Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
Introduction............................................................................................................................................. 4
Verb Stem................................................................................................................................................ 7
Decriminalize......................................................................................................................................8
Legalize.............................................................................................................................................13
Modifiers...........................................................................................................................................15
Passive Voice.....................................................................................................................................18
Aff & Neg Ground................................................................................................................................. 19
Affirmative Ground...........................................................................................................................20
Negative Ground................................................................................................................................24
The Areas............................................................................................................................................... 28
Introduction.......................................................................................................................................29
Thoughts on the Areas.......................................................................................................................30
Should be Included................................................................................................................................ 31
Marijuana...........................................................................................................................................32
Organ & Tissue Sales.........................................................................................................................38
Physician Assisted Suicide.................................................................................................................47
Prostitution........................................................................................................................................53
Should be Considered............................................................................................................................ 59
Concealed Carry................................................................................................................................60
Drinking Age.....................................................................................................................................80
HIV Status.........................................................................................................................................61
*Immigration.....................................................................................................................................64
Narcotics............................................................................................................................................66
Online Poker......................................................................................................................................38
Public Order Offenses........................................................................................................................69
Needs Exploration................................................................................................................................. 78
Abortion............................................................................................................................................79
Drug Use in Sports............................................................................................................................80
Final Stuff.............................................................................................................................................. 86
Proposal for the Topic........................................................................................................................87
RJ Giglios Thoughts.........................................................................................................................88
James Herndon Emory Debate
With Special thanks to:
Jackie Poapst for the area work and many others for the edits and feedback.
Introduction
Why this topic area?
I am proposing a topic that calls for the legalization of a set of criminal activities. The idea is one that
sprung from discussions I had with multiple members of the debate community and attempts to meet the
following requests:
First, provide a set of affirmatives that the average twenty year old would be willing to affirm, research,
and defend. I think that this resolution does that. Online Gambling and marijuana, for example, are two
very popular illegal activities. Additionally, many classes that the average college debater is taking are
likely to discuss issues like suicide, prostitution, and illicit drug use. This topic allows those things to be
issues to affirm and negate.
Second, the best topics from the past are what I term, negative policy action. In other words, instead of
asking the government to be the solution to a set of problems, the best resolutions ask how the
government can stop being the source of problems. It generates better uniqueness for disads, less generic
competition ground, and importantly a more nuanced relationship to the government with the topic. I
personally have had trouble justifying USFG involvement in the Arab Spring, energy production, and
Native country. However, the difference for me has always been dont say I dont want to defend the
government, instead say, the government shouldnt arrest me for playing poker online, etc.
A corollary to this, is I think this topic does very well versus the states counterplan more on that in the
affirmative ground section. But, legal crimes makes it hard for state action to solve.
Third, it should be an area that is attractive to novices and recruiting people into debate. While each of
the subject areas could easily require two semesters worth of in depth research, they are also subjects that
people should both feel excited about and comfortable discussing. When we have our novice outreach
events, I am personally excited about the possibility of telling college first years that they get to talk about
this topic area.
Fourth, this is a resolutional area not a topic area. When discussing what makes a good topic with
others, the thing that stood out was that topics that were based around an action were far better topics than
those based around area. My favorite topics, in no particular order, were Title VII, sanctions,
development assistance, and the first middle east. All of those topics had ideas for action as their
foundation. This topic attempts to fit into that mold. We should debate about actions while researching
advantages that interest us. Forcing an area like Natives and the Arab Spring produced some of the
poorest resolutions in some of the most important areas.
The resolutions that have struggled are problem-area resolutions. We want to debate areas but then
struggle to find mechanisms to meet those areas. We want to debate democracy and the Middle East but
democracy assistance wasnt very strong. We want to debate Europe but enact a policy wasnt
viable. People wanted to debate important court cases but struggled with overrule them. This topic is a
vote for a mechanism.
Finally, I think the attractiveness of this topic is in its simplicity. This topic paper is a call for a broad
sweeping mechanism of action that anyone could understand. It should then include a wide range of
areas that make defending that broad of a change easier for the affirmative. Essentially the topic calls for
the aff to defend a broad act of legalization in an area they find interesting, and for the negative to
prepare in those areas. They are controversies because they are currently illegal despite growing public
acceptance.
-parking somewhere you shouldnt has been decriminalized. One wouldnt serve jail time for it, but could
be fined for it. Marijuana has been decriminalized in many places.
-doing something without being fined, regulated, or arrested means that it is legalized. Alcohol
consumption was legalized with the 21st amendment.
An amendment to this second concern is that search for a limiting phrase might be in order. For example,
instead of legalize it might make for better debates to allow the affirmative to not have to defend every
small PIC or change the neg could conjure out of the literature. Examples that come to mind include,
not for minors or not at schools. There are a lot of examples that would be small regulations on an
otherwise legalized act.
Finally, given those parameters, the topic should be written to include a large range of areas. Asking the
aff to legalize means that the amount of aff diversity within the area should be smaller. Aff flexibility
can, and should, come from the advantages gained, the justifications for action, and the number of areas
available. I would encourage the topic committee to go one of two ways; legalize fully and include a list
of 10 topics or legalize parts and a smaller more interesting list of 5 areas.
In conclusion:
The action required in the resolution should be sweeping.
The topic should pick legalize or decriminalize.
If legalize the list should be large. If decriminalize the list should be smaller with more area flexibility.
The next section will be a discussion of verb stem possibilities. I will offer my opinion on the possible
choices. Following that there will be sections on affirmative and negative ground generically on the
topic. Finally, the concluding sections will discuss the areas that should be considered for inclusion in the
topic.
Verb Stem
Decriminalize
The verb phrase that I think offers the most affirmative flexibility is decriminalization. A topical aff
would remove the criminal penalties for certain acts. However, it allows some flexibility to maintain
fines, small regulations, and make some changes. In this section, Ill provide a set of evidence that helps
support decriminalization as a possible aff mechanism.
Following are a set of cards that set up the legal boundaries for what constitutes decriminalization versus
legalization with a clear intent to define those parameters. Decriminalization is less change than but can
include legalization, but may be nothing more than a removal or reduction
was commonly understood. It is apparent that the term "decriminalization of marijuana" is susceptible of
various definitions. For support of plaintiff's definition of decriminalization, we note Black's Law Dictionary 371
(5th ed. 1979), where the term decriminalization is defined as "An official act generally accomplished by
legislation, in which an act or omission, formerly [*261] criminal, is made non-criminal and without punitive
sanctions." See also Harper Dictionary of [***25] Contemporary Usage 192 (1975), where it is stated that
"decriminalize," of relatively recent coinage, is frequently used by persons seeking to abolish legal penalties for
marijuana use, homosexual behavior, prostitution, or attempted suicide. The word "decriminalization" may not be found in
Webster's Third New International Dictionary (1967). We note, however, that on page 579, the term "de" when used as a
prefix with a verb may mean either to remove (a specified thing or things) or to reduce or make lower. Webster would
permit the term "decriminalize marijuana" to be used in the sense of reducing or lowering the criminal
penalty for possession of marijuana as well as to remove all criminal penalties. As noted by the district court, the plaintiff
supported and voted for HB 2313 which would have reduced the legal penalty for the possession of small amounts of marijuana on first offenses.
We have concluded that, under the interpretation of the term "decriminalization of marijuana" as that term was frequently used throughout the
hearings before the Senate committee, the statements in the brochure that the plaintiff voted for and was in favor of the decriminalization of
marijuana [***26] were substantially true and, therefore, a cause of action in defamation cannot be based upon the defendant's statements
contained in the brochure referring to Sen. Hein's "views" and "position" on that subject.
And, that same decision draws a line that includes the lessening of criminal penalties for an act constitutes
decriminalization.
ounce or less of marijuana to an unclassified misdemeanor punishable by a fine of not more than $ 100 for the first offense. Upon
subsequent convictions, a person convicted of that offense would be punished as though guilty of a class A misdemeanor. The possession of
greater amounts of marijuana than one ounce was subject to more severe penalties. The minutes of the Senate Federal and [***12] State Affairs
Committee, dated March 31, 1977, reflect that Senator Hein [*255] seconded the motion of Senator Allegrucci to recommend HB 2313
favorably for passage. This motion failed and the bill was ultimately reported to the Senate without recommendation. The journal of the Senate
for April 4, 1977, (pp. 560-561) reflects that Senator Hein moved that HB 2313 be referred back to the Senate committee after Senator Angell
moved that the bill be stricken from the calendar. On that same day, a roll call was taken on whether to reconsider the action of the Senate on HB
2313. Senator Hein voted for reconsideration of the bill, but the motion failed and the bill was not adopted. These documents make it clear from
the actions and votes of Senator Hein that he favored the adoption of HB 2313. The question then arises whether HB 2313
provided for the "decriminalization of marijuana" which was the charge against Senator Hein contained in the statements of the
defendant in the brochure. HB 2313 clearly would have provided for a substantial reduction in the penalty for the
first-time conviction of a possession of a small quantity of marijuana. The ultimate issue is whether this [***13] result would
constitute the "decriminalization of marijuana" as that term is generally understood in common usage today.
Included in the records of the Senate committee are the statements of various witnesses who appeared both in support of and in opposition to HB
2313. It is important to note that a number of the witnesses specifically referred to the reduction of the penalty on possession of small amounts of
marijuana as the "decriminalization of marijuana." It is clear that the common understanding of many of these persons was that
"decriminalization" did not mean the same [**282] as outright legalization -- that decriminalization was a
kind of halfway step toward legalization of marijuana. The witnesses appearing both in favor of and against the bill
used the terms "decriminalization" and "legalization" in a manner reflecting a common understanding of
those terms. The district court, in its memorandum decision granting summary judgment, concluded that the statements made by the
defendant in the brochure that Senator Ron Hein's "arguments and his votes were in favor of the decriminalization of marijuana" fell within the
ambit of fair comment and were protected under freedom [***14] of speech guaranteed by the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United
States. Hence, it held such statements could not serve as a basis for an action in libel.
The phrase decriminalize or decriminalization is a popular one in the media and academic writings. It
has, however, become so ubiquitous with the marijuana movements that it is hard to find literature not
about marijuana. Despite that, it is a phrase with a strong legal tradition and a solid set of literature. For
example:
Here, the noun decriminalization provides a clear line for what a topical affirmative should be expected to
do. As a result of the aff, laws or statutes that make certain acts criminal should be removed such that
those acts are no longer crimes or subject to prosecution. There are also multiple cases, like
miscegenation and sexual laws that have decriminalized previous laws. Decriminalize, defined as the
transitive verb it would be in the topic, has a similarly helpful definition.
In each of these, the verb phrase has a clear line. To decriminalize something must no longer be treated as
illegal. The status quo, certain acts are illegal. Post plan, it is now sanctioned and legal to engage in
those activities. The reason to choose decriminalization as the verb is that the means by which criminal
penalties are removed or it is treated as no longer illegal can vary. Legal dictionaries tend to go
another step and forward that to decriminalize includes actions that reduce the criminal classification or
status of an act.
These definitions would clearly establish that a reduction in the criminal status would constitute an act of
decriminalization. A topical affirmative would clearly try to reduce the penalties as that would allow
them to access most of the advantages without linking to most of the quality negative ground. As such, if
the topic committee does decide to include options with decriminalization as the required action, finding
an adverb to modify the degree of decriminalization would be advisable.
Another concern that people have stated is about small PICS to overall legalization. If one is interested in
a topic that makes most of those PICS not competitive, then decriminalization should be the choice. Here
is some evidence that defines a repeal of a strict ban with some degree of regulation as a form of
decriminalization.
to abolish
imprisonment as a penalty. Libel remains a crime in the penal code and there is still a penalty in the form
of a fine, she added. De Lima submitted her position paper after the Senate committee on mass media and public information sought her input
on several pending bills on the matter.
Incomplete
"Without passing upon the wisdom of the bills and assuming only that they will be reconciled and approved, the present forms are incomplete".
De Lima said the bills should contain a provision on pending cases or those filed before the law takes effect in order to avoid ambiguity and
confusion in its application.
"In other words, should the pending cases be considered automatically dismissed or what?" De Lima said of Senate Bill Nos. 2162, 3303, 3244,
3298 and 2668 authored by Francis Escudero, Alan Peter Cayetano, Gregorio Honasan, Pia Cayetano and Manuel Villar respectively.
Sen. Loren Legarda's Senate Bill No. 3294, also on decriminalizing libel, provides for the dismissal of pending libel cases if the measure is
passed. De Lima, however, said Legarda's measure allows a separate filing of a civil action suit for damages independent of criminal action.
To simplify the proceeding, De Lima suggested that the bill make the filing of the criminal action automatically carry with it the filing of the civil
action. Therefore, "no right to reserve the filing of separate civil action will be recognized".
On Sen. Edgardo Angara's Senate Bill No. 2053, abolishing the penalty of imprisonment in libel cases, De Lima
said the use of the term "decriminalize" in its explanatory note was a misnomer.
Still a crime
"First, libel
is still a crime under the proposed bill except that the penalty of imprisonment is sought to be
abolished. There is still a penalty in the form of a fine, " De Lima said.
"The crime is still covered by the Revised Penal Code; hence, still committed against the state. Thus, it is
not accurate to state in the explanatory note of the bill that it intends to decriminalize libel," she added.
pot, which generally means that the punishment for first-time possession of small amounts is a fine with no
jail time.
Legalize
If the topic committee and the community writ large are more interested in forcing the aff to advocate
larger more sweeping change, then legalize is also an option. The definitions of legalize are far more
restrictive than decriminalize. The three cards from the beginning of the decriminalize section could also
easily be used as topicality cards for legalize. It is fairly consistent that legalizing suggests a broader,
bringing into conformity with the law.
The major benefit, or con, to using legalize would be that the majority of debates would be about PICS to
leave some small parts illegal. Legalize would make the best negative ground decriminalize actions. We
would spend the year debating counterplans that decriminalize but leave larger non-punitive punishments
on the books.
Here are some cards that suggest the much broader requirements of legalize.
The aff would have to take an act [determine by the areas chosen in the resolution] and make it legally
permissible and authorized. There are quality cards that suggest legalize does not allow for regulations on
the activity.
are satisfied that the Board's use of the term "legalize" in the title and in the ballot title and submission
clause correctly and fairly expresses the true intent and meaning of the proposed constitutional amendment .
The word "legalize" means "to make legal" or "to give legal validity or sanction to." Webster's Third New
International Dictionary 1290 (1986); see also Black's Law Dictionary (6th ed. 1990) (legalize means "to make legal or
lawful" or "to confirm or validate what was before void or unlawful "). In the context of the phrase "to
legalize limited gaming in the cities of Manitou Springs and Fairplay," the word "legalize" expresses the sense that
these cities will be required to legislate so as to make limited gaming legal within their respective
municipalities.
Contrary to Verlo's argument, we do not construe the word "legalize" as somehow suggesting that the cities of Manitou
Springs and Fairplay [**11] will retain the discretion either to legalize or to prohibit limited gaming as they see fit.
The Board's decision to add a sentence to the summary stating that under the proposed constitutional amendment the cities of Manitou Springs
and Fairplay would be "required to enact certain ordinances to implement limited gaming" merely expands upon what is conveyed in the title and
in the ballot title and submission clause by the phrase "to legalize limited gaming in the cities of Manitou Springs and Fairplay." Nothing in
the record persuades
us that the Board's choice of language in the title and in the ballot title and submission clause is in any
way misrepresentative of the true intent and meaning of the proposed constitutional amendment.
We accordingly affirm the ruling of the Board.
Finally, if the topic committee were to decide that the verb phrasing was awkward, there is evidence that
make legal would provide a way to say legalize
Modifiers
A modifier would be helpful with either of the verb choices. I believe the choice is based on whichever
verb phrase is chosen. Legalize would obviously be very broad and would lean itself to something like
nearly all or almost completely to give the aff some flexibility to deal with the decriminalize
counterplan. Contrary, decriminalize as the verb phrase would require a modifier to insure that the aff
took enough action. Largely or mainly would be good choices. If the topic is chosen, I would happily
write a resolution paper dealing with the different possibilities to modify both legalize and decriminalize.
The community could easily just pick up the substantially addiction from the past. So, Ill start there.
Decriminalize, as a verb phrase, will most likely demand a modifier so that small & insignificant changes
arent topical. I would push for the community to use decriminalize and/or legalize unless there is a
compelling reason to not do so. The larger areas will be easier to manage in a world where the aff takes a
larger set of actions than modifying the laws to be slightly less illegal.
There are contextually several uses of substantially decriminalized
contained two elements, one for the protection of motherhood and another for eugenic selection . The former
appealed to reformists and the latter to conservatives. In addition to providing for both voluntary and compulsory sterilization, the Eugenic
Protection Law prescribed legal abortion under certain conditions. A Eugenic Protection Committee had the authority to examine specific cases.
The number of abortions increased from 217 known to the police in 1946 before abortion was decriminalized to a high of 1,170,143
legal abortions in 1955. Between 1960 and 1988, the number of legal abortions decreased from 1,063,256 to 486,146 a year. Interest
groups
favoring the legalization of abortion included medical doctors and females. Interest groups against legal abortion included the
church and employers who were experiencing a shortage of labor. 25 references, 36 notes, and 2 tables
required to adopt a constitutional amendment, and about the same number that ratified the ERAthat had substantially
decriminalized consensual sodomy. Had the liberal morality advanced by Walt Whitman and Alfred Kinsey completely triumphed
over traditional morality? Had the sexual revolution confirmed that sex could be for pleasure alone, unconnected to marriage, procreation. or even
relationships? Had womens equality rendered traditional gender roles so obsolete that homosexual relations were losing their power to disgust?
Im not particularly fond of substantially though. It seems trite at this point in the debate game. Other
possible options include:
Completely: This would force the affirmative to completely decriminalize. I like this as an option with
decriminalize because it is a much smaller change than legalize. It would force the aff to remove all laws
that criminalize without totally legalizing the act.
Nearly All: stealing a phrasing that was from the last few topics offers an alternative. Since there are
obviously a good number of laws that criminalize each. Giving the aff the flexibility of only having to
defend nearly all would seem a good middle ground. Nearly all was popular because it was vague
enough to allow some aff flexibility.
all" and "overwhelmingly" are not words of common understanding. Most people would fail to arrive at the
same number when asked to define in percentages the terms "nearly all" and "overwhelmingly." The Ninth Circuit,
however, did not seem to think so.
Most troubling, however, is how clearly section 320 raises all three concerns that underlie the vagueness doctrine. First, the terms "nearly all" and
"overwhelmingly" back innocent teachers into a corner by not providing them with fair warning as to exactly what amount of non-English will
expose them to liability. Second, when this is coupled with the fact that school districts have wide latitude in designing programs to meet the
mandate of Proposition 227, it becomes virtually impossible for a teacher to protect herself against liability. Third, there is a high probability of
arbitrary and discriminatory application of the initiative, because a teacher from a particular district can easily be singled out by a parent who
believes that the law is being violated. In essence, Proposition 227 forces a teacher to curtail her exercise of free speech by preventing her from
speaking to a student in his native language, even if she feels it is in the student's best interest to do so.
