1ac

1ac
Plan

The United States should legalize nearly all marijuana in the United States.

1
CARTELS
Legalizing marijuana is modeled globally and breaks Cartels decrim fails
Carpenter, CATO senior fellow, 2011 (Ted, Undermining Mexicos Dangerous Drug Cartels, 11-15,
http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2033357, ldg)

Yet unless the production and sale of drugs is also legalized, the black-market premium will still exist
and law-abiding businesses will still stay away from the trade. In other words, drug commerce will remain in the hands of
criminal elements that do not shrink from engaging in bribery, intimidation, and murder. Wall Street Journal columnist Mary Anastasia OGrady aptly makes that
distinction with respect to the drug-law reform that Mexico enacted in 2009: Mexican consumers will now have less fear of penalties
and, increasingly in the case of marijuana, thats true in the United States as well. But trafficking will remain illegal, and to get their
product past law enforcement the criminals will still have an enormous incentive to bribe or to kill.
Decriminalization will not take the money out of the business, and therefore will not reduce
corruption, cartel intimidation aimed at democratic-government authority or the terror heaped on local populations by drug
lords.58 Because of its proximity to the huge U.S. market, Mexico will continue to be a cockpit for that drug-related violence. By its domestic
commitment to prohibition, the United States is creating the risk that the drug cartels may become
powerful enough to destabilize its southern neighbor. Their impact on Mexicos government and society has already reached
worrisome levels. Worst of all, the carnage associated with the black-market trade in drugs does not respect national boundaries. The frightening
violence now convulsing Mexico could become a feature of life in American communities, as the
cartels begin to flex their muscles north of the border. When the United States and other countries ponder whether to persist in a
strategy of drug prohibition, they need to consider all of the potential societal costs, both domestic and international. On the domestic front, Americans prisons are
bulging with people who have run afoul of the drug laws. Approximately one-third of inmates in state prisons and nearly 60 percent of those in federal prisons are
incarcerated for drug trafficking offenses. Most of those inmates are small-time dealers. Prohibition has created or exacerbated a variety of social pathologies,
especially in minority communities where drug use rates are higher than the national average and rates of arrests and imprisonment are dramatically higher. Those
are all serious societal costs of prohibition. Conclusion The most feasible and effective strategy to counter the mounting
turmoil in Mexico is to drastically reduce the potential revenue flows to the trafficking organizations. In other words,
the United States could substantially defund the cartels through the full legalization (including manufacture and
sale) of currently illegal drugs. If Washington abandoned the prohibition model, it is very likely that other
countries in the international community would do the same. The United States exercises
disproportionate influence on the issue of drug policy, as it does on so many other international
issues. If prohibition were rescinded, the profit margins for the drug trade would be similar to the margins for other
legal commodities, and legitimate businesses would become the principal players. That is precisely
what happened when the United States ended its quixotic crusade against alcohol in 1933. To help reverse the
burgeoning tragedy of drug-related violence in Mexico, Washington must seriously consider adopting a similar course today with respect to currently illegal drugs.
Even taking the first step away from prohibition by legalizing marijuana, indisputably the mildest and least harmful of
the illegal drugs, could cause problems for the Mexican cartels. Experts provide a wide range of estimates about how important the
