and response efforts.

Disease causes U.S. government failure

Greger 6 The Humane Society of the United States Director of Public Health and Animal Agriculture, 2006,- Dr.
Michael, graduate of the Cornell University School of Agriculture and the Tufts University School of Medicine, Bird
Flu, http://birdflubook.com/g.php?id=5

Business Weeks bird flu cover story, Hot Zone in the Heartland, featured Osterholm contrasting Katrina with the prospect

of a pandemic. The
difference between this and a hurricane is that all 50 states will be affected at the same time, said Osterholm. And this
crisis will last a year or more. It will utterly change the world.695 Even those sympathetic to the administration have
cast doubt on its abilities to manage the crisis. Colonel Lawrence Wilkerson, for example, Colin Powells
right-hand man at the State Department, recently said, If something comes along that is truly seriouslike a
major pandemic, you are going to see the ineptitude of this government in a way that will take you back to the
Declaration of Independence.696

Pandemic collapses the economy

Appleby 5 USA Today staff, 2005, Julie, "Economists say avian flu could have huge impact," USA Today, 10-75, lexis

A worldwide pandemic of bird flu could shut down travel, disrupt supply chains, overwhelm health care systems and
devastate economies globally, say some economists and health researchers. Their warnings drew new attention earlier this week after
President Bush said in a press conference that quarantines may be needed should an outbreak occur, and scientists reported on similarities between the deadly 1918
influenza strain and the current avian flu. Dollar

estimates of economic impacts are difficult to make but are in the tens of billions. An
economist at the C enters for D isease C ontrol and Prevention estimated in a 1999 article that a pandemic flu could cost the U.S. alone $71.3
billion to $165 billion. "Those economists that have looked at this have likened it to a catastrophic depression," says
Michael Osterholm, director of the Center for Infectious Disease Research and Policy at the University of Minnesota. Travel bans,
sick workers and panic could quickly shut down international trade. "We could well go into utter chaos worldwide
for over a year," says Osterholm, who has an article on the topic in the July/August issue of Foreign Affairs. Industries hardest hit could include airlines, travelrelated services, insurance firms and health care, says economist Sherry Cooper and global portfolio strategist Donald Coxe in an Aug.12 "Investor's Guide to Avian
Flu" report from BMO Nesbitt Burns Research. Soaring

death rates, they say, would end the housing boom and create a vast
oversupply. "Depending on its length and severity, its economic impact could be comparable to the Great Depression of the
1930s," they write. So far, the avian flu has not shown an ability to transmit between humans: All cases linked to the strain, which has killed 65 people in Asia, have
been transmitted from infected birds to humans. It is uncertain if it will mutate and become transmittable between humans. But if it does, scientists say, it would
quickly spread around the world and appears to be a particularly deadly strain of the virus.

Marijuana cuts with the bottom line of pharmaceutical companies

High Times, 2014,
("How Big Pharma Is Sandbagging Marijuana," 9-3, PAS) www.hightimes.com/read/how-big-pharma-sandbaggingmarijuana?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+HIGHTIMESMagazine+
%28HIGH+TIMES+Magazine%29 9-13-14

As more Americans express interest in the healing potential of medical marijuana, the boardroom brass of Big
Pharma has become noticeably concerned about how these changing opinions might affect their bottom line. It is
for this reason the pharmaceutical companies have found it in their best interest to keep lawmakers, as well as the
pill-popping public, at bay regarding the truth about cannabis by paying hefty salaries to members of academia to
perpetuate modern day Reefer Madness. Dr. Herbert Kleber, psychiatrist and drug abuse researcher with Columbia
University, recently went on record to advise against using marijuana because of the potential for addiction and
other health risks. It is, "A bad idea. I don't think we know what we're getting into, he told NPR. However, while
protesting against the idea of legal marijuana, Dr. Kleber failed to mention that he was a paid consultant for several
leading pharmaceutical companies, including Purdue Pharma, who manufactures the addictive painkillers Dilaudid
and OxyContin, and Alkermes, who produces the newly FDA approved heroin pill -- Zohydro.