However, nearly all didnt create an impossible neg burden because the best legal definitions all
suggested it was within the range of being all.
AND, this would force the aff to lift all but one or two laws, which would be useful for avoiding PICS out
of very small changes that leave one or two laws on the books.
Passive Voice
I didnt set out to write this paper with the plan of dealing with the passive voice. I certainly didnt come
up with the idea for a resolution while contemplating how to shift to passive voice as a community.
While I am personally ambivalent about it, Im also obviously not going to hash out the pros and cons of
passive voice in this paper.
However, I will say that if a goal is to make sure there are passive voice options that make sense on the
resolution ballot, then this area provides several opportunities that could use whatever action stem the
committee puts in the options:
- One or more of the following ought not be federal crimes:
- Laws in the U.S. providing criminal penalties for one or more of the following activities should be
abolished:
- One or more of the following should be made legal:
- Laws in the U.S. providing criminal penalties for one or more of the following activities should be
abolished/repealed:
One benefit of this area is that because the topic is laws, it would still give the negative predictable disad
ground connected to agent action, and agent centered change while preserving the benefits of passive
action.
Affirmative Ground
The affirmative ground on the topic would stem from the direct action of ending the criminalization of
certain activities combined with the benefits of legalization in each particular area. The sections below
will go into detail on the benefits of each particular area. This section will be a brief list of advantages
stemming from acts of legalization or decriminalization.
In general though, both aff and neg ground center around a certain set of questions. Importantly:
-Is this an act that should be prohibited by the government?
-Does government prohibition work? Or just drive activities underground?
First, and hopefully most significantly, the prison industrial complex should provide ample critical,
policy, and personal affirmative advantage ground. The search term prison industrial complex produces
a wealth of literature that could make aff advantage ground fruitful throughout the year.
There are approximately 2 million inmates in state, federal and private prisons throughout the country.
According to California Prison Focus, no other society in human history has imprisoned so many of its own citizens. The figures show that the
United States has locked up more people than any other country: a half million more than China, which
has a population five times greater than the U.S. Statistics reveal that the United States holds 25% of the worlds
prison population, but only 5% of the worlds people. From less than 300,000 inmates in 1972, the jail population grew to 2
million by the year 2000. In 1990 it was one million. Ten years ago there were only five private prisons in the country, with a population of 2,000
inmates; now, there are 100, with 62,000 inmates. It is expected that by the coming decade, the number will hit 360,000, according to reports.
What has happened over the last 10 years? Why are there so many prisoners?
The private contracting of prisoners for work fosters incentives to lock people up. Prisons depend on this
income. Corporate stockholders who make money off prisoners work lobby for longer sentences, in order to expand
their workforce. The system feeds itself, says a study by the Progressive Labor Party, which accuses the prison
industry of being an imitation of Nazi Germany with respect to forced slave labor and concentration camps.
The prison industry complex is one of the fastest-growing industries in the United States and its investors
are on Wall Street. This multimillion-dollar industry has its own trade exhibitions, conventions, websites,
and mail-order/Internet catalogs. It also has direct advertising campaigns, architecture companies, construction companies,
investment houses on Wall Street, plumbing supply companies, food supply companies, armed security, and padded cells in a large variety of
colors.
According to the Left Business Observer, the federal prison industry produces 100% of all military
helmets, ammunition belts, bullet-proof vests, ID tags, shirts, pants, tents, bags, and canteens. Along with war
supplies, prison workers supply 98% of the entire market for equipment assembly services; 93% of paints and paintbrushes; 92% of stove
assembly; 46% of body armor; 36% of home appliances; 30% of headphones/microphones/speakers; and 21% of office furniture. Airplane parts,
medical supplies, and much more: prisoners are even raising seeing-eye dogs for blind people.
Parallel concerns involving the tension between public and private goals arise from the prison-industrial
complex. Prisons serve a public function, yet the privatization of prisons means that a small, wealthy
group's private interests will have effects that touch the rest of us and that are antithetical to legitimate
public goals. According to a Mother Jones article, for example:
Occupancy requirements... are common practice within the private prison industry. A new report by In the Public Interest, an
anti-privatization group, reviewed 62 contracts for private prisons operating around the country at the local and state level. In the Public Interest
found that 41 of those contracts included occupancy requirements mandating that local or state government keep those facilities between 80 and
100 percent full. In other words, whether crime is rising or falling, the state must keep those beds full.
In addition to draining state coffers with unreasonable contracts, Corrections Corporation of America and other private prison companies
motivated by higher profit margins have lobbied for mandatory minimums, "three-strike" laws, and "truth-in-sentencing" laws that drive up the
prison population. Thus, one man's incarceration -- his ruined life -- is another man's livelihood. This is obscene.
American lives and freedom are not mere goods to be slapped with a price tag and bartered away . It is time
to end the prison-industrial complex and to place the administration of prisons back where it belongs: the
state.
queer people, immigrants, youth, and other oppressed communities as criminal , delinquent, or deviant.
This power is also maintained by earning huge profits for private companies that deal with prisons and police forces;
helping earn political gains for tough on crime politicians; increasing the influence of prison guard and police unions; and eliminating social
and political dissent by oppressed communities that make demands for self-determination and reorganization of power in the US.
Some advantages related to the prison system would involve the resources spent on creating that system.
For example, the resource trade-off advantage based on focusing on other crimes, as well as the court clog
advantage centered on opening up the courts for more important cases would be fertile link ground for the
aff to explore.
Second, there is a great amount of literature dealing with federalism issues and federal criminal law. For
example, Garnetts The New Federalism, the Spending Power, and Federal Criminal Law, discusses a
large number of cases that cover states rights issues for prosecuting crimes. A topical affirmative would,
in theory, require the federal government to decriminalize an area where state laws existed.
Finally, there should be plenty of critical aff ground. For those interested in talking about crimes,
criminal behavior in society, and the way we normalize behavior, this would be the topic. Whether
Foucault, Critical Race Theory, Critical Legal Studies, etc., the possibilities are certainly fruitful. The aff
gets to say the way the prison system works should be examined with some great popular places to begin
that defense.
A few issues that arose with aff ground as I was writing and talking to people are worth discussing:
Negative Ground
This should be the biggest area of concern when it comes to voting for a decriminalization topic paper.
Two caveats are in order:
First, concern about what the neg has to say should be decreased a good bit. Negative ground has reached
a place where there is always something new, process-y, critical, or specific to say to just about any
affirmative on the topic. Though, obviously, that is a matter of opinion and perspective.
Second, the best neg ground is the neg ground about the specific act of the affirmative. My expectation
for this topic is one where there are a smaller number of large affirmatives with great advantage ground.
The best negative response should be specific to each area in which the aff is defending. The marijuana
neg should look very different from the prostitution neg. Those two should look quite different from the
on-line gambling neg. While there should be some overlap see below for the most part, allowing the
neg to engage in in-depth research about each act of decriminalization would be a great way to improve
debates. Decriminalizing marijuana in response to the online gambling aff would solve most of the
generic legal system defenses anyway, allowing the neg to target their negative strategies and narrow
down defendable aff ground.
A list, and discussion, of the possible things the negative could say is in order:
First, states based solvency deficit. Most lawyers who responded to the topic mentioned a concern with
overlapping state and federal laws. Many states have, and will continue, to maintain laws criminalizing
activities well after the federal government passes their own laws. The aff will need to research and
defend that the change they make would trickle down to impact the changes at the state level. This is
both good aff and neg ground to explore. The other possibility in this area would relate to the states
counterplan as it is meant to be. There is a strong argument for state legalization, or partial legalization
while maintaining a federal moratorium see the discussion of corporatization of activities below.
Second, movements disad uniqueness is the most popular result for research efforts into a majority of
these areas. Marijuana, organ sales, prostitution, and on-line gambling have all been made quasi-legal
[more on that in each area section]. That change is coming, and will get here, is a powerful argument that
will solve the affirmative in many instances.
As an aside, this topic avoids the legalization coming now in every single one of the areas. The thing
that prevents case debate has always been a lock of topic uniqueness. While there are moves towards
legalization the aff and neg ground is clearly a line drawn in the sand not legalized now.
Third, economic based disads would be popular. The prison-industrial system is a strong economic force
in the country. Prison-labor helps sustain many practices. This may, to some degree, include a discussion
of the prison system and the economic good it does the country. It may also simply be a legal structure
good type argument.
Fourth, and similarly, the kritik of economics would obviously be a strong one, as most changes to
criminal law would be made in such a way to benefit the rich. The other side of criminalization is often a
fine or fee based system of legal regulation. The market would also, obviously, be free to intervene into
the newly legalized activities.
Fifth, market interventions into currently illegal activities is a very popular set of negative arguments.
Essentially, once an activity is legal, someone will attempt to make a profit off of the activity. So, for
example, Big Marijuana companies, online-gambling mega-sites, and of course, the McDonaldization of
prostitution are all possible areas for negative ground. The current legal gray area allows activities to
happen without the fear of corporate control.
Sixth, the core argument that the activity of each area is bad would be fruitful ground. Though, there is
also a solid set of literature debating the effectiveness of legal penalties.
Seventh, the current respect for the legal system and police work in general, could be considered abysmal.
People simply are ignoring many of the laws prohibiting these activities.
Mike Hough, Andy Myhill, Paul Quinton and Tom R. Tyler, Methodology Institute, Br J Criminol (2012)
52 (6): 1051-1071.]
Abstract
This paper extends Tylers procedural justice model of public compliance with the law. Analysing
This abstract is about a report on the reasons why people generally respect the legitimacy of legal power
and respect the policing of activities. When immortal or illogical laws are part of the legal culture it
makes it more difficult to have other effective laws. This could easily be either aff or neg ground in terms
of legal legitimacy and the enforcement of other laws on the books.
Eighth, the fines counterplan has been discussed in legal and sociology literature for decades. These
counterplans would change the criminal penalty from one of jail time to one of a financial fee. The
easiest way to think about it is that smoking marijuana would be more like a parking ticket and less like
murder. Smoke a joint, pay a fine. One of the original works on fees as a punitive system, by Gillespie,
discusses the lack of fines in the US legal system. Depending on the verb choice legalization vs
decriminalization the fines counterplan or fines advantage would be available.
An original study about the need for more fines in the United States
ROBERT W. GILLESPIE 81 [International Journal of Comparative and Applied Criminal Justice,
Volume 5, Issue 2, 1981]
Rising crime rates within traditional sanctioning patterns have resulted in a search for alternatives to
incarceration in order to control both the economic and the social (humanitarian) costs of punishment. The paper
explores this response in four countries: England, Germany, Sweden, and the United Statesall modern, industrial democracies.
The paper focuses upon the response in terms of the role accorded monetary penalties as an alternative to
incarceration. This role is analyzed in terms of the actual use of fines relative to incarceration, as a sentencing disposition for traditional
crimes. The major finding is that among the four countries the United States accords fines a very minor role.
The reasons for this difference are explored and it is concluded that the use of fines in the United States when compared to
European experienceappears to be far below the level that would minimize the economic and social cost of
punishment.
neoliberal user-pays mentality, whereas prison has been retained as the principal sanction in line with
neoconservatives preferences; it is a historic compromise that makes it important to not pass over the difference between fines and fees.
would be
entirely misleading to read this as a critique of fines being used to displace short terms of imprisonment .
No doubt it is well worth rehearsing arguments concerning the merits and demerits of fines versus other sanctions. But no such public or
serious criminological debate has taken place to date in the United Statesand the handful of advocates
of fines referred to by Beckett and Harris were all in academic journals , and none were more recent than approximately
20 years ago. I would suggest that the time is both opportune and overdue for American criminologists to take up
an academic and public politics for the fine.
Ninth, changing the penalty, maintaining part of the penalty, or modifying the way the law is enforced are
all counterplan options. Depending on the verb phrase chosen, PICS and alternate mechanisms should be
the most popular version of negative strategies. The best literature on marijuana legalization, for
example, debates the different ways each state has gone about legalization and the pros and cons of each.
Full legalization versus medical permission is one example of an almost endless number of possibilities.
Tenth, general prison reform should be a part of the negatives generics at the beginning of the topic. The
best affirmative ground should center around indictments of the prison system. However, those affs will
certainly be focusing on a symptom and not the cause. A larger overhaul of the way the laws are
enforced, or jail time is assigned would be a competitive alternative to a majority of aff advantages.
Finally, some discussion of generics:
The neg can still read the politics and midterms disad. Many of the affs would make liberal interest
groups happy. Many that were excited to elect Obama would be happy to see the changes in the criminal
system. I wont go into any greater detail, but, the politics disad would still exist on this topic. [actually,
the politics disad would be quite good on this topic, but even I dont vote on topics because of the politics
disad].
The government could still be criticized as the site for change, as the neg could say laws shouldnt exist.
The Areas
Introduction
This is obviously the interesting part of this topic. While legalization versus decriminalization will form
a foundation of how these debates occur, the areas will form the advantage ground, disad ground, and
critical literature that gets debated. The popularity of the topic should stem from the fact that there should
be and can be enough areas included that novices and national champions alike are interested in
researching and discussing one of the issues. This area for debate was originally conceived of in an
attempt to find areas that debaters would find worthy of their time, research, and skills.
My hope is that the verb phrase that is chosen is broad enough to allow us to pick a large number of areas.
I have included an expectation for the topic area at the bottom that speaks to the verb stem. However,
the areas of the topic are obviously something that should be phrased properly, vetted, and put to a vote.
Now, one distinction between the areas is that many of them are federal crimes. Others include state and
local laws [a deeper discussion of that is in the aff & neg section]. However, depending on the areas it
would be possible to craft the resolution to say Federal-State-Local or just federal or just laws in order
to make area for the areas of interest. An alternative wording for a version of the topic that includes a lot
of areas might be:
One or more of the following ought not be a federal, state, or local crime in the United States:
So, presented in categories, and alphabetical within those areas.
Must be Included
Marijuana
Online Gambing
Organ & Tissue Sales
Physician Assisted Suicide
Prostitution
Should be Considered
Concealed Carry
Drinking Age
HIV Status
Immigration [*if the action is broad enough]
Narcotics
Public Order Offenses
Should be Included
Marijuana
Introduction
I kept this area short because while I think it will make for some fantastic debates, I also think that most
members of the debate community are excited about debating this area. I cannot endorse a version of this
topic where marijuana use is not included.
Aff Ground
This should come as no surprise, there are a lot of solvency advocates for marijuana. For example, the
President.
Obama wants the aff but admits there is neg ground
WEBSTER 14 The Progressive Staff Writer [Stephen C. Webster, Obama Calls on Congress to
Decriminalize Marijuana, http://www.progressive.org/obama-stands-by-deeply-contradictory-position-onmarijuana]
President Barack Obama
said Friday that he would like Congress to undo "the incarceration model" that American
law enforcement has applied to marijuana users for decades, in hopes that a new approach will help address
profound racial disparities the nation's drug laws helped create.
Despite his administrations official position that marijuana is a Schedule I substance and every bit as harmful as heroin, LSD and Peyote,
Obama told CNN reporter Jake Tapper that hes standing by his recently stated view that the drug is no more
DEAs schedule. The Secretary of Health and Human Services must review the scientific and health
information available and recommend a change to the Attorney General, which the CSA says shall be
binding on the nations top law enforcement official. It does not mention congressional approval for rescheduling substances.
The President also ignored a follow-up question on whether he would support rescheduling marijuana, and instead reiterated his recent statements
to The New Yorker, emphasizing that enforcement of the CSA has resulted in a massive racial disparity in arrest statistics.
I think that is a problem, he said. Were going to see what happens in the experiments in Colorado and Washington. The Department of
Justice, you know, under Eric Holder, has said that we are going to continue to enforce federal laws. But in those states, we recognize that we
dont have the resources, the federal government does not have the resources, to police whether somebody is smoking a joint on the corner. And
we are trying to provide them structures to make sure that, you know, big time drug traffickers, the spillover effect of the violence, potentially, of
a drug trade are not creeping out with this experiment that is taking place.
Obama added that he wants to deal with some of the criminal penalty issues surrounding marijuana,
which would allow the government to focus on other methods for discouraging all varieties of substance abuse. The incarceration model that
weve taken, particularly around marijuana, does not seem to have produced the kinds of results that weve set, he said.
But I do offer a cautionary note, and I said this in the interview, the President warned. Those who think legalization is a
panacea, I think they have to ask themselves some tough questions too. Because if we start having a
situation where big corporations with a lot of resources and distribution and marketing arms are suddenly
going out there peddling marijuana, then the levels of abuse that may take place are going to be higher.
There are numerous law reviews, scholarly articles, and think tanks dedicated to this issue. The
advantage ground will be thorough and diverse.
Interestingly, the current movement towards decriminalization and medical legalization in states makes it
ripe for good agent debates. The states debate is ripe for discussion because many states have begun
legalizing marijuana, yet the federal laws remain on the book. The aff still has plenty of ground because
absent federal action, the status quo is a legal limbo
Federal law key
USA TODAY 10 29 12 [Editorial: Don't legalize pot just for the high of it,
http://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2012/10/29/legalize-marijuana-pot-states/1666755/]
But the fact that legal pot has growing momentum doesn't mean it's a good idea, or that it's inevitable:
Marijuana is still illegal under federal law . Those who can grow or sell pot legally under state law can
be, and have been, busted by the feds. Although the Obama administration ordered a hands-off policy in 2009 for
medical marijuana operations in compliance with state laws, there's no sign that federal drug enforcers would wink at fullblown legalization.
The Obama administration remains strongly opposed. Supporters of state legalization want this confrontation on the grounds that it will change
federal law. Maybe, but a more likely scenario is that states will end up in costly litigation while pot users are left
in legal limbo.
Steven B. Duke writes some quality evidence about possible advantage ground and solvency evidence
here: Steven B. Duke, The Future of Marijuana in the United States, Oregon Law Review, 2013, 91 Or. L.
Rev. 1301
Even the Cato Institute is on board, for very different reasons. Boaz, Doug, Drug Decriminalization has
failed? http://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/drug-decriminalization-has-failed
There are also numerous sources dedicated to responding to critics of decriminalization. For example,
http://kzooamd.weebly.com/common-arguments-against-decriminalization.html.
Im not going to go into great detail on this section because I think most people can envision what these
affs would look like in a debate round.
Negative Ground
Most people would be far more concerned with the negative ground versus the marijuana aff, and
rightfully so. It will be a strong affirmative. While marijuana bad disad wont win many debate rounds.
There are still a large number of studies being done that suggest heavy marijuana use is bad. For
example, recent studies by Kings College, Duke, and USC all suggest the neg is not without arguments.