marijuana trade is to those organizations. The high-end estimate, from a former DEA official, is that marijuana
accounts for approximately 55 percent of total revenues. Other experts dispute that figure. Edgardo Buscaglia, who was a
research scholar at the conservative Hoover Institution until 2008, provides the low-end estimate, contending that the drug amounts to less than 10 percent of
total revenues. Officials in both the U.S. and Mexican governments contend that its more like 20 to 30 percent.59 Whatever the actual
percentage, the marijuana business is financially important to the cartels. The Mexican marijuana trade is already
under pressure from competitors in the United States. One study concluded that the annual harvest in California alone
equaled or exceeded the entire national production in Mexico, and that output for the United States
was more than twice that of Mexico.60 As sentiment for hard-line prohibition policies fades in the United States, and the likelihood of
prosecution diminishes, one could expect domestic growers, both large and small, to become bolder about starting or expanding their businesses. Legalizing
pot would strike a blow against Mexican traffickers. It would be difficult for them to compete with
American producers in the American market, given the difference in transportation distances and
other factors. There would be little incentive for consumers to buy their product from unsavory Mexican
criminal syndicates when legitimate domestic firms could offer the drug at a competitive priceand
advertise how they are honest enterprises. Indeed, for many Americans, they could just grow their own supplya cost advantage that the cartels could not hope to
match. It is increasingly apparent, in any case, that both the U.S. and Mexican governments need to make drastic changes in their efforts to combat Mexicos drug
cartels. George Grayson aptly summarizes the fatal flaw in the existing strategy. It is extremely difficultprobably impossibleto eradicate the cartels. They or
their offshoots will fight to hold on to an enterprise that yields Croesus-like fortunes from illegal substances craved by millions of consumers.61 Felipe Calderns
military-led offensive is not just a futile, utopian crusade. That would be bad enough, but the reality is much worse. It is a futile, utopian crusade that has produced
an array of ugly, bloody side effects. A different approach is needed. The most effective way is to greatly reduce the Croesus-like fortunes available to the cartels.
And the only realistic way to do that is to bite the bullet and end the policy of drug prohibition,
preferably in whole, but at least in part, starting with the legalization of marijuana. A failure to move away from
prohibition in the United States creates the risk that the already nasty corruption and violence next door in Mexico may get even worse. The danger
grows that our southern neighbor could become, if not a full-blown failed state, at least a de-facto
narco-state in which the leading drug cartels exercise parallel or dual political sovereignty with the
government of Mexico. We may eventually encounter a situationif we havent alreadywhere the cartels are the real power in significant portions
of the country. And we must worry that the disorder inside Mexico will spill over the border into the United
States to a much greater extent than it has to this point. The fire of drug-related violence is flaring to an alarming extent in Mexico.
U.S. leaders need to take constructive action now, before that fire consumes our neighbors home and threatens our own. That means recognizing reality and
ending the second failed prohibition crusade.
The plan frees up resources and allows for institutional reform that resolves alternate
causes to organized crime
Jones, Baker Institute drug policy postdoctoral fellow, 2014
(Nathan, Will recreational marijuana sales in Colorado hurt Mexican cartels?, 1-2,
http://blog.chron.com/bakerblog/2014/01/will-recreational-marijuana-sales-in-colorado-hurt-mexican-
cartels/, ldg)