Unilateral agency action is key

Cooper 97 [Phillip, Professor of Poli Sci @ University of Vermont, Administration and Society, Lexis]
Interestingly enough, the

effort to avoid opposition from Congress or agencies can have the effect of turning the White
House itself into a lightning rod. When an administrative agency takes action under its statutory authority and responsibility,
its opponents generally focus their conflicts as limited disputes aimed at the agency involved. Where the White
House employs an executive order, for example, to shift critical elements of decision making from the agencies to the executive office of
the president, the nature of conflict changes and the focus shifts to 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue or at least to the
executive office buildings The saga of the OTRA battle with Congress under regulatory review orders and the murky status of the Quayle
Commission working in concert with OIRA provides a dramatic case in point. The nature and focus of conflict is in some measure affected by the

fact that executive orders take administrative action outside the normal rules of administrative law. And although there are tensions in that field of
law, the fact is that it has been carefully developed over time with the intention of accommodating the needs of administration and the demands
for accountability by agencies filled with unelected administrators who make important decisions having the force of law in the form of rules and
administrative adjudications. On one hand, administrative law requires open, orderly, and participative decision processes, but it also creates
significant presumptions in favor of administrative agencies. The courts provide legal support in the form of favorable decisions as well as
assisting agencies in enforcement through orders enforcing subpoena and other investigative authority while also ordering compliance with
agency decisions once the investigations and decision processes are complete. Administrative law also provides a vehicle for integrating
administrative decisions having the force of law with the larger body of law and policy. The use of executive orders to confound or

circumvent normal administrative law is counterproductive and ultimately dysfunctional.

The CP is both textually and functionally competitive it uses a different AGENT

and takes a different ACTION than the plan that makes the perm severance
A. Legalize
Peak 12 Legalizing Prostitution, October 5, 2012, Bethany J. Peak,
http://wclcriminallawbrief.blogspot.com/2012/10/legalizing-prostitution.html
There are strong opinions on both sides of the fence regarding prostitution. One side thinks that prostitution should be a crime because its immoral and leads to
additional criminal activity, as well as the spread of sexually transmitted diseases. On the other side is a group that believes prostitution should not be a criminal

Among those that advocate for non-criminal prostitution,

there are those in favor of legalizing prostitution and those in favor of decriminalization. Legalization entails the
state regulating a particular practicehere the practice of prostitution. Decriminalization is when the state has no laws
related to the practice. Proponents of decriminalizing prostitution advocate for the removal of all laws related to
prostitution. There would be no criminal laws under which prostitutes could be punished. This would allow
prostitute to seek legal assistance if cheated or assaulted and would reduce law enforcement costs of policing and prosecuting prostitutes.[1]
violation and prostitutes should be recognized as workers like everyone else.

B. United States
Andrew Power 13 et al, Active Citizenship and Disability: Implementing the Personalisation of Support,
Cambridge University Press, Jan 14, 2013, Page 88
The United States has a unique political and geographical landscape which provides a complex territorial system of
administration of disability support policy. It has an intricate federal-state level relationship, with different institutions and actors
who can shape disability support policy in many different ways and at various different scales. At the federal level the United States is a
constitutional republic in which the president, Congressional and judiciary share powers reserved for the national
government, and the federal government shares sovereignty with the state governments.

Thats a voter makes the aff a moving target and makes neg ground impossible
NOW, prefer our interp this CP is good
A. Neg ground CP key to neg flex and to check mechanism based advantages
B. Topic education tests whether federal regulations are necessary thats a
crucial part of the topic
Thimmesch 13 Theres a big difference between legalization and decriminalization, Nicholas Thimmesch II,
Former Spokesman, NORML, 10/25/2013, http://dailycaller.com/2013/10/25/theres-a-big-difference-betweenlegalization-and-decriminalization/
There is more than just a semantic difference between the legalization of marijuana and the decriminalization of
marijuana. The difference is that one is a mares nest of logistical and pragmatic questions and the other is a benign
way of ending draconian laws that account for the incarceration of hundreds of thousands of American citizens over the last fifty years, billions of dollars
spent by government on a flawed War on Drugs, ruined lives and careers, and sales by an industry that is grassroots at best, violent and criminal at worst.