"Reefer madness" scare stories killed the credibility of anti-marijuana crusaders decades ago, but that doesn't mean marijuana is a benign drug,
especially for children. A study by Duke University and King's College London found that kids who start smoking as
teenagers and become "persistent users" at least four times a week typically lose 8 IQ points and never
get them back. Beyond IQ points, many lose motivation to succeed in school.
Doctors have split over whether marijuana causes lung cancer the way smoking cigarettes does, though
evidence seems to
be accumulating that it could. A recent study at the U niversity of S outhern C alifornia found a link between
recreational pot use and testicular cancer in men from their teens to the mid-30s.
Advocates of legalization make some good points, particularly about the waste of law enforcement resources in enforcing marijuana laws, and the
way the illegal market enriches criminal gangs and drug cartels.
Their arguments demonstrate how imperfect the current legal regime is, but they downplay the risks of legalization. Making marijuana available
for medical use is a humane and sensible policy, despite the likelihood of wider use and abuse. Doing the same thing simply to allow adults to get
high legally isn't worth the inevitable cost.
The negative would not be without a solid literature base to answer almost all of the advantages of
legalization. The Baker Institute for example:
Pro Marijuana myths should be examined closely
Baker Institute 12 [Marijuana: A case against legalization, Posted on September 25, 2012 | By James
A. Baker III Institute for Public Policy, http://blog.chron.com/bakerblog/2012/09/marijuana-a-caseagainst-legalization/]
Fast-forward to today and much
of the mythmaking and exaggeration comes from a powerful lobby whose aim is
to legalize marijuana. Capitalizing on the unfounded myths and hysteria of the past, pro-marijuana campaigners
conveniently ignore the fact that todays marijuana hardly resembles that of the 1960s . (Producers of the
drug have learned to increase the psychoactivity of the marijuana with a much higher concentration of THC.) Supporters of
legalization laud marijuana for its harmlessness, its revenue-generating potential and its medical wonders.
These claims deserve closer scrutiny.
This is just one, of many, articles that do a great job of debunking many of the benefits of legalization,
which would create a great deal of case depth. There are also, other, excellent lines of attack on all sides
of the legalization and use link. Many argue, for example, that legalization would not increase use
[http://norml.org/aboutmarijuana/item/marijuana-decriminalization-its-impact-on-use-2] which could
answer a good number of advantages.
In terms of dealing with the criminalization generic advantages, literature discussing the war on drugs and
specifically marijuana criminalization provide excellent See also, Taylor E. Whitten, J.D. Candidate,
University of Iowa College of Law, 2014; B.S.F.S., Georgetown University, 2008. [Under the Guise of
Reform: How Marijuana Possession Is Exposing the Flaws in the Criminal Justice Systems Guarantee of
a Right to a Jury Trial, Iowa Law Review, Vol. 99:919]
There are plenty of other possible ways for the negative to attack marijuana affs. A brief discussion of
some of those is below..
The movements disad has strong uniqueness. The US is certainly moving towards a decriminalized
system that would solve all of the affs advantages.
Movement success now
The movement to get medical cannabis nationally legalized has grown by leaps and bounds in just the last
few months. Many states have seen legislation created to make the medicinal oil and tinctures available to sick patients, both
adults and children who suffer from seizures, tumors and various cancers among other ailments. Most notably, The Mommy
Lobby has seen more success with their initiatives to legalize marijuana for medicinal use. The Mommy
Lobby is backed by the power of changing public attitudes regarding the herb. This group of mothers who are
fighting for the right to medicate their sick children with cannabis derivatives, are finding sympathy with lawmakers as they reveal their tales of
struggle and misery in dealing with the various problems that come with having sick and seizure prone children. They speak passionately about
the difficulty in obtaining the medical cannabis that has been proven to almost completely halt the seizures and suffering felt by their loved ones.
A medical marijuana bill was just recently passed in Georgias House of Representatives. As the bill now heads to the
state senate, many parents wait with bated breath on the outcome there. Amazingly, house bill 885 passed by an overwhelming majority of 171-4.
This is further proof that medical cannabis is slowly but surely making its way to national legalization. Haleighs Hope Act is named after fouryear old Haleigh who suffers from hundreds of seizure attacks a day. This Act would allow for medical cannabis to be grown under very tight
restrictions in the state of Georgia. In the meantime, Haleigh and her mother will be moving to Colorado from Georgia where she can get
immediate access to the much needed cannabis oil treatment.
More than 2.3 million Americans are living with epilepsy and suffer from seizures that just can not be helped by modern medicines. Medical
marijuana is rapidly changing this but can only be as effective as the creating or changing of these laws will allow. Many patients and their
families are calling for the process to be sped up as many are dying for lack of accessible medication. Many families have been through medical
mazes, seeing specialist after specialist in their search for if not a cure, at least relief. Many of the 20 states that have legalized medical marijuana
have seen an influx of new potential residents, especially Colorado and Washington. Because of this growing phenomenon, several states are now
pushing for new initiatives to address this growing issue.
Colorado has been flooded with request for the oil or tincture, which is high in CBD but low in THC, which is the component that creates the
high found in the herb. The CBD component is of particular interest to researchers who are calling for laws that will allow for testing in
humans. It was discovered that THC almost completely eradicated the RIV virus in laboratory mice: RIV is almost identical to the HIV virus
found in humans. That is very encouraging news for many. However for treatment to be accepted by the medical community, more testing is
needed. Washington is beginning to feel the strong push from citizens across the nation who are clamoring for the much needed changes.Medical
Cannabis
As the momentum grows and more states are bearing witness to the success and validity of medicinal
marijuana, hope is also growing among those who have waited, for years in some cases, to see it legalized
across the board. As the demand grows, tens of thousands are being placed on waiting lists to obtain
access. Some states are moving faster than others to meet the demands of its constituents. As more and more of these
antiquated laws are removed and changed in states across the nation, lives are being saved and it will not
be long before medical cannabis sees national legalization happen for those in need.
Standard spillover arguments for the cannabis movement make it a viable negative strategy and a good
answer to a majority of the advantages affs will try and read.
There are also a number of scholarly and philosophical articles that discuss the monetizing and marketing
of marijuana. The Obama statement about legalization highlighted the concern with companies pushing
the use of marijuana onto the average consumer. Whether the negative chooses to use the neoliberalism
kritik to defend the status quo or an alternative, the big weed bad disad could be a great generic
disadvantage against the marijuana aff.
Generally, there are economic arguments to be had for both sides of the debate. For example, I could see
an in depth debate about commodity prices, taxes, and production benefits occurring.
Legalization has tax and commodity price concerns
Bloomberg 1 9 14 [Legal Weed's Strange Economics in Colorado, By Brian Bremner and Vincent
Del Giudice January 09, 2014, http://www.businessweek.com/articles/2014-01-09/colorado-legalmarijuanas-strange-economics]
This is a blazing moment for American stoners. Colorado has just legalized
Libertarians and progressives are thrilled. Addiction specialists are anxious. And economists, well, theyre a little like
undergrads lost in a bong-induced thought experiment: One moment the economics of pot seem
beautifully elegant, then the real-world implications suddenly become bewilderingly complex.
The champions of marijuanas legalization have long argued that regulated sale of the drug would drive down
production costs and the retail price. The availability of cheaper, legal cannabis would generate precious
tax revenue and refocus drug enforcement efforts on more socially harmful narcotics such as cocaine, heroin, and
crystal meth. On the black market, a lot of folks are compensating drug dealers and everyone else in the supply
chain for the risk of arrest and incarceration, says Beau Kilmer, co-director of the RAND Drug Policy Research Center. If
marijuana were fully legalized and you could grow it outdoors like any other commodity, the production
costs would plummet over 90 percent.
Standing in the way, Kilmer and economists say, are variables including state tax policies, the shifting
behavior of buyers and sellers, and contradictory drug laws nationwide . In Colorado, where authorities have levied
a 15 percent wholesale and 10 percent retail tax on marijuana transactions, the price of legal commercial-grade pot has
doubled to $400 an ounce since the start of the year, says Aaron Smith, executive director of the National
Cannabis Industry Association. Thats twice the price for medical marijuana at state dispensaries that
require a doctors prescription. On the black market, high-grade offerings are fetching $156 to $250 an ounce,
according to data compiled by Narcotic News.
That prevailing $400-per-ounce price is no doubt inflated by limited inventory and pent-up consumer
demand that may fade over time. To optimize profits, though, enterprising pot retailers will still have an
incentive to go high-end, specializing in more potent grades , promoting add-ons such as vaporizer refillable cartridges that
can be used for pot consumption, and conjuring up new products (cannabis-infused chocolate lava cake, anyone?). I dont think we should
expect the legal price to be that different from current [black market] prices, says Harvard University economist Jeffrey Miron. People will
want to pay more for a quality product.
For policymakers, the challenge is getting the taxes right , says Kilmer at RAND. In Washington State, authorities will
impose a 25 percent excise tax on every phase of the newly liberalized market: production, processing, and final sale. Thats on top of standard
state sales tax of 8.75 percent. A consulting firm hired by the state projects these taxes will add 37 percent to the price. In Colorados Western
Slope region, Gregory Viditz-Ward, owner of a pot retailer called the Telluride Green Room, says he thinks the black market is going to come
back extremely strong, due to what he considers the high state cannabis tax.
The depth of solvency evidence and debate about alternative mechanisms for legalization would provide
the bulk of the neg ground on this topic. Depending on the topic wording, PICS that leave certain classes
illegal, or counterplans that exclude certain acts, would provide for in depth debates about the intricacies
of the legalization movement.
Other generic go to arguments for the negative will be great on this topic. From federalism to the politics
disad, there are great link arguments about any legal change the affirmative would advocate. Legalism
and CLS type generic kritiks would also obviously be fertile negative ground.
In terms of other critical ground, there are good gender specific articles that kritik the legalization
movement and the patriarchal industry of marijuana. Chapkis, Wendy. "The Trouble with Mary Jane's
Gender." Humboldt Journal of Social Relations 35.1 (2013). An argument that has been forwarded by
many in the pro cannabis movement [http://www.theweedblog.com/females-still-missing-from-themarijuana-community/].
Resolutional Wording
Im ambivalent about how it would be worded. Most of the literature references, use, sale, and
production or some combination of the three. There are lots of bills that have passed on the state level
that could be mirrored.
Washington State approved the production and sale of marijuana for medical and recreational use
http://www.seattle.gov/council/issues/marijuanainseattle.html
13-3405. Possession, use, production, sale or transportation of marijuana; classification
http://www.azleg.state.az.us/ars/13/03405.htm
An Act to tax and regulate the production, sale, and use of marijuana.
http://www.elections.alaska.gov/petitions/13PSUM/13PSUM-Proposed-Law.pdf
Colorado Law
Bloomberg 1 9 14 [Legal Weed's Strange Economics in Colorado, By Brian Bremner and Vincent
Del Giudice January 09, 2014, http://www.businessweek.com/articles/2014-01-09/colorado-legalmarijuanas-strange-economics]
This is a blazing moment for American stoners. Colorado has just legalized
OTHER CITES
Kreit, Alex. "The Federal Response to State Marijuana Legalization: Room for Compromise?." Or. L.
Rev. 91 (2013): 1029-1337.
Online Poker
Background
Online gambling is a major industry that generates almost 30 billion in revenue annually. Despite that, it
is largely illegal and heavily regulated throughout the United States. There are advocates for major
reform and action on the federal level to legalize online gambling. Here are a few solvency advocates.
Congress should legalize to regulate.
STEWART & GRAY 11 [Stewart, David O., and L. L. P. Gray. "Online gambling five years after
UIGEA." Washington, DC: American Gaming Association (2011).]
The business of online gambling spans the globe and touches every corner of the United States. Worldwide,
online gambling is increasingly a legal and regulated activity that generates almost $30 billion of revenue
a year. In the United States, public policy on the subject has been schizophrenic. Online gambling is presently being
conducted domestically for pari-mutuel betting on horse races and for state lotteries, yet government policy has been hostile to
other forms of online gambling, and has included criminal prosecutions of online gambling operators and
their payment processing partners. Despite this government opposition, millions of Americans spend $4
billion every year to gamble online. Prosecutions against online gambling operators have driven the more
responsible offshore operators out of the U.S. market, leaving Americans to conduct their online
gambling through largely unregulated websites. In contrast, about 85 nations have chosen to legalize and
regulate online gambling. Numerous Western nations including the United Kingdom, France, Italy, and some provinces in
Canada have created structures for tight regulation of the online gambling industry. This course provides
consumer protections for individuals while also generating jobs, economic opportunity and government revenue. Beginning with
careful confirmation of the identity of every online gambler, which is the foundation for effective
regulation, these nations employ technologies that effectively ensure:
That the games are played fairly, according to their rules, and pay off as promised;
That underage gamblers are excluded from play;
That people who struggle to control their gambling have access to tools to limit their deposits, bets, and
overall play, or even exclude themselves from gambling websites entirely;
That online gambling operators do not accept bets from jurisdictions that prohibit online gambling; and
That gambling websites are not used for money laundering and other illegal purposes.
Similar protections are now required for U.S.-based websites that take bets on horse racing or sell
subscriptions for state lottery tickets.
Drawing on these experiences, Congress has a unique opportunity to blend several approaches to Internet gambling to
achieve the greater good. First, it should reinforce law enforcement tools and proscriptions to protect
Americans from gambling websites that now operate from offshore jurisdictions with minimal or no regulation.
Second, it should authorize a state-focused program to license U.S.-based operators to offer online poker
only, preserving the ability of every state government to decide whether online poker should be available
within its borders. Third, it should ensure that tough regulation ensures the fairness of the games, excludes
underage gamblers, and provides tools for pathological gamblers to control their gambling. Such an
integrated policy would provide maximum protections to American citizens while generating new jobs,
economic opportunities and public revenues.
An introduction to a specific solvency advocate article.
WATSON et al 04 [Watson, Stevie, et al. "The legalization of internet gambling: A consumer
protection perspective." Journal of Public Policy and Marketing 23.2 (2004): 209-213.]
The complexities of Internet gambling limit congressional efforts to regulate its growth . Therefore,
legislative attempts to prohibit Internet gaming may undermine the protection mechanisms that were designed
to help people who are susceptible to the social and economic problems linked to gambling. The authors suggest that congressional
efforts to prohibit Internet gambling should be reassessed, and they recommend the legalization and
regulation of Internet gambling through existing land-based casinos. Finally, the authors present the regulatory
guidelines and cooperative policy initiatives that are necessary for such a proposition.
In terms of topic wording Internet Gambling would be a simple and definable phrase to legalize or
decriminalize
Affirmative
The economic advantages would be huge. Alijani et al., argue that the US is being left out of the largest
industry in the world.
And, heres an advocate for heavy federal regulation and legalization
parent company, Zynga, is poised to start offering online poker for real money--as soon as lawmakers
allow it. n179
The legal trend certainly points in that direction. The Department of Justice has re-interpreted the Wire
Act as irrelevant to online poker. A federal district court has ruled that the Illegal Gambling Business Act
also does not apply. The Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act is ineffectual without an
applicable statute on [*543] which to rely. And the states, despite historically treating poker as an illicit "game of chance,"
are beginning to move toward explicit legalization. The best path forward is an interstate compact to
create a robust multi-state online poker network. A compact, as envisioned in this Note, would take advantage of the emerging
judicial certainty that online poker is legal under federal law. And it would, for the first time, allow American online poker to be fully regulated,
guaranteed safe, and properly taxed. As Mark Twain wrote, "There are few things that are so unpardonably neglected
in our country as poker." n180 Under a well-regulated interstate compact, the digital iteration of America's pastime would no longer be
neglected by America's policymakers.
Other advantage ground would include: Citizen foreign spending, Underground Economies, and personal
happiness/liberty issues. Many of the articles cited below go through each of these and develops an
economic, social, or moral justification for allowing online poker.
Negative
Gambling, and specifically online gambling, is not without its critics. There have been several studies
done, including one by Phillips et al., that online gambling is connected with other dangerous activities
like suicide.
Both Schopper and Mills, among others, argues that online gambling is the easiest way to launder money
to fund other illegal activities. That was, and remains, a major argument made in favor of continued
criminalization.
Additionally, many critics of gambling, such as McMulland and Rege, argue that online gambling
magnifies the vice of gambling.
The Cap kritik would probably be at its finest in criticizing online taxable systems of gambling money.
While I have not researched them myself, Martin Osborn assured me that they would be, really sweet.
Additionally, online casinos are a major threat to traditional casinos. Whether one wants to defend those
as economic institutions or as places for Native American revitalization, there is certainly a set of trade off
arguments.
Depending on the mechanism, alternative modes of legalization or decriminalization would be robust
given the number of solvency advocates and calls for federal action.
Citations
Abovitz, Ian. "Why the United States Should Rethink Its Legal Approach to Internet Gambling: A
Comparative Analysis of Regulatory Models That Have Been Successfully Implemented in Foreign
Jurisdictions." Temp. Int'l & Comp. LJ 22 (2008): 437.
Alijani, Ghasem S., et al. "Economic Impacts of Commercial Casinos and On-Line Gambling." c. 2002.
http://swdsi.org/swdsi05/Proceedings05/paper_pdf/Online%20Gambling%20by%20G-Alijani%20BBraden%20A-Omar%20S-Eweni%20(F3C1).pdf]
Eadington, William R. "The future of online gambling in the United States and elsewhere." Journal of
Public Policy and Marketing 23.2 (2004): 214-219.
Goodman, David. "Proposals for a Federal Prohibition of Internet Gambling: Are There Any Other Viable
Solutions to this Perplexing Problem." Miss. LJ 70 (2000): 375.
Gottfried, Jonathan. "The federal framework for Internet gambling." Rich. JL & Tech. 10 (2004): 26-53.
Haried, Peter. "Trust in the Online Gambling Industry: We Dont Trust You, But Please Take Our Money."
Journal of Business and Behavioral Sciences 16.1 (2009).
Kearney, Melissa S. The economic winners and losers of legalized gambling. No. w11234. National
Bureau of Economic Research, 2005.
Liddell Jr, Pearson, et al. "Internet gambling: on a roll." Seton Hall Legis. J. 28 (2003): 315.
McEvoy, Margie, and Compulsive Gamblers. "THE POLITICAL AND SOCIAL IMPLICATIONS OF
INTERNET GAMBLING." (2000).
McMullan, John L., and Aunshul Rege. "Online crime and internet gambling." Journal of Gambling
Issues (2010): 54-85.
Mills, Jon. "Internet casinos: a sure bet for money laundering." Dick. J. Int'l L. 19 (2000): 77.
Phillips, David P., Ward R. Welty, and Marisa M. Smith. "Elevated suicide levels associated with
legalized gambling." Suicide and life-threatening behavior 27.4 (1997): 373-378.
Romoser, James. "UNSTACKING THE DECK: THE LEGALIZATION OF ONLINE POKER." Am.
Crim. L. Rev. 50 (2013): 519-607.