I would argue that in the short term, Colorados legalization will probably have a negligible impact on drug-related
violence in Mexico, given the size of the market and Colorados carefully written marijuana legislation and regulations. But it
represents a model for other states that could have a massive impact on cartel profits and thereby
reduce drug violence in Mexico. The Colorado and Washington state legalization efforts represent carefully tailored first steps toward the
broader legalization of marijuana that could significantly impact drug-related violence in Mexico. Markets are complex. We have to differentiate between short,
medium and long-term effects. Further we have to think about two important factors for Mexico: the profits of cartels and the strength of state institutions. Many
speciously bifurcate these issues. I argue that they cannot be separated. Mexicos cartels have significantly diversified their operations.
Marijuana is generally agreed to represent 20 percent to 30 percent of cartel profits. This varies by cartel, with
trafficking-oriented groups such as the Sinaloa cartel having higher profits from marijuana than more territorial groups such as los Zetas. This is not only due to the
trafficking of other drugs such as heroin, cocaine, and methamphetamine, but also due to the cartels expansion into illicit activities such as kidnapping, illegal tolls,
extortion, etc. Thus the legalization of marijuana in a single state can only cut into cartel profits. Even national marijuana legalization could not wipe them out.
Alejandro Hope and Eduardo Clarke wrote an excellent report for Mexicos Competiveness Institute that argued that if Oregon, Colorado and Washington (the
states with 2012 marijuana initiatives) legalized marijuana, it would cut into Mexican cartel profits by 30 percent; the Sinaloa cartel would be the most heavily
impacted. The authors made important assumptions. One was that marijuana produced in the legal market of these states would likely be trafficked outside these
states and still undercut the illegal marijuana market. I agree with their general findings but want to point out some issues with those assumptions. First, the federal
government has largely allowed Colorado to legalize marijuanadespite the contravention of federal lawprovided it prevents marijuana from being trafficked
outside the state and that marijuana does not fall into the hands of minors or does not benefit organized crime. Second, and as a result of the first, the states of
Colorado and Washington have very carefully regulated their markets, limiting the amounts nonresidents can buy, creating stiff penalties for those possessing large
quantities of marijuana, stepping up enforcement for trafficking outside of the state, and stepping up public awareness efforts about the illegality of trafficking
outside the state. Third, the federal government has also made clear it will be stepping up its efforts to keep Colorado marijuana in Colorado. Given that Colorado is
the test case, enforcement by both state and federal entities to prevent marijuana from leaving the state may be artificially and unsustainably high over the first
year or two. Fourth, Colorados marijuana taxes are very high and its vertically integrated market structure70 percent of marijuana sold in a retail establishment
must be cultivated by that businesswill keep the price up and limit the ability of legal marijuana to undercut the black market. In terms of the impact
on Mexican cartels in the short term, we might see a spike in other extortion-related crimes as profit
starvation sets in for certain cells in illicit networks. Attributing this to changing market dynamics in the United States will be difficult,
given that violent black market forces (rival cartels) may be a much more important confounding variable. These illicit networks may further
diversify into territorial extortionist activities, but over the long term will be wiped out by civil society
and the state as these crimes draw a powerful backlash. I documented this process in Tijuana in my 2011 doctoral dissertation.
The real benefits of legalization will be seen in the medium- and long-term. By cutting into Mexican
cartel profits, other cartel activities and power could be reduced. We know that cartel profits can be redistributed to local
cells to maintain territorial control. The ability to weaken or reduce these payments could limit their activities and
capital investments in kidnapping and extortion franchises. Finally, reducing cartel profits could help
Mexico strengthen its institutions . Building effective police and security institutions takes decades.
Decades can stretch into centuries if those agencies are constantly rejiggered and re-corrupted by
highly profitable and sophisticated organized criminal networks. Reducing illicit profits could have an
important and salubrious effect on the ability of Mexico to strengthen its security apparatus.