Schmitt, Michael D. "Prohibition Reincarnated-The Uncertain Future of Online Gambling following the
Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act of 2006." S. Cal. Interdisc. LJ 17 (2007): 381.
Schopper, Mark D. "Internet Gambling, Electonic Cash & (and) Money Laundering: The Unintended
Consequences of a Monetary Control Scheme." Chap. L. Rev. 5 (2002): 303.
Stewart, David O., and L. L. P. Gray. "Online gambling five years after UIGEA." Washington, DC:
American Gaming Association (2011).
Walters, Lawrence G. "The Law of Online Gambling in the United States-A Safe Bet, or Risky
Business?." Gaming Law Review 7.6 (2003): 445-450.
Watson, Stevie, et al. "The legalization of internet gambling: A consumer protection perspective." Journal
of Public Policy and Marketing 23.2 (2004): 209-213.
Why the USA Should Legalize Online Poker, http://www.whytheusashouldlegalizeonlinepoker.com/
Wood, Robert T., and Robert J. Williams. "Problem gambling on the Internet: Implications for Internet
gambling policy in North America." New Media & Society 9.3 (2007): 520-542.
Indeed, why are organ sales illegal? Donors of blood, semen, and eggs, and volunteers for medical trials,
are often compensated. Why not apply the same principle to organs?
The very idea of legalization might sound gruesome to most people, but it shouldn't, especially since research
shows it would save lives. In the United States, where the 1984 National Organ Transplantation Act prohibits compensation for
organ donating, there are only about 20,000 kidneys every year for the approximately 80,000 patients on the
waiting list. In 2008, nearly 5,000 died waiting.
A global perspective shows how big the problem is. "Millions of people suffer from kidney disease , but in
2007 there were just 64,606 kidney-transplant operations in the entire world ," according to George Mason
University professor and Independent Institute research director Alexander Tabarrok, writing in the Wall Street Journal.
Almost every other country has prohibitions like America's. In Iran, however, selling one's kidney for profit is
legal. There are no patients anguishing on the waiting list. The Iranians have solved their kidney shortage by legalizing
sales.
Many will protest that an organ market will lead to exploitation and unfair advantages for the rich and powerful.
But these are the characteristics of the current illicit organ trade. Moreover, as with drug prohibition today and alcohol
prohibition in the 1920s, pushing a market underground is the way to make it rife with violence and criminality.
In Japan, for the right price, you can buy livers and kidneys harvested from executed Chinese prisoners.
Three years ago in India, police broke up an organ ring that had taken as many as 500 kidneys from poor laborers. The World Health
Organization estimates that the black market accounts for 20 percent of kidney transplants worldwide .
Everywhere from Latin America to the former Soviet Republics, from the Philippines to South Africa, a huge network has emerged typified by
threats, coercion, intimidation, extortion, and shoddy surgeries.
Although not every black market transaction is exploitative -- demonstrating that organ sales, in and of themselves, are not the problem -- the
most unsavory parts of the trade can be attributed to the fact that it is illegal. Witnessing the horror stories, many are
calling on governments to crack down even more severely. Unfortunately, prohibition drives up black-market profits, turns the
market over to organized crime, and isolates those harmed in the trade from the normal routes of recourse .
Several years ago, transplant surgeon Nadley Hakim at St. Mary's Hospital in London pointed out that " this trade is going on anyway,
why not have a controlled trade where if someone wants to donate a kidney for a particular price, that would be acceptable? If it is
done safely, the donor will not suffer."
Bringing the market into the open is the best way to ensure the trade's appropriate activity . Since the
stakes would be very high, market forces and social pressure would ensure that people are not intimidated
or defrauded. In the United States, attitudes are not so casual as to allow gross degeneracy. Enabling a process by which consenting people
engage in open transactions would mitigate the exploitation of innocent citizens and underhanded dealing by those seeking to skirt the law.
The most fundamental case for legalizing organ sales -- an appeal to civil liberty -- has proven highly
controversial. Liberals like to say, "my body, my choice," and conservatives claim to favor free markets,
but true self-ownership would include the right to sell one's body parts , and genuine free enterprise would imply a
market in human organs. In any event, studies show that this has become a matter of life and death.
Perhaps the key to progress is more widespread exposure to the facts . In 2008, six experts took on this issue is an Oxfordstyle debate hosted by National Public Radio. By the end, those in the audience who favored allowing the market climbed from 44 to 60 percent.
Yet, the organ trade continues to operate in the shadows and questionable activities occur in the medical
establishment under the color of law. Even today, doctors sometimes legally harvest organ tissue from dead patients without
consent. Meanwhile, thousands are perishing and even more are suffering while we wait for the system to change.
The truly decent route would be to allow people to withhold or give their organs freely, especially upon
death, even if in exchange for money. Thousands of lives would be saved. Once again, humanitarianism is
best served by the respect for civil liberty, and yet we are deprived both, with horribly unfortunate consequences, just to maintain
the pretense of state-enforced propriety.
NPR hosted a public debate goes over the aff and neg ground quite well
KNOX 08 NPR [Richard Knox, Should We Legalize the Market for Human Organs?, May 21,
200812:01 PM ET, http://www.npr.org/2008/05/21/90632108/should-we-legalize-the-market-for-humanorgans]
Organ transplantation is one of the chief glories of modern medicine . But it's a miracle tragically out of
reach for many thousands of people whose lives might be saved .
There just aren't enough organs to go around. About 75,000 Americans are on the waiting list for kidney
transplants. But in the coming year, just 18,000 will get them. That's only one in four.
It's not as though the others will eventually get kidneys if they just wait, sustained in the meantime by dialysis. In the next
year, nearly 4,000 of those patients will die waiting. At least 1,200 others will fall off the list because they
develop complications that make them too sick to withstand a transplant.
Thousands more transplant candidates might be saved if more Americans signed organ donation cards, if
more families consented to donation of their loved ones' organs, and if medical personnel approached the families of potential donors more often.
The proposition: "We Should Legalize the Market for Human Organs ."
By the end of the session, many of the "undecideds" were persuaded . Before the debate, 29 percent were
uncertain. Afterward, that declined to 9 percent .
Those who favored buying and selling organs went from 44 percent to 60 percent. But those opposed inched up
only 4 points, from 27 to 31 percent.
The debate took place before a capacity crowd on May 13 at the Asia Society and Museum in New York City. Ira Flatow, host of NPR's Talk of
the Nation: Science Friday, moderated.
Sally Satel, a psychiatrist and resident scholar at the American Enterprise Institute who received a kidney
from a friend in 2006, says:
"Despite decades and decades of public education about the virtues of organ
donation, the waiting list just gets longer, and the time to transplantation just gets longer. ... It's past time to face the fact that
altruism is just not enough. Many people need more of an incentive to give. And that's why we need to be able to compensate people
who are willing to give a kidney to a stranger, to save a life. ... We are not talking about a classic commercial free-for-all, or a free market, or an
eBay system. We're talking about a third-party payer . For example, today you could decide to give a kidney. You'd be called a
Good Samaritan donor. ... The only difference in a model that I'm thinking about is where you go and give your organ, and your retirement
account is wired $40,000, end of story."
Amy Friedman, director of transplantation at SUNY Upstate Medical University and close relative of two transplant recipients
and one live organ donor, says: "I agree with our opponents that the black market must be closed. I disagree with asking patients to accept death
gracefully, instead of resorting to the black market. My position is that development of a legal, regulated mechanism for
donor compensation is the only means of effectively eliminating the demand for this covert activity,
closing down the black market and improving safety for donors and recipients . ... Compensation for the organ
donor's time and risks, by providing life insurance, lifelong health insurance and even a direct monetary fee, is more appropriate than for the
donation of an egg, the rental of a uterus for a surrogate pregnancy, or the participation in clinical experimentation, all of which are legal."
Lloyd R. Cohen, professor of law at George Mason University, says: "The market I propose is one in which
healthy individuals might contract for the sale of their organs and tissue for delivery after their death . If the
vendors' organs are retrieved and transplanted, a payment in the range of $5,000 for each major organ would be made
to a person or institution chosen by the donor. ... In an options market, organs would only be acquired from the dead. No one
need be induced or even permitted to sacrifice his health or bodily integrity for money. The donation of the organs of the
deceased by both rich and poor is currently strongly encouraged, precisely because most of us believe that
surrendering the organ represents no sacrifice to the donor ."
market legalized in the United States, in the global context of medical tourism, do you think that the 72year-old patient on the list would wait for a kidney here, versus going to buy a 20-year-old kidney in
Manila?"
David Rothman, professor of social medicine at Columbia University and director of the Center on Medicine as a Profession,
says: "What this is really about is the sale of organs from living donors . ... There are very, very good reasons
many drawn from behavioral economics, some drawn from past experience that suggest that, in fact, to create a market
might diminish the supply, not increase it. In the first instance, if I can buy it why should I give it?... In England, where the sale of
blood was not allowed, rates of donation were considerably higher than the U.S., where the sale of blood was allowed."
Mackenzie, 2010 [Catriona, prof of philosoph@ Macquarie University, Conceptions of autonomy and
conceptions of the body in bioethics, Chapter from the book Feminist Bioethics, Published by Johns
Hopkins.
Boyd, 2002 [S Gregory, MD, Considering a Market in Human Organs 4 N.C. J.L. & Tech. 417 (20022003) http://heinonline.org/HOL/LandingPage?handle=hein.journals/ncjl4&div=19&id=&page=;]
Stramondo, 2013 [Joseph, Seeing the Forest Through the Trees: What the Radical Feminist Critique of
Prostitution Can Teach Us About the Sale of Kidneys by Living Suppliers International Journal of
Feminist Approaches to Bioethics Volume 6, Number 1, Spring 2013 http://muse.jhu.edu/login?
auth=0&type=summary&url=/journals/international_journal_of_feminist_approaches_to_bioethics/v006/
6.1.stramondo.html]
Taylor, 2007 (Robert, Poli-Sci @ UC Davis, SELF-OWNERSHIP AND TRANSPLANTABLE
HUMAN ORGANS Public Affairs Quarterly Volume 21, Number 1, January 2007
http://polisci.ucdavis.edu/people/rstaylor/homepage/papers/Organs ]
Calder, 2004 [Gideon, Prof @ Newport, Bodies for sale: ethics and exploitation in the human body
trade J Med Ethics 2005;31:e8 doi:10.1136/jme.2003.006288, http://jme.bmj.com/content/31/7/e8.full]
The Organ Procurement and Transplantation Network (http://optn.transplant.hrsa.gov/data/)
Donate Life (http://donatelife.net, http://donatelife.net/statistics/)
Act came from Roman Catholic churches and institutions, plus a hefty sum from the Mormons . With all
donations and their mainly religious sources reported in the media, an aggrieved response may have been triggered on the part of some voters that
they were being dictated to by certain religious forces. Oregonians are noted for their independence in religious matters, and if there is one
traditional principle in American life that is most admirable it is freedom of religion, plus freedom from other peoples religions. It was,
incidentally, an entirely postal vote, giving people the opportunity to reflect, and perhaps discuss, their decisions while at home.
The Oregon double vote on precisely the same law is an historic test of public opinion because this is the
only place in the world in which the citizenry have been asked to decide on the rightness or wrongness of
physician-assisted suicide. All previous changes in existing laws on this subjectin the Netherlands, Australia, and Colombia
were carried out by elected representatives or judges.
Why do I think that the people of Oregon decided that they wanted choice in dying at the end-of -life?
Pain can be a major reason, or fear of pain. Thanks to the clamor in the past decade of the right to die movement, the subject of
pain management is now being seriously addressed in America, following the leadership of the British. Millions of dollars are being
spent. and many fine and dedicated minds are devoting enormous time and energy to the improved
control of terminal suffering. Throughout the l980s, few listened to us when our movement protested that there was too much
unnecessary pain in the modern dying process. It has taken our successes in the ballots and our near- successes (and a lot of noise) in the
legislatures, together with reaching the US. Supreme Court with two important appeals (both rejected. finally) to force the health professions to
take a truly in-depth look at how poorly they care for the dying. It is commonly accepted that the best place, currently, to die in America is
Oregon, precisely because of the 994 passage of the Death with Dignity Act. All of a sudden. after that first vote, the health professions woke up
and started forming task forces and study groups and holding seminars, all to improve the care of the dying. Hospices saw a 20% increase of
patients referred to them by doctors, and the use of morphine began to surpass that m any other state in the nation.
Another reason for the Oregon decision is psychic pain, best known to ordinary peopleas distinct from academics and
physiciansas distress,
unhappiness, sad ness, and being a burden through their dying process on those
whom they love. The sheer strain of being subjected to multiple medical procedures. however skillfully and caringly administered, is a
strain on the body and mind. There is also the process of obvious deterioration of a body once healthy and active, a body In which the person
once had considerable pride. Prolonged medical care, being continually in and out of hospitals, being tabbed
incessantly for laboratory testing purposes, being attached to bits and pieces of equipment. and taking lots
of drugs which often have uncomfortable side-effects are what add up to distress .
Observing that they are losing control, being subjected constantly to medical regi mens. and having to endure a lifestyle never previously
considered can combine to contribute to the unhappiness of terminal patients. Not being able to enjoy the old pasttimes and friendships, no longer
being able to walk the dog or weed the gar denwhatever it is that makes life tolerablethese are the things that make for sadness. Knowing
that life is drawing to a close, being conscious that they must soon say a final goodbye to those whom
they love, and giving up hard-worked-for and prized possessions all contribute to the grief, or selfmourning, of the patient. We hear from strident right.to-life critics that, il we pass laws permitting hastened deaths to be chosen by
dying people, those who are a burden, physically or financially, will either be pushed into quick deaths or feel obliged to check out prematurely.
This Is their slippery slope argument.
It is the most natural of human feelings not to want to be a huge physical, emotional, and financial burden
on family, and one of the more admirable human feelings, in my opinion. In the right to die movement we tell people who approach us with
this problem that, if they Look carefully, they will probably find that family is only too pleased and proud to take care of them, and also that it Is
payback time for younger people to look after the older folk facing their ends. But let us be honest and admit that the
burden question is sometimes a genuine component to be fed into the hopper when considering the end. (lam
definitely not referring here to persons who are permanently disabled or handicapped in some way. In the Oregon law, and others to
follow, such persons could only get assisted death if they were terminally ill, asked for it, and met the
conditions,)
All of the above states of mind add up to that factor called the quality of life . It is not a phrase to which the
opponents of assisted dying make much reference. Quality of life is a state that even the most caring and expert phyciaan cannot assess. Neither
can the most ecperienced psychiatrist nor the well.equipped health technician quan iffy it. Quality of life is far too intimate, too
personal, and too individual for others to be involved in, It is the quintessence of the meaning of life in the human species. It
is what makes our lives so varied and interesting, distinct from robots. It is far too glib to pass this factor off as depression in the ready parlance
that is so fashionable now adays.
Although nobody more than me welcomes the wonderful research being done into pain, and the saintly work being done by a burgeoning hospice
movement, this will never provide the whole answer, the universal solution, as some claim. No matter how superb the quality of terminal care, a
small number of patients will want to bring their lives to a faster close. A truly free society will, with certain safeguards.
permit that.
One of the great benefits of having a legalized assistance-in.dying procedure in place is that it will give
patients great comfort to know thatif their sufferings get completely out of handthey could ask their doctors to
help them to die. It will reduce the number of suicides that are carried out far too soon because the patient
fears losing control. worried by the prospect of another stroke or lapsing into a state of unconsciousness or incompetence. It will
reduce the number of mercy killings those horrific domestic events when one person slays the person they care for most in the
world because they overwhelmingly feel that it is their human duty to take charge and reLieve the others suffering. Many of these
tragedies result in the perpetra tor also killing himself or herself , either out of a wish to die together after a good
relationship, or guilt. ormore likely n my viewdread of societys retribution with a prison sentence.
None of these reasons is by itself a justifiable reason to request and receive doctor- assisted dying. A
combination of a number of the reasons is. Lawful assistance in dying is also needed to lift the grossly unfair
burden it is currently placing on those brave doctors who are in cases in which they feel mtdi cally and morally justified,
even obligatedactively helping their patients to die. Nobody can collect statistics on this syndrome because,
although it is a criminal act throughout America. there are only two convictions recorded both in New York State,
one in 19% and one in 19%. Still, nobody dares gather data on the action. It is the secret crime of the bedroom, except in the Netherlands.
where it has governmental sanction and we are kept aware of the results through extensive research. I estimate that it happens many hundreds of
time a year in America, (king oshcd to indepen. dently supply lethal drugs covertly, without the ability to consult other health profes sionals on
the advisability of what they are about lo do. Is completely unfair lo these doctors. Besides assisting suicide being a elony (except. since 1997, in
Oregon), although, as I have said, there are only two recorded convictions, doclor also act secretly for fear of becoming the notorious first test
case. Dr. Kevorkian opens himself to criticism for many of his actions, but his openness. courage. and determina tion are unquestionable and
unique in this field.
Physician-assisted suicide must essentially be a team effort Doctors, nurses, mental health professionals,
and social workers should all (if they choose) be Involved in a decision whether or not to accelerate the death
of a suffering, terminally ill person who requests it. The awesome nature of being party to the ending of a human life is too
great for one person to shoulder.
Finally, there is the matter
assisted suicide is a rare occurrence. Very few states have laws permitting euthanasia , but the federal
government should change this regulation.
The government should legalize euthanasia and provide psychological therapy for those who perform the
act in order to help, not to murder, while, writing a corollary law prohibiting the request for euthanasia. Euthanasia the act of
assisting suicide harms people who perform the act because it requires the performer to take a life.
Euthanasia is not a private decision or action.
Advocates of euthanasia argue that the act should be an individuals private decision because it does not harm others. Advocates of euthanasia
argue that all people, regardless of physical capability, should be able to do what they want with their bodies, including the ability to choose when
and how they die. In order to have equal access to this freedom for people unable to commit suicide, they advocate for euthanasia on the grounds
that it is a private decision because it does not harm anyone.
But euthanasia harms the person performing the act. Unlike suicide, where a person kills himself,
euthanasia requires person A to kill person B at the consent of person B.
Killing another human being has negative psychological impacts on humans who are not sociopaths.
Taking another persons life will traumatize the euthanizer especially trained doctors who repeatedly
perform the procedure. According to social journalist Rupert Taylor, the repeated killing of humans causes people to harm themselves,
exhibiting behaviors like drinking excessively or committing suicide.
In short, solvency advocates for a number of possible advantages exist. Including pain and suffering,
control of ones own life, human dignity, and human rights.
SHARMA 04 [Sharma, B. R. "The end of life decisionsshould physicians aid their patients in
dying?." Journal of clinical forensic medicine 11.3 (2004): 133-140.]
Decisions pertaining to end of life whether legalized or otherwise, are made in many parts of the world
but not reported on account of legal implications. The highly charged debate over voluntary euthanasia
and physician assisted suicide was brought into the public arena again when two British doctors confessed
to giving lethal doses of drugs to hasten the death of terminally ill patients . Lack of awareness regarding the
distinction between different procedures on account of legal status granted to them in some countries is the other area
of concern. Some equate withdrawal of life support measures to physician assisted suicide whereas
physician assisted suicide is often misinterpreted as euthanasia . Debate among the medical practitioners, law makers
and the public taking into consideration the cultural, social and religious ethos will lead to increased awareness, more
safeguards and improvement of medical decisions concerning the end of life. International Human Rights
Law can provide a consensual basis for such a debate on euthanasia .
Those interested in researching disabilities and able-bodied discussions would find lots of literature
discussing death and the need for assistance.
Van Den Haag 97 [Van den Haag, Ernest. "Whose Life Is It: Decriminalize Assisted Suicide and
Euthanasia?." CRIMINAL LAW BULLETIN-BOSTON- 33 (1997): 262-269.]
While most persons are physically able to take their life when they want to, some individuals are so disabled
they cannot do it without assistance. Laws in nearly all jurisdictions, however, attempt to prevent such
assistance. Physicians are the most appropriate persons to help patients and others who want to end their
lives. Nonetheless, the Hippocratic oath, tradition, and medical education continue to lead many
physicians to believe they must keep patients alive at all costs, regardless of their wishes. The government has no
demonstrable interest in forcing unwilling persons to live , but it may have an interest in preventing
individuals from taking avoidable risks. The role of mental illness and the issue of comatose or
incompetent persons in assisted suicide and euthanasia are discussed, as well as the possibility of abuse of
assisted suicide. The author concludes that the law should not punish those who assist in suicide or perform euthanasia. 8 footnotes
Additionally, I have avoided listing federalism as an advantage and disad area for each of the topics.
However, there is at least one high quality article discussing the federalism issues inherent in PAD
debates.
BIX 03 [Bix, Brian. "Physician Assisted Suicide and Federalism." Notre Dame journal of law, ethics &
public policy 17 (2003).]
The article considers the application of general theories of federalism (e.g., states as laboratories and competitive
federalism) to the issue of physician-assisted suicide . The article also uses the analogies of same-sex marriage and medical
marijuana to explore some of the moral and policy issues raised by this intersection of medical ethics and federalism.
In terms of negative ground, one half of the Werth anthology is dedicated to arguments against assisted
suicide. Without being exhaustive, that list includes:
Elderly Abuse
Dore, amongst others, argues that Physician-assisted suicide would be used as a cover for the abuse and
early death of elderly persons.
Consent Issues
Similarly, Cameron and others point out that required legal consent issues apply to all sorts of medical
procedures in the status quo. Assuming that it would be applied better to suicide is silly.
Improved Care
The most likely counterplans will stem from attempts to improve care for those in situations where
suicide is their chosen mechanism. Emanuel argues that before we begin to consider broad legalization
we should make sure that the care that is provided is exceptional.
Life is Good
The core negative argument can center around the simple claim that death is always bad. Suicide
shouldnt be an option. Multiple chapters of the anthology are from philosophers and ethicists arguing
that we should never allow people to take their own lives given that life is always the possibility of
survival.
I will conclude by saying that anyone who is interested in this as an area should begin their search by
looking at the Werth citation listed below. It is a collection of multiple perspectives and recent
scholarship dealing with the issue of physician assisted suicide.
Citations
BATTIN, MARGARET P., and RYAN SPELLECY. "What Kind of Freedom? Szaszs Misleading
Perception of Physician-Assisted Suicide." Szasz Under Fire: A Psychiatric Abolitionist Faces His Critics
1 (2004): 277.
Perlmutter, Steve. "Physician-Assisted Suicide-A Medicolegal Inquiry." Mich. St. UJ Med. & L. 15
(2010): 203.
Sharma, B. R. "The end of life decisionsshould physicians aid their patients in dying?." Journal of
clinical forensic medicine 11.3 (2004): 133-140.
Sharma, B. R. "International human rights law and the debate on euthanasiaA Viewpoint." Indian
Internet Journal of Forensic Medicine & Toxicology 3.4 (2005).
Sharma, B. R. "To legalize physician-assisted suicide or not?a dilemma." Journal of clinical forensic
medicine 10.3 (2003): 185-190.
Stell, Lance. "Physician Assisted Suicide: To Decriminalize or to Legalize, That Is the Question."
Physician Assisted Suicide: Expanding the Debate. New York: Routledge (1998): 225-51.
Sumner, Leonard Wayne. Assisted death: A study in ethics and law. Oxford University Press, 2011.
Tarnow, William J. "Recognizing a Fundamental Liberty Interest Protecting the Right to Die: An Analysis
of Statutes Which Criminalize or Legalize Physician Assisted Suicide." Elder LJ 4 (1996): 407.
Tulloch, Gail. Euthanasia, Choice and Death. Edinburgh University Press, 2005.
Van Norman, Gail A. "Physician aid-in-dying: cautionary words." Current Opinion in Anesthesiology
27.2 (2014): 177-182.
Werth, James L., ed. Contemporary perspectives on rational suicide. Routledge, 2013.
Wester-Mittan, Candle M. Physician-assisted death: four views on the issue of legalizing PAD: a legal
research guide. Vol. 53. Fred B Rothman & Co, 2009.
Williams, Glenys. Intention and causation in medical non-killing: the impact of criminal law concepts on
euthanasia and assisted suicide. Routledge, 2007.
Prostitution
There are great solvency advocates for the legalization of prostitution. It is an issue that has been
discussed, researched and defended by every undergraduate who has taken some gender studies classes at
some point. It should be debated.
around world and involves the sale and purchase of sex by willing adults . Traditionally prostitution occurs out in the
street by the sex worker (most of whom are women) approaching the "John" (the customer or purchaser of sexual services, usually male) or the
sex worker being approached by the John. Prostitution can also occur as a result of sex trafficking which involves individuals who are mostly
woman, being transported to the United States legally or illegally from other countries and are then forced and or coerced into becoming sex
workers. For the purposes of this paper, the latter situation will be referred to only as sex trafficking, in order to distinguish it from the topic at
hand, the willing, consensual exchange of sexual services for money, i.e. prostitution. The purpose of this paper is to argue in
favor of policy reformations that would decriminalize prostitution in the United States, and explore the
advantages that this would have.
This will be done in part by comparing the US to other countries , particularly other developed Western nations which
have either relaxed enforcement of prostitution laws or have no legal prohibitions at all. Instead of focusing primarily on how
decriminalizing prostitution would be beneficial to sex workers, this paper will attempt to demonstrate
that decriminalizing prostitution will also be beneficial to society as well . For example, Brents and
Hausbeck (2005) reported in their study that decriminalizing prostitution would not only decrease violence against
sex workers but would also benefit society as a whole by decreasing community disorder which comes in
the form of harms that result due to visibility of prostitution on the street, such as the encouragement of
criminal behavior and being harmful to minors. This paper will propose that the decriminalization of prostitution
specifically involves the removal of prostitution from the street and placing it in legalized brothels that
have regulations that must be followed by the mangers and sex workers in order to remain in business.
To explain how the decriminalization of prostitution would be beneficial to society there will be a discussion of
three relevant topics, along with a policy implication suggestion that will address the issue of community disorder. The first topic is
the health concerns associated with prostitution. This section of the paper will argue that the decriminalization of
prostitution will help reduce the spread of sexually transmitted infections (STI's) by discussing the regulations that are
placed on legalized brothels. The second topic that will be discussed is the safety concerns associated with
prostitution. This section will focus on the decrease in victimization of sex workers by emphasizing the safety and protection that would be
provided within a legalized brothel. The third topic that will be discussed is the issue of human sex trafficking and its
connection to prostitution. This section will focus on the key difference between the two illegal acts, which
is the willingness and consent of the sex workers to engage in these acts. It will also attempt to demonstrate that the
decriminalization of prostitution will allow law enforcement to focus their attention and resources on the
more serious crime of sex trafficking.
In addition to these three main topics the final section will summarize and discuss the arguments against the decriminalization of prostitution.
This section will contain arguments made by some feminist researchers and advocates who suggest
that the decriminalization of prostitution will be more harmful to sex workers than helpful , and will
encourage the objectification of women in general (Farley, 2004). Finally, there will be a discussion of my own thoughts
regarding the necessary societal changes that would need to be made in United States in order for prostitution to become decriminalized. This
section will highlight the changes made by societies that have either relaxed enforcement of prostitution laws or no legal prohibitions at all in
order to help further define the societal changes that the U.S. would need to make in order to successfully change current policies and allow
prostitution to become decriminalized.
the same time, will that it should become a universal law without contradiction (Kant, 1993, p. 30). The
criminalization of private prostitution clearly violates that ethical principle.
controversies. A second
time to gain the trust of sex workers and proprietors that allow administrators to communicate information effectively and
read the signals of exploitation. In our research, we find that experienced administrators who have been on the job for a considerable period of
time, can develop a stance towards prostitution that is simultaneously pragmatic, realistic, reflective and humane. In this way, such
administrators act as a barrier to dogmatic ideas and heroic solutions proposed by sensationalist media or
elected officials who are out for a quick success .
A third condition is the creation of an international body of scholarship which , based on solid empirical work,
patiently accumulates knowledge and insights about (the effects) of policy implementation . This not only
allows policy entrepreneurs (Kingdon 2002) to generate novel solutions, but also the critical assessment of such new ideas by an international
community of experts. And fourth, it is imperative that we allow relevant groups, sex workers in the first place, but
also clients, proprietors and residents of prostitution areas, to participate in the design and implementation
of policy measures. Not only do they have the practical, experiential knowledge that makes it possible to design feasible policy measures,
but under the right circumstances they can come up with the kind of mutual gains solutions that will overcome intransigent conflict (Forester
2009). That is not a utopian fantasy is shown by the success of the city of The Hague in developing a
licensing system with an, admittedly, far from perfect deliberative process (Wagenaar 2006), or the case of the
German city of Dortmund in which an initiative by citizens and voluntary organizations to deal with street prostitution has evolved in a
successful long-term partnership with city officials and the police (Wagenaar and Specht 2010; Mais 2011).
There are a lot of possible affirmative advocates from different scholastic backgrounds that argue for the
need to legalize prostitution. Most of those advocates study European and Nevada models where some
version of sex work has previously been legalized. As such, there are numerous solvency mechanisms,
counterplans, and advantages to be explored. A brief listing is below.
provide the first causal estimates of the impact of decriminalization on the composition of the sex market, rape offenses,
and population sexually transmitted infection outcomes. Not surprisingly, we find that decriminalization increased the
size of the indoor market. However, somewhat unexpectedly, we find that decriminalization caused both forcible
rape offenses and gonorrhea incidence to decline for the overall population . Our synthetic control model
finds 824 fewer reported rape offenses and 1,035 fewer cases of female gonorrhea from 2004 to 2009. The
combined benefits of six years of decriminalization are estimated to be approximately 200 million USD.
Decriminalization appears to benefit the population at large, especially women and not just sex workers.
Additionally, there have been several studies, such as this one the one by Seals et al, that have discussed
the different benefits of multiple forms of legal prostitution. In short, both the aff and the neg will be able
to engage in debates about
Neighborhood Improvements
A good number of the studies such as Hubbard and Prior discuss the communal impacts of legalized
and criminalized prostitution. Basically, prostitution devalues neighborhoods, brings in other crimes, and
tends to undermine the overall value of communities. Legalized prostitution would solve those issues.
Trafficking
As the Ford card above suggests in the introduction, sex trafficking is the hidden other side of the
prostitution issue. Many persons currently working in prostitution are doing so because of trafficking.
There are arguments that go both ways. Ford makes the argument that legalization would allow for
regulation and thus decrease the number of persons who were trafficked into participating. Additionally,
legalization would allow current police efforts aimed at eradicating prostitution to focus on trafficking.
Others like Cho, Seo-Young, Dreher, and Neumayer, have published recent studies that discuss the pros
and cons of criminalization on trafficking efforts. The literature is certainly not one sided and could make
for some amazingly in depth solvency debates.
Negative
The best part about including decriminalized prostitution in the topic is that the case debate on each of the
main advantage areas [Health, Safety, and Trafficking] is well contested. While there are great studies
about the benefits, there are many who argue against them and suggest that the opposite outcome is just as
likely. In addition to that there are several other angles that the negative could take.
Additionally, there is a great deal of solvency based literature. Many of the places that have legalized
prostitution have done so in a myriad of different ways. Wagenaar, Hendrik, and Sietske Altink discuss
the varying problems that arise from attempts to legalize. Including, but not limited to, underground
markets, lack of registration, poor administration, and lack of trust in police.
Counterplan ground could also be fruitful. There are many places that have started establishing John
Schools which provide education and training to men. Basically, instead of decriminalizing prostitution,
the law would shift its focus to the criminalizing of the John or the person purchasing services. See Cook
below.
There are also feminist arguments to be made against prostitution. Ford, the solvency advocate from
above, does a solid job of explaining one of their criticisms.
put forth by some feminists is that decriminalizing prostitution would be demeaning to women (Farley, 2005).
In other words it would encourage the objectification of all women by men. It would make it seem as if
there is nothing wrong with the behavior that the men are engaging in. Men wouldn't stop treating women
in this way because theyre not being penalized for their behavior . The absence of consequences for their
behavior only strengthens their belief that they are not doing anything wrong . Decriminalizing prostitution
would give the impression that it is acceptable for men to view and treat women as if they are objects for
sexual consumption, and not human beings; this would in turn also strengthen the stigma that is already associated with being a sex
worker (Jeffreys, 2010).
Farley, cited below, does a great job of answering both many of the inevitability arguments and the
general claim that legalization would improve the lives of women.
Citations
Cho, Seo-Young, Axel Dreher, and Eric Neumayer. "Does legalized prostitution increase human
trafficking?." World development 41 (2013): 67-82.
Conant, Michael, Federalism, the Mann Act, and the Imperative to Decriminalize Prostitution; 5 Cornell
J. L. & Pub. Pol'y 99 (1995-1996)
Cook, Ian R. "Making links between sex work, gender and victimisation: The politics and pedagogies of
John Schools.", http://research.northumbria.ac.uk/urbanfutures/wp-content/uploads/2012/03/CookMaking-links-between-sex-work-gender-and-victimisation.pdf
Cunningham, Scott, and Manisha Shah. "Decriminalizing Prostitution: Surprising Implications for Sexual
Violence and Public Health." (2013).
Farley, M. (2004). "Bad for the body, bad for the heart": Prostitution harms women even if legalized of
decriminalized. Violence Against Women, 10(10), 1087-1125.
Farley, M. (2005). Prostitution harms women even if indoors. Violence Against Women, 11(7),
950-964.
Ford, Everette, "From Prostitute to Professional" (2012). Research Papers. Paper 311.
http://opensiuc.lib.siu.edu/gs_rp/311
http://prostitution.procon.org/view.subissues.php?issueID=000363
Hubbard, Phil, et al. "Noxious neighbours? Interrogating the impacts of sex premises in residential areas."
Environment and Planning A 45.1 (2013): 126-141.
Long, Billy. "Freedom for Women in the Sex Work Occupation: Twenty-Three Reasons Why Prostitution
Should Be Legalized In America." Vol. 2 No. 16 [Special Issue August 2012].
McCarthy, Bill, et al. "Regulating sex work: heterogeneity in legal strategies." Annual Review of Law and
Social Science 8 (2012): 255-271.
Oselin, Sharon S., and Ronald Weitzer. "Organizations working on behalf of prostitutes: An analysis of
goals, practices, and strategies." Sexualities 16.3-4 (2013): 445-466.
Outshoorn, Joyce. "Policy change in prostitution in the Netherlands: from legalization to strict control."
Sexuality Research and Social Policy 9.3 (2012): 233-243.
Prior, Jason, and Penny Crofts. "Effects of sex premises on neighbourhoods: Residents, local planning
and the geographies of a controversial land use." New Zealand Geographer 68.2 (2012): 130-140.
Seals, Maryann. "Worker Rights and Health Protection for Prostitutes: A Comparison of The Netherlands,
Germany and Nevada." Health care for women international just-accepted (2013).
Wagenaar, Hendrik, and Sietske Altink. "Prostitution as Morality Politics or Why It Is Exceedingly
Difficult To Design and Sustain Effective Prostitution Policy." Sexuality Research and Social Policy 9.3
(2012): 279-292.
Weitzer, Ronald John. Legalizing prostitution: From illicit vice to lawful business. NYU Press, 2012.
Should be Considered
Concealed Carry
Concealed Carry Laws
A nod to conservative factions. It is illegal to carry a concealed weapon. There are both federal and state
laws prohibiting people from doing so.
http://www.usacarry.com/concealed_carry_permit_information.html
The affirmative would strengthen the second amendment. There are numerous advantages to a deterrence
based gun state that the aff would be able to read.
The negative would respond with two specific set of arguments. First would be guns are bad generally
simple enough. Second, the neg would respond with deterrence fails type argument as that is the main
area of the concealed weapons literature.
The case debate about gun crimes is a well researched and thorough place for case arguments. McElroy,
Marjorie B., and Peichun Wang. "Do Concealed Gun Permits Deter Crime? New Results From a Dynamic
Model." (2012).
It is certainly a timely debate with an un-surprising amount of literature discussing the pros and cons. For
a recent example see, Donohue, John J., Abhay Aneja, and Alexandria Zhang. "The Impact of Right to
Carry Laws and the N RC Report: The Latest Lessons for the Empirical Evaluation of Law and Policy."
(2014).
Additionally, there are plenty of aff and neg arguments to be made about cross-border spillover issues
related to US Gun Laws. For example, see, Dube, Arindrajit, Oeindrila Dube, and Omar Garca-Ponce.
"Cross-Border Spillover: US Gun Laws and Violence in Mexico." American Political Science Review
107.03 (2013): 397-417.
CITES
Aneja, Abhay, John J. Donohue III, and Alexandria Zhang. The Impact of Right to Carry Laws and the
NRC Report: The Latest Lessons for the Empirical Evaluation of Law and Policy. No. w18294. National
Bureau of Economic Research, 2012.
Cook, Philip J., Anthony A. Braga, and Mark H. Moore. "Gun control." Crime and Public Policy (2011):
257-292.
Duggan, Mark. More guns, more crime. No. w7967. National Bureau of Economic Research, 2000.
Goss, Kristin A. Disarmed: The missing movement for gun control in America. Princeton University
Press, 2010.
Lang, Matthew. "Do Guns Affect Crime? Evidence Using a Direct Measure of Firearms." Evidence Using
a Direct Measure of Firearms (December 28, 2012) (2012).
Levitt, Steven D. "Understanding why crime fell in the 1990s: Four factors that explain the decline and
six that do not." Journal of Economic perspectives (2004): 163-190.
HIV Status
This section was done, in its entirety by Jackie Poapst. With my apologies for any ugly formatting issues.
Introduction
Despite the rich historical background of the AIDS epidemic, from the Reagan administrations lack of
address to the ACT-UP riots, current AIDS issues do not garner as much attention as they should. Time
and time again, the government has failed to adequately address AIDS, instead favoring oppressive
containment policies like quarantining Haitian aids patients in Guantanamo Bay and instituting strict
legislation for HIV-positive individuals. Being HIV positive has become a diseased moniker that places
positive individuals at the outskirts of society: a place of taboo. Many would assume that the status quo
has become a safe space for HIV-positive individuals, we have AIDS awareness campaigns, AZT
medications and even governmental funding for research. However, contrary to this progress are the rigid
laws that place HIV-positive individuals into criminal status:
Thirtytwo U.S. states and two territories have statutes that criminalize sexual and other conduct
of persons who are HIVpositive. Many of these laws were passed in response to the Ryan White
Comprehensive AIDS Resources Emergency Act of 1990, which required states to outlaw
intentional transmission of HIV as a condition of federal funding, but almost all of them reach far
beyond intentional infection and affect conduct that has not resulted in infection and even conduct
that could never result in infection. Hundreds of state courts have also used HIVpositive status as
an element of traditional crimes such as assault with a deadly weapon, reckless endangerment,
even attempted murder. 1
IPPF contends, The drive for criminalization of willful transmission of HIV is proving a costly
intervention in terms of time and money spent on investigating individuals private lives and
determining the burden of proof and seems to have had limited impact on HIV prevention.
However, Wendy Wright told C-Fams Friday Fax that the costs of enforcing the laws are dwarfed
in comparison to the costs associated with HIV/AIDS. 3
Also, with the expanded spread of HIV, AIDS related issues have become an international fight.
Drives to fight stigmatization and proponents for HIV decriminalization span country borders, providing
an extensive debate concerning international norms and coalition-building. 4
While the affirmative ground on the HIV status debate is rich, this debate is far from one-sided.
For example, numerous discussions are being had in the literature concerning alternative mechanisms for
legal solutions. A popular discussion is the review counterplan:
As indicated by UNAIDS [24] a review of existing laws that criminalize HIV exposure, HIV
transmission, and nondisclosure of HIV positive serostatus can identify those laws and legal
precedents that are vague or open to misinterpretation, and that lead to discrimination. 5
Not only is there deep debates over political process concerning HIV status decriminalization, but there is
also a healthy debate on both sides over the effectiveness in resolving the more critical side of this debate:
The social structural phenomena of racism, sexism, and homophobia may be factors in the
criminalization of HIV in some communities. These factors may be evident in the numbers of
ancestral (racial/ethnic) or other minority persons who are prosecuted for HIV-related crimes or
for sentencing enhancements when HIV is a factor in criminal proceedings [12,15]. The structural
factors of racism and sexism have been documented as determinants of health and contribute to
adverse health outcomes among PLWH globally [42,43]. Racism and sexism are forms of
domination that result in oppressive power imbalances in societies [44]. Racial and sexual
minorities in Canada and the United States have been dis proportionately affected by the HIV
epidemic and racial minorities experience higher rates of criminal prosecutions than other
members of these societies. Sexism and homophobia have been attributed to the gender
hierarchies in society [45]. Homophobia has been termed a weapon of sexism [46] and has been
documented as a factor influencing the health and health outcomes of PLWH [47]. The
criminalization of HIV and homophobia in Canada and the United States may adversely affect
HIV prevention and treatment efforts among racial and sexual minority groups [912,14,15,26,48,49]. 6
Conclusion
I highly recommend an inclusion of a HIV status in a decriminalization topic. Broad scale
interrogation of policies concerning HIV-positivity, as well as overall portrayal of HIV throughout
society, is a discussion that would be beneficial for a community that prides itself on discussing the timely
and societally relevant issues. Considering that fact that HIV is overwhelmingly still considered a death
sentence in the United States, when in reality with modern science it should rather be seen as a chronic
illness, this discussion is definitely societally relevant. Also, with the international push for actions
concerning HIV status, this issue could not be timelier.
Citations
1. Stephen R. Latham, "Time to Decriminalize HIV Status," Hastings Center Report 43, no. 5 (2013): 1213.
2. David Crary, Critics assail crime laws aimed at people with HIV, Associated Press , January 2, 2012
3. Terrence McKeegan, UN and Planned Parenthood seek to decriminalize willful HIV infection, Dec 10,
2010, http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/un-and-planned-parenthood-sponsor-campaign-todecriminalize-willful-hiv-inf
4. Ibid
5. Phillips et al., Associations between the legal context of HIV, perceived social capital, and HIV
antiretroviral adherence in North America, BMC Public Health 2013, 13:736
http://www.biomedcentral.com/1471-2458/13/736
6. Ibid
*Immigration
Introduction
We just debated immigration, so it is probably too early to revisit it as an area. Additionally, it is also
probably far too large of a topic to just be thrown into the list of areas for this topic. That being said, if
the topic committee chooses to offer the community a verb stem that suggests, fully decriminalize with
a large list, then immigration should be included in that list. In that world there would be only one
affirmative that would have to deal with lots of PICS and disads. However, it would be worth discussing
as it is, and will remain, a timely issue.
Solvency Advocate for Decriminalization
Citations:
Hartry, Allison S. "Gendering Crimmigration: The Intersection of Gender, Immigration, and the Criminal
Justice System." Berkeley J. Gender L. & Just. 27 (2012): 1.
Hernandez, Michael. "Rule of Law, Historical Equity, and Mexican Contra Prohibition Immigrants, The."
Regent J. Int'l L. 9 (2012): 29.
Kidane, Won. "Reflections on Professor Romeros Insight on the Decriminalization of Border Crossings."
Fordham Urban Law Journal 39 (2012): 19.
Kim, Kathleen. "Perspectives on Immigration Reform." Loy. LAL Rev. 44 (2010): 1323.
Narcotics
Introduction
Marijuana is obviously the more likely legalization act to see. However, the literature base is not limited
to that drug. There are numerous scholarly and philosophical defenses of a total legalization of narcotics.
For an older, but thorough solvency advocate, one should start with the 1990 Hofstra Law Review
symposium on the benefits of overall decriminalization.
KREIT 10 [Kreit, Alex. "Decriminalization Option: Should States Consider Moving from a Criminal to
a Civil Drug Court Model, The." U. Chi. Legal F. (2010): 299.]
Finally, for both the aff and the neg, international drug trafficking is obviously a major issue for a lot of
countries. That would provide the easiest way for teams to talk about big impacts and global problems.
Jenner, Matthew S. "International drug trafficking: A global problem with a domestic solution." Indiana
Journal of Global Legal Studies 18.2 (2011): 901-927.
Negative Ground
Drugs are bad would obviously be a large part of the negative strategy against an aff that legalized all
narcotics.
For a more in depth discussion of the possible negative arguments, the negative section in marijuana use
would probably provide ideas for the generic ways to approach the topic area.
Finally, much like marijuana, counterplans that alter the status quo enforcement mechanisms, provide a
different means of deterrence, or attack the production side of narcotics all insure that the neg should have
plenty of ground versus most of the drug prohibition affs on the topic.
Other Cites
Blickman, Tom, and Martin Jelsma. "Drug policy reform in practice." Transnational Institute 19 (2009).
Brenner, Todd Austin. "Legalization of Drugs: Why Prolong the Inevitable, The." Cap. UL Rev. 18
(1989): 237.
Columbia University. Center on Addiction, and Substance Abuse. Legalization: panacea or Pandora's box.
No. 1. CASA, 1995.
Corlett, J. Angelo. "Taking drugs very seriously." Journal of Medicine and Philosophy 38.2 (2013): 235248.
Di Noto, Paul. "Should the United States Decriminalize Illicit Drugs?."
http://faculty.stedwards.edu/s_acaps4360/docs/DiNoto_Decriminalization.doc
Drug Free Australias Arguments Against Drug Legalisation,
http://www.drugfree.org.au/fileadmin/Media/Global/Taskforce_Arguments_for_Prohibition.pdf
Gratton, Kaitlin C. "Desperate Times Call for Desperate Measures: Reclassifying Drug Possession
Offenses in Response to the Indigent Defense Crisis." Wm. & Mary L. Rev. 53 (2011): 1039.
Gray, James. Why our drug laws have failed: a judicial indictment of war on drugs. Temple University
Press, 2010.
Hunt, Lester H. "Epilogue: what good are drugs anyway?." Criminal Justice Ethics 22.1 (2003): 46-49.
Husak, Douglas. Four points about drug decriminalization. Criminal Justice Ethics, Vol. 22, Iss. 1, 2003
Husak, Douglas. "Predicting the Future: A Bad Reason to Criminalize Drug Use." Utah L. Rev. (2009):
105.
Husak, Doug, and Peter De Marneffe. The legalization of drugs. Cambridge University Press, 2005.
Kreit, Alex. "Beyond the Prohibition Debate: Thoughts on Federal Drug Laws in an Age of State
Reforms." Chap. L. Rev. 13 (2009): 555.
Miller, Joel. Bad Trip: How the War Against Drugs is Destroying America. Thomas Nelson Inc, 2004.
Shapiro, Daniel. "Individual rights, drug policy, and the worstcase Scenario." Criminal Justice Ethics
22.1 (2003): 41-45.
Smith, Paul. "Drugs, morality and the law." Journal of Applied Philosophy 19.3 (2002): 233-244.
Woods, Jordan Blair. "Decade after Drug Decriminalization: What Can the United States Learn from the
Portuguese Model, A." UDC/DSL L. Rev. 15 (2011): 1.
Zawisza, Christina A., and Sandra Newcombe. "Problem-Solving Courts: An Annotated Bibliography."
Mental Health L. & Pol'y J. 2 (2013): 173.
Homelessness
The first idea might be to consider including decriminalization of homelessness (better put, laws that are
tailored to homeless populations).
This might include decriminalizing some of the following items:
The Law Center 11 [The NLCHP refers to itself as the Law Center. Its full title is The National
Law Center on Homelessness & Poverty. They are a persistent voice on behalf of homeless Americans,
speaking effectively to federal, state, and local policy makers. The Center employs three main strategies:
impact litigation, policy advocacy, and public education. The Center also produces investigative reports
and provides legal and policy support to local organizations. Criminalizing Crisis: The Criminalization
of Homelessness in U.S. Cities a November 2011 report. http://www.nlchp.org/Criminalizing_Crisis.]
Since the National Law Center on Homelessness & Poverty (the Law Center) and the National Coalition for the Homeless released
their last report on the criminalization of homelessness , Homes Not Handcuffs, in July 2009, the housing and
homelessness crisis in the United States has deepened significantly. In its 2010 survey of 27 large cities, the U.S. Conference of
Mayors observed that 52 percent of cities have seen in increase in overall homelessness, while 58 percent have
seen an increase in family homelessness. Further, across the surveyed cities, an average of 27 percent of homeless
people were turned away from emergency shelter due to lack of space .1 Despite the fact that communities
all over the country lack adequate affordable housing and shelter space , cities are continuing to penalize
people forced to live on our streets and in public spaces. Criminalization measures often prohibit activities like as
sleeping/camping, eating, sitting, and/or begging in public spaces and include criminal penalties for violations of these
laws. Some cities have even enacted restrictions that punish groups and individuals for serving food to
homeless people. Many of these measures appear to be designed to move homeless persons out of sight, or even out of a given city.
Criminalizing Crisis, the Law Centers tenth report on the criminalization of homelessness,2 provides an overview of the criminalization
measures in place across the country, as well as guidance on how advocates can combat them and promote more constructive alternatives. The
report summarizes the results of a national survey by the Law Center on the enforcement of criminalization measures across the country, as well
as a survey of the particular laws in place in 234 cities and the changes in those laws since our 2009 report. Criminalizing Crisis reviews the costs
and other impacts of criminalization and includes recommendations for policy change. The report concludes that criminalization measures do
nothing to solve the problem of homelessness. Instead, they frequently perpetuate homelessness, place unnecessary burdens on our criminal
justice system, and violate homeless individuals civil and human rights. The reports comprehensive Advocacy Manual provides guidance and
tools for advocates.
Enactment and enforcement of laws that make it illegal to sleep, sit, or store personal belongings in the
public spaces of cities without sufficient shelter or affordable housing.
Selective enforcement against homeless persons of seemingly neutral laws , such as loitering, jaywalking, or open
container ordinances.
Sweeps of city areas in which homeless persons live in order to drive them out of those areas, frequently resulting in the
destruction of individuals personal property, including important personal documents and medication.
Enactment and enforcement of laws that punish people for begging or panhandling in
order to move poor or homeless persons out of a city or downtown area .
Enactment
and enforcement of laws that restrict groups sharing food with homeless persons in public spaces.
Enforcement of quality of life ordinances related to public activities and hygiene (e.g. public urination) when no public
facilities are available to people without housing.
This website lists the five meanest cities in term of ordinances crafted against the homeless. Many
of us in the Debate Community work, live, or travel to these cities:
NCH 05 [National Coalition for the Homeless Executive Summary: A Dream Denied: The Criminalization of
Homelessness in U.S. Cities November 1st, 2005. Page last modified: January 10, 2013
http://www.nationalhomeless.org/publications/crimreport/summary.html]
An unfortunate trend in cities around the country over the past 25 years has been to turn to the criminal justice
system to respond to people living in public spaces. This trend includes measures that target homeless
persons by making it illegal to perform life-sustaining activities in public . These measures prohibit activities
such as sleeping/camping, eating, sitting, and begging in public spaces , usually including criminal penalties for violation
of these laws. This report is the National Coalition for the Homeless (NCH) fourth report on the criminalization of homelessness and the
National Law Center on Homelessness & Povertys (NLCHP) eighth report on the topic. The report documents the top 20 worst
offenders of 2005, as well as initiatives in some cities that are more constructive approaches to the issue of
people living in public spaces. The report includes the results of a survey of laws and practices in 224 cities around the country, as well
as a survey of lawsuits from various jurisdictions in which those measures have been challenged. Types of Criminalization Measures The
criminalization of homelessness takes many forms , including: Legislation that makes it illegal to sleep,
sit, or
store personal belongings in public spaces in cities where people are forced to live in public spaces; Selective
enforcement of more neutral laws, such as loitering or open container laws, against homeless persons; Sweeps of city areas
where homeless persons are living to drive them out of the area, frequently resulting in the destruction of those persons personal property,
including important personal documents and medication; and Laws that punish people for begging or panhandling to move
poor or homeless persons out of a city or downtown area. Criminalization Measures Have Increased City ordinances frequently serve as
a prominent tool to criminalize homelessness. Of the 224 cities surveyed for our report: 28% prohibit camping in particular public places in the
city and 16% had city-wide prohibitions on camping. 27% prohibit sitting/lying in certain public places. 39% prohibit loitering in particular
public areas and 16% prohibit loitering city-wide. 43% prohibit begging in particular public places; 45% prohibit aggressive panhandling and
21% have city-wide prohibitions on begging. The trend of criminalizing homelessness appears to be growing. Of the 67 cities surveyed in both
NCH and NLCHPs last joint report in 2002 and in this report: There is a 12% increase laws prohibiting begging in certain public places and an
18% increase in laws that prohibit aggressive panhandling. There is a 14% increase in laws prohibiting sitting or lying in certain public spaces.
There is a 3% increase in laws prohibiting loitering, loafing, or vagrancy laws. Another trend documented in the report is increased city efforts to
target homeless persons indirectly by placing restrictions on providers serving food to poor and homeless persons in public spaces. While cities
are cracking down on homeless persons living in public spaces, according to the latest U.S. Conference of Mayors Hunger and Homelessness
report, cities do not have adequate shelter to meet the need: 71% of the 24 cities surveyed by the U.S. Conference of Mayors reported a 6%
increase in requests for emergency shelter. 16% of overall emergency shelter requests went unmet and 32% of emergency shelter requests by
homeless families went unmet in cities surveyed.
some of the worst examples of inhumane city treatment of homeless and poor people:
#1 Sarasota, FL. After two successive Sarasota anti-lodging laws were overturned as unconstitutional by state courts, Sarasota passed a
third law banning lodging outdoors. This latest version appears to be explicitly aimed at homeless persons. One of the elements necessary for
arrest under the law is that the person has no other place to live.
#2 Lawrence, KS.
After a group of downtown Lawrence business leaders urged the city to cut social services and pass ordinances to
target homeless persons, the city passed three civility ordinances, including an aggressive panhandling law, a law prohibiting trespass on
rooftops, and a law limiting sleeping or sitting on city sidewalks.
Homeless persons have reported being kicked out of bus stations in Little Rock, even when they had valid bus
tickets. Two homeless men reported that officers of the Little Rock Police Department, in separate incidents, had kicked them out of the Little
Rock Bus Station, even after showing the police their tickets. In other instances, homeless persons have been told that they could not wait at the
bus station "because you are homeless."
#4 Atlanta, GA.
Amid waves of public protest and testimony opposing the Mayors proposed comprehensive ban on panhandling, the
City Council passed the anti-panhandling ordinance in August 2005. In the devastating aftermath of Hurricane Katrina, Atlanta stood firm in its
resolve to criminalize panhandlers. A Katrina evacuee who was sleeping in his car with his family after seeking refuge in Atlanta was arrested for
panhandling at a mall in the affluent Buckhead neighborhood, even after he showed the police his Louisiana drivers license, car tag, and
registration as proof that he was a Katrina evacuee. In addition, during the first week in December, the Atlanta Zoning Review Board approved a
ban on supportive housing inside the city limits.
Even as the city shelters are overcrowded and the citys Crisis Intervention Center recently closed due to lack of
funding, the city continues to target homeless persons living outside. The police conduct habitual sweeps of encampments which lead to
extended jail time for repeat misdemeanor offenders. In order to keep homeless individuals out of future parks, the city considered privatizing the
parks, enabling owners to kick out unwanted people. Mayor Oscar Goodman fervently supported the idea, saying, I dont want them there.
Theyre not going to be there. Im not going to let it happen. They think Im mean now; wait until the homeless try to go over there.
Criminalization Measures Are Bad Policy and Violate Constitutional Rights
These practices that criminalize homelessness do nothing to address the underlying causes of homelessness.
Instead, they exacerbate the problem. They frequently move people away from services. When homeless persons are
arrested and charged under these measures, they develop a criminal record, making it more difficult to obtain
employment or housing. Further, criminalization measures are not cost efficient. In a nine-city survey of supportive housing and jail
costs, jail costs were on average two to three times the cost of supportive housing.
The same website lists Constructive Alternatives to Criminalization citing cities that have
crafted creative remedies to the aforementioned issues. This section may begin to help develop ideas
for mechanism, plan, and counterplan ideas:
NCH 05 [National Coalition for the Homeless Executive Summary: A Dream Denied: The Criminalization of
Homelessness in U.S. Cities November 1st, 2005. Page last modified: January 10, 2013
http://www.nationalhomeless.org/publications/crimreport/summary.html]
services are closed, providing a vital link between mainstream services and a population that resists
congregate living.
Washington, DC. The downtown business community in Washington, D.C., created a day center for
homeless people who may not have anywhere to go during the day when shelters are closed. Through the
Downtown D.C. Business Improvement District, business owners fund this day center that can serve up to
260 people per day, with indoor seating, laundry, showers, and a morning meal.
San Diego, CA . In 1989, a public defender from San Diego created the nations first Homeless Court
Program, which is a special monthly Superior Court session held at local shelters for homeless defendants
to resolve outstanding misdemeanor criminal cases. Homeless courts expand access to the judicial system
and assist homeless defendants by addressing outstanding warrants and criminal offenses to remove
barriers to benefits, treatment, housing, and employment.
For those interested in investigating how homelessness and (de)criminalization activities may affect their
own local communities, the following website provides narratives and information for many, many cities
across the nation:
http://www.nationalhomeless.org/publications/crimreport/allcities.html
Loitering
A second idea might be decriminalization of Loitering and associated Public Order ordinances
Loitering laws (which make it illegal to stand or hang around, even if no apparent criminal activity is
taking place) tend to be over-enforced on the basis of age, class, and race.
This article speaks to the efforts that advocates from Chicago deployed, as they successfully got the US
Supreme Court to strike-down a particularly vague loitering law in their City. That decision (USSC, City
of Chicago v. Morales) was powerful, but has hardly stopped efforts to pursue the public order agenda.
The case against loitering and public order ordinances starts with denouncing the idea of selective
enforcement. The advantage areas could include social injustice and a fundamental questioning of the
effectiveness of such laws as a crime-control strategy.
The case in favor public order could go many directions but could include defending such ordinances
on the grounds that they help the very communities that the anti-loitering crowd seeks to assist. This
article shows how a Negative may have ground that considers as opposed to ignores the vantage point
of communities that presently lack socio-economic privilege.
This article frames both sides of the debate over loitering:
ROSENTHAL 01 [2000-2001 edition, LAWRENCE ROSENTHAL, Deputy Corporation Counsel,
City of Chicago Department of Law. GANG LOITERING AND RACE THE JOURNAL OF
CRIMINAL LAW & CRIMINOLOGY vol 91:1]
When the United States Supreme Court held in City of Chicago v. Morales that Chicago's anti-gang loitering
ordinance authorizing the police to disperse groups of loiterers containing criminal street gang members --was
unconstitutionally vague, Harvey Grossman, the attorney who had argued the case for the winning side,
called the decision "a victory for 'young men of color.' ' 3 That may seem a strange thing to say about a case in which no
claim of racial discrimination was made by the parties or passed upon by the Court,4 but Mr. Grossman's reaction was far from
idiosyncratic. Questions of racial fairness are consistently raised by the critics of anti-loitering and
other public order laws. Dorothy Roberts, for example, sees the Court's holding in Morales as reflecting a concern about the risk of racial
bias in the enforcement of public order laws.6 Under Chicago's anti-gang loitering ordinance, she contends, the potential
for police abuse was especially high: "With no criminal conduct to go by, police officers probably used
race as a critical factor in judging whether an individual might be a gang member., 7 The inevitable racial
friction that this type of law will produce, Professor Roberts argues, reinforces patterns of racial subjugation. 8
David Cole makes a similar argument and adds that when minorities perceive this type of unfairness in the criminal justice system they "have less
incentive to play by the rules, and accordingly, double standards in law enforcement actually contribute to criminal
conduct in those neighborhoods that are already most at risk of criminal behavior for socioeconomic
reasons."9 The decision in Morales makes the questions raised by Professors Roberts and Cole even more urgent. The Court found the
ordinance vague because it permitted enforcement against loiterers engaged in entirely "innocent" activities, but added that a law directed at
loitering by groups containing gang members would sufficiently limit enforcement discretion "if the ordinance only applied to loitering that had
an apparently harmful purpose or effect... ."'Justice O'Connor, in a concurring opinion joined by Justice Breyer, added that an antigang loitering
law should be upheld if it defined loitering as "to remain in any one place with no apparent purpose other than to establish control over
identifiable areas, to intimidate others from entering those areas, or to conceal illegal activities."" Thus, the Court appears to have endorsed antiloitering laws when loitering has an "apparently harmful purpose or effect"; a standard for judging loitering laws far more lenient than can be
found in prior precedents.' Chicago has taken the Court's hint. The Chicago City Council recently enacted a new
antigang loitering ordinance that authorizes police officers to order groups containing members of
criminal street gangs to disperse when they are engaged in "gang loitering . The new ordinance defines "gang
loitering" as "remaining in any one place under circumstances that would warrant a reasonable person to believe that the purpose or effect of that
behavior is to enable a criminal street gang to establish control over identifiable areas, to intimidate others from entering those areas, or to
conceal illegal activities."'4 The new ordinance also defines "criminal street gang" in terms that track the federal racketeering statute's definition
of "racketeering activity."'5 The City Council enacted a companion anti-drug loitering measure as well. ' While
narrower than the original anti-gang loitering ordinance, these revised measures nevertheless provide a potent prophylactic policing tool: they
authorize dispersal orders whenever the police reasonably believe that gang or drug activity is afoot. Indeed, a nationwide trend
seems to be underway to enact anti-loitering laws as part of the movement toward com-munity-oriented
and order-maintenance policing. And because laws drafted to comply with the Morales decision are
likely to withstand attack on other grounds, future debate on the fairness of public order laws is
likely to focus on whether they can be fairly applied to racial minorities .'8 To date, the debate over
public order laws has largely been framed in terms of the supposed virtues and vices of order maintenance
as a policing strategy. The advocates of public order laws argue that visible disorder in a community stimulates the commission of more
serious crimes,' 9 and that a policing strategy based on order maintenance is of particular benefit in inner-city minority communities, where social
disorder is a particularly serious problem.2 Critics of public order laws take the opposite tack; they question the relationship between disorder and
crime,2' and argue that the police are likely to unfairly target persons of color as "disorderly." 22 Largely missing from this debate,
however, is an effort to evaluate public order laws in light of the considerable research that has been done
in the past few decades on the ecology of the inner city. That research, I will argue, suggests a different
kind of case to be made on behalf of public order laws.
I will focus not on the controversial relationship between disorder and crime, but on the ecology of the inner city. In particular, I intend to focus
on the work identifying an inner-city, disproportionately minority "underclass," and on the implications of that concept for crime control.
Underclass theorists assert that as a consequence of structural changes in the economy, coupled with the
continuing effects of racism, an "underclass" has emerged that faces much more restricted opportunities
for upward mobility than existed in the urban slums of earlier eras. I focus on the concept of an "underclass" not only
because it has such wide acceptance among students of the inner city, but also because it sheds so much
light on the racial dimension of inequality in America. Underclass theory's special value lies in its ability to explain why the
traditional vehicles for upward mobility have failed so many inner-city minorities. There have been insufficient attempts, however, to apply the
teachings of underclass theory to criminal justice policy, and, in particular, to gang crime, the particular form of lawlessness that most profoundly
affects inner-city underclass communities. This effort to consider the implications of underclass theory for inner-city gang crime begins with the
evidence showing the dimensions of the problem that gang crime poses for the inner city. The emergence of entrenched criminal street gangs, I
will then argue, is the natural consequence of the emergence of an entrenched urban underclass.24 Gang crime in an underclass community has a
predictable pattern, resulting in a thoroughly destabilized and demoralized community in which drug trafficking comes to be seen as one of the
few economic opportunities available. Unless rampant gang criminality in underclass neighborhoods is curbed, the
ability of other social and economic policies to ameliorate the plight of underclass communities is at best
limited. I will also argue that an anti-loitering strategy is a vehicle for attacking conditions conducive to the
success of street gangs without relying on mass incarceration strategies that impose enormously
disproportionate burdens on minorities. From the standpoint of racial fairness, I will contend that the use
of public order laws is preferable to conventional law enforcement strategies, both because public order
laws address conditions that facilitate the success of inner-city gangs through relatively moderate police tactics, and
because they are less susceptible to police abuse than the tactics that they replace . The approach to criminal
justice policy taken here long ago went out of fashion. In this era of harshly punitive criminal laws based on theories of retribution and
deterrence, an effort to identify the root causes of inner-city crime may seem to many beside the point. But in my view, it is time
for a
rigorous reassessment of criminal justice policy in light of all that we have learned about the sociology
and political economy of the inner city in the last thirty years-an inquiry rarely undertaken in the debate
over public order laws. If poverty and racism are at the root of inner city crime, then the fairness of the
harshly punitive regime reflected in current criminal justice policy--especially as represented by drug
trafficking laws-is properly open to question. The sociology and political economy of the inner city also suggests, however,
that if law enforcement is given no role to play in suppressing inner city crime, it is naive to think innercity
communities can be revitalized. Public order laws , I will suggest, can serve the twin goals of promoting racial
fairness and revitalizing the inner city.
Public Sobriety
A third idea might be Decriminalization of Public Inebriation and Open Container Laws. These laws tend
to be selectively enforced and over-enforced against specific populations. This article cites the impact
such policies have on social justice but also speaks to the empirical success taken by some non-state
actors. The Affirmative could defend comparable strategies under a passive-voice topic:
Weinstein 10 [Adam Weinstein is Mother Jones' new copy editor. Before coming to Mother Jones, he
worked at the Wall Street Journal and the Village Voice. His writing has also appeared in the New York
Times and on Newsweek.com. He is a Navy veteran and a two-day Jeopardy champion, He's currently at
work on a book about his recession-fueled stint as a military contractor in Iraq. Cop Walks Into a Bar
And...Arrests You. For Having a Drink : Texas bizarre, racist liquor laws March/April 2010 Issue
http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2010/03/texas-racist-laws-drinking-while-brown]
They say everything's bigger in Texas, and that includes absurdity in law enforcement. Most states and
towns have public intoxication laws that allow peace officers to pick up the drunk and disorderly. But in
the Lone Star State, the nation's broadest PI law lets cops go virtually anywhere and arrest anyone for
drunkennesseven if they're quietly nursing a beer in a bar .
Arrested for drinking in a bar? Sounds like the ultimate catch-22. Since 2006, when Texas overtook California as the state with the most drunkdriving fatalities, cops and a beefed-up task force from the state Alcoholic Beverage Commission have used a 1993 law as a pretext to enter any
bar and arrest its patrons on the spot. The public intoxication standard, backed by the Texas-based Mothers Against Drunk Driving, is
so broad that you can be arrested on just a police officer's hunch, without being given a Breathalyzer or
field sobriety test. State courts have not only upheld the practice but expanded the definition of public intoxication
to cover pretty much any situation, says Robert Guest, a criminal defense attorney in Dallas. "Having no standard allows
the police to arrest whoever pisses them off and call it PI," he says, adding, "If you have a violent, homophobic, or
just an asshole of a cop and you give him the arbitrary power to arrest anyone for PI , you can expect violent, homophobic,
and asshole-ic behavior."
For some officers, PI has provided a ready-made reason for detaining minorities . A Houston defense
attorney, who asks to be unnamed since he specializes in misdemeanors such as PI, puts it this way: "If you're brown and
you're aroundyou're going down." Nick Novello, a 27-year veteran of the Dallas Police Department, blew the whistle on three
colleagues who he claims filled their arrest quotas by picking up people, mostly minorities, for PI. "They were illegally arrested," Novello says.
"It's an absolute perversion." (Two were removed from the force.)
According to a recent report by sociology and law professors at the University of California-Berkeley, the Dallas
suburb of Irving has used "discretionary" public intoxication arrests to fish for undocumented immigrants.
After partnering with federal immigration officials in 2006 to check local prisoners' residency status, Irving police
increased the number of Latinos they nicked for PI and other Class C misdemeanors by 150 percent, while arrests of
whites and African Americans for those offenses fell. The Mexican consul issued an advisory telling migrants to
avoid Irving. "In this city, one has to be extra careful," he told a Spanish-language newspaper. "They were clearly
choosing to bring more Hispanics into jail," says Aarti Kohli, coauthor of the Berkeley study. But the feds and local officials
hailed the PI sweeps as a victory. Immigration "is expanding this program, saying, 'Isn't this great?'" Kohli says. "But the question they're not
asking is: How are these people getting put into jail?"
After community activists took to the streets and airwaves, Irving's arrest rate for Hispanics plummeted .
(Dallas and Irving are no longer part of the federal program.) In Fort Worth, protests over the Rainbow Lounge raid
elicited a quick apology from the police chief and promises to review the PI policy. But the arrests have
continued elsewhere, and no one is targeting the public intoxication law itself. Many people don't
care, Novello says, "because they can't vicariously experience this injustice." The Houston attorney puts it more bluntly.
"As long as police are going out there fucking with the blacks and the Mexicans, until it hits the people with the power, they
won't care."
Events in Austin, Texas can be read in many ways. If nothing else, it frames the importance of
debates over decriminalizing PI laws. This article again gets at mechanism questions and whether
decriminalization options sufficiently counter the discretion of police officers.
Flatow 14 [Nicole Flatow is the Deputy Editor of ThinkProgress Justice. Previously, she was Associate
Director of Communications for the American Constitution Society. Nicole has also worked for several
legal and general circulation newspapers, including The Daily Record and The New York Law Journal,
and was a legal fellow at Bread for the City, where she represented low-income D.C. residents in housing
and public benefits matters. She received her J.D. from the University of Virginia School of Law, and her
B.A. in Philosophy, Politics and Law from Binghamton University. Ten Percent Of Austin Arrests Are
For Public Intoxication, And This County Might Do Something About It Think Progress March 11,
2014 http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2014/03/11/3385481/ten-percent-of-austin-arrests-are-for-publicintoxication-and-the-county-might-do-something-about-it/]
In the past five years, 27,000
people have been arrested in Austin, Texas, for the offense known as public
intoxication, making up a whopping ten percent of all arrests. By the accounts of those on the ground,
these laws have been targeted at minorities and gays in at least several prominent instances, with cops seeking out
bars with particular demographics in the early morning hours to snag those who have had a few drinks.
They dont have to implement a Breathalyzer or field sobriety test . They dont have to have suspicion for hanging out
outside particular bars. They just have to be based on a police officer suspicion.
A 27-year-veteran of the Dallas Police Department commented to Mother Jones in 2010 that, while individuals have been outraged by reported
incidents of targeting gays and minorities, no one would move to reform the underlying law [a]s long as police are going out there fucking with
the blacks and the Mexicans, and not the people with power.
But as we have seen around the country in recent years, there is another motivation for criminal justice reforms like this: money. The arrest,
jailing, and public defense of these public intoxicants by city police is costing county officials money,
and they dont like it.
So they are calling for the creation of what is known as a sobriety center where individuals deemed
publicly intoxicated would be sent to dry out instead of being funneled into the criminal justice system.
According to the Austin American-Statesman, this initiative to create what are colloquially known as drunk tanks would
effectively decriminalize public intoxication , although its not clear whether thats true, since police
would seemingly retain the discretion to decide how to handle each case . Similar centers already exist
in San Antonio and Houston, where arrests have reportedly dropped precipitously. And they are
also common in other cities around the country including Boise, Denver, and San Francisco.
Panhandling
Michael Scott 02 [Michael S. Scott is the director of the Center for Problem-Oriented Policing, Inc. and clinical
professor at the University of Wisconsin-Madison Law School. Scott holds a law degree from Harvard Law School and a
bachelors degree from the University of Wisconsin-Madison. He was formerly chief of police in Lauderhill, Florida; served in
various civilian administrative positions in the St. Louis Metropolitan, Ft. Pierce, Florida, and New York City police departments.
Panhandling
Guide No.13 (2002) http://www.popcenter.org/problems/panhandling/3]
Response With Limited Effectiveness Enforcing laws that prohibit all panhandling. Many laws that
prohibit all panhandling were written long ago and are vaguely and broadly worded: consequently, they are
unlikely to survive a legal challenge. About half of the states and over a third of major cities in
America have laws that prohibit all or some forms of panhandling .117
While the Aff might have ground to go after dated laws, the contemporary terrain has shifted. State and
localities have started to redefine restrictions around aggressive and dangerous panhandling. Even
these pivots face legal challenges.
FROSCH 12 DAN FROSCH reporter for NYT Homeless Are Fighting Back Against Panhandling
Bans New York Times October 5, 2012 http://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/06/us/homeless-arefighting-back-in-court-against-panhandling-bans.html?_r=0
Mr. Evans said he had received more than 50 panhandling citations, and cases like his have become
increasingly common of late. With the downturn in the economy, cities across the country have been
cracking down on an apparent rise in aggressive panhandling , while advocates for the homeless and civil
liberties groups contend that sweeping bans on begging go too far . According to a report by the National Law Center on
Homelessness and Poverty that examined 188 cities, there was a 7 percent increase in prohibitions on begging or
panhandling between 2009 and 2011. Our sense is that cities are responding to the increasing number of chronically or visibly homeless
people due to the economic crisis, said Heather Maria Johnson, a civil rights lawyer for the group. Rather than addressing the issue of
homelessness, they are adapting measures that move homeless people out of downtowns, tourist areas or even out of a city. Case law
on
the issue has varied over the years , and local panhandling laws differ widely. But several recent legal decisions have
favored the homeless. Last January, after Mr. Evanss initial lawsuit, Salt Lake City agreed to stop enforcing
the state statute. But Utah fought the suit, arguing that panhandling near roads was dangerous . A federal
judge sided with Mr. Evans in March, ruling that the statute was unconstitutional. In June, the City of Draper
agreed to stop enforcing the ordinance after Mr. Evans filed suit there as well. After a lawsuit filed by a
homeless man and a disabled veteran who were arrested on panhandling charges in Grand Rapids , Mich., a
federal judge ruled in August that the states blanket ban on public begging also violated the First
Amendment. Michigans attorney general, Bill Schuette, has appealed, arguing that begging is not protected
speech. In many cases, the dispute over panhandling centers on whether a citys efforts to criminalize
aggressive begging to protect pedestrians and businesses ends up overreaching. After the Northern California city of
Arcata passed an ordinance banning panhandling in 2010, a local resident, Richard Salzman, sued in State Superior
Court in Humboldt County. Mr. Salzman, 53, an agent for commercial illustrators, said he had no problem with Arcatas efforts to curb aggressive
panhandling. But he objected to the city long known for its liberal leanings also prohibiting panhandling that was not
necessarily threatening on its face, like merely asking for money within 20 feet of the entrance to a store or
restaurant. I dont know how much more passive you can be than standing there silently holding a sign, he said. This is a slippery slope we
Needs Exploration
Abortion
I did not cut a lot of cards on this. I was not involved with college debate on the courts topic. I thought
someone would provide me with some assistance after Kuswa posted about it on CEDA forums. Alas, no.
I have not done enough work to suggest the inclusion of abortion laws into the topic. But, if someone
wanted to write an area paper before the topic committee meeting, it would be a useful place to examine.
For example:
One or more of the following ought not be a federal, state, or local crime:
Termination of a pregnancy without parental consent, mandatory waiting periods prior to, or mandatory
ultrasound and-or counseling.
My initial reaction is that inclusion of the area would expand the topic too broadly. But, if someone
wanted to narrow it down, it would be worth exploring.
Drinking Age
Wording may look something like this:
One or more of the following ought not be a federal, State, or local crime:
The consumption of alcohol for those 18 to 20 years of age.
The Minimum Legal Drinking Age is something that in at least some fashion tends to intersect with
student experience on a college campus. Debates in this area stand to not solely be experiential but
could also draw upon literature discussing one of the deepest and most examined methodological
questions in public policy circles:
The recent push in favor of decriminalizing marijuana laws has drawn-in the libertarian crowd and
sparked a renewed debate about the drinking age. Here, the Affirmative could push back the federal
National Minimum Drinking Age Act, discuss alcohol as a gateway, and access a host of issues
associated where and how socializes:
Paglia 14 [Camille Paglia Professor at the University of the Arts in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. Paglia
was named as one of the top 100 public intellectuals by the journals Foreign Policy and Prospect. The
Drinking Age Is Past Its Prime Time April 23, 2014 http://time.com/72546/drinking-age-alcoholrepeal/]
The
National Minimum Drinking Age Act, passed by Congress 30 years ago this July, is a gross violation of civil
liberties and must be repealed. It is absurd and unjust that young Americans can vote, marry, enter contracts and
serve in the military at 18 but cannot buy an alcoholic drink in a bar or restaurant. The age-21 rule sets the U.S. apart from
The age-21 rule sets the U.S. apart from all advanced Western nations, and it has pushed kids toward pills and other antisocial behavior
all advanced Western nations and lumps it with small or repressive countries like Sri Lanka, Pakistan, Indonesia, Qatar, Oman and the United
Arab Emirates. Congress was stampeded into this puritanical law by Mothers Against Drunk Driving, who with all good intentions were wrongly
intruding into an area of personal choice exactly as did the hymn-singing 19th century temperance crusaders, typified by Carrie Nation smashing
beer barrels with her hatchet. Temperance fanaticism eventually triumphed and gave us 14 years of Prohibition. That in turn spawned the crime
syndicates for booze smuggling, laying the groundwork for todays global drug trade. Thanks a lot, Carrie! Now that marijuana
regulations have been liberalized in Colorado, its time to strike down this dictatorial national law. Government is
not our nanny. The decrease in drunk-driving deaths in recent decades is at least partly attributable to more uniform seat-belt use and a
strengthening of DWI penalties. Today, furthermore, there are many other causes of traffic accidents, such as the careless use of cell phones or
prescription drugs like Ambien implicated in the recent trial and acquittal of Kerry Kennedy for driving while impaired. Learning how
to drink responsibly is a basic lesson in growing up as it is in wine-drinking France or in Germany, with its family-oriented
beer gardens and festivals. Wine was built into my own Italian-American upbringing, where children were given sips of my grandfathers
homemade wine. This civilized practice descends from antiquity. Beer was a nourishing food in Egypt and Mesopotamia, and wine was identified
with the life force in Greece and Rome: In vino veritas (In wine, truth). Wine as a sacred symbol of unity and regeneration remains in the
Christian Communion service. Virginia Woolf wrote that wine with a fine meal lights a subtle and subterranean glow, which is the rich yellow
flame of rational intercourse. What this cruel 1984 law did is deprive young people of safe spaces where they
could happily drink cheap beer, socialize, chat and flirt in a free but controlled public environment. Hence
in the 1980s we immediately got the scourge of crude binge drinking at campus fraternity keg parties, cut
off from the adult world. Women in that boorish free-for-all were suddenly fighting off date rape. Club drugs ecstasy,
methamphetamine, ketamine (a veterinary tranquilizer) surged at raves for teenagers and on the gay male circuit scene. Alcohol relaxes,
facilitates interaction, inspires ideas and promotes humor and hilarity. Used in moderation, it is quickly flushed from
the system, with excess punished by a hangover. But deadening pills, such as todays massively overprescribed antidepressants, linger in body
and brain and may have unrecognized long-term side effects. Those toxic chemicals, often manufactured by shadowy firms abroad, have been
worrisomely present in a recent uptick of unexplained suicides and massacres. Half of the urban professional class in the U.S. seems doped on
meds these days. As a libertarian, I support the decriminalization of marijuana , but there are many problems
with pot. From my observation, pot may be great for jazz musicians and Beat poets, but it saps energy and willpower and can produce
physiological feminization in men. Also, it is difficult to measure the potency of plant-derived substances like pot. With
brand-name beer or liquor, however, purchased doses have exactly the same strength and purity from one
continent to another, with no fear of contamination by dangerous street additives like PCP.
Some areas of the country have moved away from criminalizing underage alcohol-related offenses
opting instead for civil infractions:
Hanson 04 [last footnote, Sept 25th, 2004 David J. Hanson, Ph.D., Professor Emeritus of Sociology of
the State University of New York at Potsdam. Alcohol: Problems and Solutions a website maintained by
Hanson and the State University of New York at Potsdam DC Decriminalizes Underage Drinking
http://www2.potsdam.edu/alcohol/InTheNews/UnderageDrinking/1098902494.html#.U11AH1dWiOg]
The District of Columbia has decriminalized underage drinking, making consumption of alcohol by those
under age 21 a civil rather than criminal offense. Punishment can includes community service or alcohol
education classes, a fine of $300 and suspension of a drivers license for 90 days. Offenders will no longer be
arrested and carry a criminal record for the rest of their lives. There is no reason to criminalize --arrest -- a
young adult holding a can of beer in his backyard, said City Council member Paul Mendelson. If hes underage, he can be fined
and lose his drivers license. But dont label it a criminal misdemeanor . The Council agreed 11-1, with one Council member
absent. New legislation was passed because, although underage drinking had been decriminalized in 1997, police had continued to arrest young
people for what was no longer a crime. A class action suit led to an injunction against additional illegal arrests.
Neighboring Maryland has also decriminalized possession and consumption of alcohol by those under the
age of 21.
MLDA debates are bi-directional and deep. This Pro-Con website is designed to sketch the bare-bones of
both sides of arguments. That said, it could help give the Debate Community a feel for where MLDA
debates might go. Notice that for each bullet point the website lists a series of footnotes supporting claims
in greater detail:
ProCon.org 14 [Should the Drinking Age Be Lowered from 21 to a Younger Age? Last updated on
4/17/2014 http://drinkingage.procon.org/]
Allowing 18- to 20-year-olds to drink alcohol in regulated environments with supervision would decrease
unsafe drinking activity. Prohibiting this age group from drinking in bars, restaurants, and other licensed locations causes them to drink
in unsupervised places such as fraternity houses or house parties where they may be more prone to binge drinking and other unsafe behavior. [7]
Traffic accidents and fatalities are most common among newly-legal drinkers, regardless of the MLDA. [8] In 2009, the 21- to 24-year-old age
group had the highest percentage of drivers in fatal crashes with blood-alcohol concentration (BAC) levels of .08 or higher 35 percent. [9] Any
increase in traffic accidents or fatalities in 18- to 20-year-olds would be offset by a decrease for those 21 and older. [10]
There are fewer drunk driving traffic accidents and fatalities in many countries with MLDA of 18. Although
the United States increased the MLDA to 21 in 1984, its rate of traffic accidents and fatalities in the 1980s decreased less than that of European
countries whose legal drinking ages are lower than 21. [8] [9] [10] [11] [12]
The decrease in drunk driving fatalities as a percentage of total traffic fatalities in the United States does not correlate to the MLDA. [13] Since
1982, two years prior to the Uniform Drinking Age Act establishing an MLDA of 21, a decline of drunk driving fatalities occurred across all age
groups and demographic categories, and therefore cannot be reliably attributed to MLDA 21.
Lowering MLDA from 21 to 18 would diminish the thrill of breaking the law to get a drink. Normalizing
alcohol consumption as something done responsibly in moderation will make drinking alcohol less of a taboo for young adults entering college
and the workforce. [14] [15]
MLDA 21 is largely ineffective because the majority of teens continue to consume alcohol . According to the
National Center on Addiction and Substance Abuse, underage drinking accounts for 17.5% ($22.5 billion) of consumer spending for alcohol in
the United States. [16] In 2006, 72.2% of twelfth graders reported drinking alcohol at some point in their lives. [14]
High non-compliance with MLDA 21 promotes general disrespect and non-compliance with other areas of
US law. MLDA 21 encourages young adults to acquire and use false identification documents to procure
alcohol. In this era of national security concerns, including terrorism, illegal immigration, and other threats, it would be
better to have fewer fake IDs in circulation and more respect for the law. [17]
MLDA 21 enforcement is not a priority for many law enforcement agencies. Police are inclined to ignore or under-enforce MLDA 21 because of
resource limitations, statutory obstacles, perceptions that punishments are inadequate, and the time and effort required for processing and
paperwork. An estimated two of every 1,000 occasions of illegal drinking by youth under 21 results in an arrest. [18]
MLDA 21 is not statistically associated with lower rates of suicide, homicide, or vandalism. In a 2002 meta-study of the legal drinking age and
health and social problems, 72% of the studies found no statistically significant relationship despite claims that lowering the MLDA to 18 would
increase suicide and criminal activities by adolescents. [19]
Drinking alcohol is an enjoyable activity. 18- to 20-year-old adults should not be denied that enjoyment when other pleasurable activities are legal
at age 18.
Lowering MLDA 21 would reduce the number of underage people who are hurt from alcohol-related
injuries or accidents due to fear of legal consequences if they sought medical attention. [7]
State governments should have the right to establish a lower legal drinking age that reflects their unique demographics, legal context, and history.
The Uniform Drinking Act, which compelled states to set the legal drinking age at 21 by withholding ten percent of highway funding from states
that kept the minimum legal drinking age at 18, is an example of federal government overreach into state affairs. Many states that were happy
with their MLDA 18 bowed to federal pressure rather than lose millions in annual highway funds. [15]
Lowering MLDA 21 would be good for the economy. More people would legally be able to drink in bars, restaurants, and other licensed
establishments. Revenue would increase for private business owners, and greater amounts of tax revenue would be collected by the government.
bars and nightclubs, which are not safe environments. 76% of bars have sold alcohol to obviously intoxicated patrons [43],
and about half of drivers arrested for driving while intoxicated (DWI) or killed as alcohol-involved drivers in traffic crashes did their drinking at
licensed establishments [44] [45] [46]. Neighborhoods with higher densities of bars, nightclubs, and other alcohol-selling locations suffer more
frequent assaults and other violent crimes. [24] [25]
The right to drink should have a higher age of initiation because of the dangers posed by drinking. Many rights in the United States are conferred
on citizens at age 21 or older. A person cannot legally purchase a handgun, gamble in a casino (in most states), or adopt a child until age 21, rent a
car (for most companies) at age 25, or run for President until age 35. Drinking should be similarly restricted due to the responsibility required to
self and others. [24]
MLDA 21 reduces traffic accidents and fatalities . 100 of the 102 analyses (98%) in a 2002 meta-study of the legal drinking age
and traffic accidents found higher legal drinking ages associated with lower rates of traffic accidents. [19] The National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration (NHTSA) estimated that MLDA 21 decreased the number of fatal traffic accidents for 18- to 20-year-olds by 13% and saved
approximately 27,052 lives from 1975-2008. [26]
MLDA 21 reduces alcohol consumption. In a 2002 meta-study, 87% of the analyses found higher legal drinking ages associated with lower
alcohol consumption. [19] In 2009, the NHTSA found that the percentage of weekend nighttime drivers with a blood-alcohol concentration
(BAC) of .08 or higher declined from 5.4% in 1986 (two years after the MLDA was raised to 21) to 2.2% in 2007. [27]
MLDA 21 should not be lowered to mirror European drinking age limits because the rate of drinking
among US teenagers is lower than most European countries . US teenagers also show equal or lower rates of
intoxication/binge drinking than do adolescents from most European countries, and most European countries report higher rates of intoxication
and binge drinking for youth under 13. [28]
MLDA 21 laws reduce the number of underage drinkers. The percentage of underage drinkers has decreased since 1984 when most MLDA 21
laws came into effect. [24] Studies indicate that when the drinking age is 21, those younger than 21 drink less and continue to drink less through
their early 20s, and that youth who do not drink until they are 21 tend to drink less as adults. [42]
MLDA 18 is not a right. A US district court ruled on Dec. 22, 1978 that MLDA 21 is "reasonably related to a state objective of reducing highway
crashes," and that MLDA 21 withstands a constitutional challenge on three key legal issues: (1) drinking alcohol is not a "fundamental" right
guaranteed by the Constitution, (2) age is not inherently a "suspect" criteria for discrimination (in contrast to race or ethnicity, for example) and
(3) using the drinking age to prevent highway crashes has a "rational basis" in available scientific evidence. [29]
The American public overwhelmingly supports MLDA 21. A 2007 Gallup poll found that 77% of Americans would oppose
a federal law that lowers the drinking age in all states to age 18. [33] Numerous state and national surveys dating from the 1970s (when states
were raising the legal drinking age) through the present have shown overwhelming public support for MLDA 21. [30] [31] [32]
Lowering MLDA 21 would give high schoolers and even middle schoolers easier access to alcohol . Newlylegal drinkers often purchase alcohol for their underage peers, creating a "trickle-down" effect. [34] Surveys show that the most common source
of alcohol among 18- to 20-year olds is their 21- to 24-year-old peers. [35]
MLDA 21 helps prevent underage binge drinking. Binge drinking peaks among 21- to 25-year-olds at 45.9%, while the binge
drinking rates of those aged 12-13, 14-15, 16-17, and 18-20 are 1.5%, 7.8%, 19.4%, and 35.7% respectively. [23] [36]
MLDA 21 exerts valuable social pressure on potential underage drinkers and those who may serve them. Youth may choose not to drink, or to
drink less often, because of decreased social acceptability or increased risks from parental or legal authorities. Older youth and adults may furnish
alcoholic beverages to minors less frequently, and licensed alcohol outlets may sell to minors less frequently, because of their perceptions that it is
illegal, morally wrong, or because they might be caught. [18]
The MLDA should stay at 21 because people tend to be more mature and responsible at 21 than 18. 18-year-olds are typically entering a new
phase of independence from their parents through college or the workforce, and are more susceptible to binge drinking, risky sexual activity, and
other irresponsible behavior due to lack of maturity.
Lowering the drinking age will invite more use of illicit drugs among 18-21 year olds. A peer-reviewed study from the Journal of
Studies of Alcohol and Drugs found that the younger a person begins to drink alcohol the more likely it is
that they will use other illicit drugs. [38] Lowering MLDA 21 would increase the number of teens who drink and therefore the
number of teens who use other drugs. [37] [39]
problem of steroid abuse, criminalization , has worsened a serious health problem. So far, governmental
efforts have (1) greatly reduced the supply of FDA regulated product; (2) created a market for
unregulated, imported or clandestinely manufactured product; and (3) reduced the likelihood that the
average steroid user will seek or be able to obtain medical supervision . Athletes and increasing numbers
of young adults are self-injecting large amounts of a powerful drug about which medical experts know
little. This Article proposes a different approach to the problem. This Article argues that (1) steroid use cannot be equated
with the use of narcotics like heroin and cocaine; (2) the powerful social pressures that result in steroid
use have been underestimated; (3) the threat of criminal penalties cannot overcome these pressures; and (4)
only fundamental changes in societal values can affect the demand for steroids . Because the demand for steroids is
so powerful, steroid use should be legalized and regulated to best mitigate adverse health effects. Finally,
this Article advocates a program that would.require users to obtain steroids from licensed physicians pursuant to a prescription, and require
physicians to both provide medical monitoring during the course of their use and regularly inform users of the health risks and the health
impacts of their use.
The aff and neg ground would be similar to the other drug areas but would allow the affirmative to talk
about steroid use as it pertains to the sports world. The negative ground would be similar.
Citations
Collins, Rick. "Changing the Game: The Congressional Response to Sports Doping via the Anabolic
Steroid Control Act." New Eng. L. Rev. 40 (2005): 753.
Collins, Rick. "FROM GRAND SLAMS TO GRAND JURIES: PERFORMANCE-ENHANCING
DRUG USE IN SPORTS: SYMPOSIUM CONTRIBUTION: Changing the Game: The Congressional
Response to Sports Doping via the Anabolic Steroid Control Act." New Eng. L. Rev. 40 (2006): 7531103.
Collins, Rick. Legal muscle: anabolics in America. Legal Muscle Pub Inc, 2002.
Heisler, Sarah R. "Steroid Regulation in Professional Sports: Sarbanes-Oxley as a Guide." Cardozo Arts
& Ent. LJ 27 (2009): 199.
Iliakostas, Anthony F. "Separation of Sport and State: The Federal Governments Involvement in Major
League Baseballs Drug Testing Program." Pace IP, Sports & Entertainment Law Forum. Vol. 3. No. 1.
2013.
Miller, Joel. Bad Trip: How the War Against Drugs is Destroying America. Thomas Nelson Inc, 2004.
Mitten, Matthew J. "Drug Testing of Athletes-An Internal, Not External, Matter." New Eng. L. Rev. 40
(2005): 797.
Mrkonjic, Michal, and Arnout Geeraert. "Sports organisations, autonomy and good governance." Action
for Good Governance in International Sports Organisations (2013).
Final Stuff
RJ Giglios Thoughts
I had a hard time finding people who had the resources to contribute to the topic paper. I did receive a
good bit of positive feedback. RJ told me I could share our lengthy chat about the topic, so I thought I
would put it here at the bottom of the topic paper. Several of the Emory Debaters I shared this section
with enjoyed the reading, so I thought you might as well.
Thanks for letting me exploit your chats, RJ:
RJ: I'd say my biggest concern
is that the vast majority of criminal law is state
this is a problem for usfg as an actor, but not for the passive voice phrasing
JH: yeah, all of the things i have listed there are federal crimes against, as least as far as I could find
RJ: Yeah
though
even if you repeal the federal laws that criminalize marijuana, prostitution etc.
the "state laws pre-empt" means its still illegal is interesting
there would still be state laws against those things
The federal government can pretty much prosecute you for almost ANYTHING the state prosecutes you
for
They simply don't as a matter of resource conservation (they presume states will prosecute you for simple
marijuana possession, prostitution etc.)
JH: can't federal law pre-empt state laws for the legalization of things - see segregation, etc
RJ: Well, with segregation the court found that state action of segregation was ILLEGAL
because it violated the 14th amendment
segregation didn't actually involve legalizing anything that I can think of
So you're asking
if the federal government could pass a law
legalizing something in such a way
as to overwhelm state laws prohibiting it?
If the aff found something like a constitutional right to physician assisted suicide, that would render it
unconstitutional for states to prohibit it