Cartel violence spills up to the US which triggres military response---collapses the
Mexican government and bilateral relations even if the response is limited
Metz, Strategic Studies Institute director of research, 2014 (Steven, Strategic Horizons: All Options Bad If
Mexicos Drug Violence Expands to U.S., 2-19, http://www.worldpoliticsreview.com/articles/13576/strategic-horizons-all-options-bad-if-
mexico-s-drug-violence-expands-to-u-s, ldg)

Over the past few decades, violence in Mexico has reached horrific levels, claiming the lives of 70,000 as criminal organizations fight
each other for control of the drug trade and wage war on the Mexican police, military, government officials and anyone else unlucky enough to get caught in the
crossfire. The chaos has spread southward, engulfing Guatemala, Honduras and Belize. Americans must face the possibility
that the conflict may also expand northward, with intergang warfare, assassinations of government officials and outright
terrorism in the United States. If so, this will force Americans to undertake a fundamental reassessment of
the threat, possibly redefining it as a security issue demanding the use of U.S. military power . One way that large-scale
drug violence might move to the United States is if the cartels miscalculate and think they can
intimidate the U.S. government or strike at American targets safely from a Mexican sanctuary. The
most likely candidate would be the group known as the Zetas. They were created when elite government anti-drug commandos
switched sides in the drug war, first serving as mercenaries for the Gulf Cartel and then becoming a powerful cartel in their own right. The Zetas used to recruit
mostly ex-military and ex-law enforcement members in large part to maintain discipline and control. But the pool of soldiers and policemen willing to j oin the
narcotraffickers was inadequate to fuel the groups ambition. Now the Zetas are tapping a very different, much larger, but less disciplined pool of recruits in U.S.
prisons and street gangs. This is an ominous turn of events. Since intimidation through extreme violence is a trademark of
the Zetas, its spread to the United States raises the possibility of large-scale violence on American soil.
As George Grayson of the College of William and Mary put it, The Zetas are determined to gain the reputation of being the
most sadistic, cruel and beastly organization that ever existed. And without concern for extradition, which helped break the
back of the Colombian drug cartels, the Zetas show little fear of the United States government, already having
ordered direct violence against American law enforcement. Like the Zetas, most of the other Mexican
cartels are expanding their operations inside the United States. Only a handful of U.S. states are free of them today. So far the
cartels dont appear directly responsible for large numbers of killings in the United States, but as expansion and reliance on undisciplined
recruits looking to make a name for themselves through ferocity continue, the chances of
miscalculation or violent freelancing by a cartel affiliate mount . This could potentially move beyond
intergang warfare to the killing of U.S. officials or outright terrorism like the car bombs that drug cartels used in Mexico
and Colombia. In an assessment for the U.S. Army War College Strategic Studies Institute, Robert Bunker and John Sullivan considered narcotrafficker car bombs
inside the United States to be unlikely but not impossible. A second way that Mexicos violence could spread north is via the
partnership between the narcotraffickers and ideologically motivated terrorist groups. The Zetas
already have a substantial connection to Hezbollah, based on collaborative narcotrafficking and arms
smuggling. Hezbollah has relied on terrorism since its founding and has few qualms about conducting
attacks far from its home turf in southern Lebanon. Since Hezbollah is a close ally or proxy of Iran, it
might some day attempt to strike the United States in retribution for American action against Tehran.
If so, it would likely attempt to exploit its connection with the Zetas, pulling the narcotraffickers into a transnational proxy war. The foundation for this scenario is
already in place: Security analysts like Douglas Farah have warned of a tier-one security threat for the
United States from an improbable alliance between narcotraffickers and anti-American states like
Iran and the Bolivarian regime in Venezuela. The longer this relationship continues and the more it
expands, the greater the chances of dangerous miscalculation. No matter how violence from the Mexican cartels came to the
United States, the key issue would be Washingtons response. If the Zetas, another Mexican cartel or someone acting in their
stead launched a campaign of assassinations or bombings in the United States or helped Hezbollah or
some other transnational terrorist organization with a mass casualty attack, and the Mexican
government proved unwilling or unable to respond in a way that Washington considered adequate,
the United States would have to consider military action. While the United States has deep cultural and economic ties to Mexico
and works closely with Mexican law enforcement on the narcotrafficking problem, the security relationship between the two has always been difficult
understandably so given the long history of U.S. military intervention in Mexico. Mexico would be unlikely to allow the U.S. military
or other government agencies free rein to strike at narcotrafficking cartels in its territory, even if those
organizations were tied to assassinations, bombings or terrorism in the United States. But any U.S. president would face immense
political pressure to strike at Americas enemies if the Mexican government could not or would not
do so itself . Failing to act firmly and decisively would weaken the president and encourage the
Mexican cartels to believe that they could attack U.S. targets with impunity. After all, the primary lesson from Sept.
11 was that playing only defense and allowing groups that attack the United States undisturbed foreign sanctuary does not work. But using the U.S.
military against the cartels on Mexican soil could weaken the Mexican government or even cause its
collapse, end further security cooperation between Mexico and the United States and damage one of
the most important and intimate bilateral economic relationships in the world. Quite simply, every available
strategic option would be disastrous. Hopefully, cooperation between Mexican and U.S. security and intelligence services will be able to forestall such a crisis. No
one wants to see U.S. drones over Mexico. But so long as the core dynamic of narcotraffickingmassive demand for
drugs in the United States combined with their prohibitionpersists, the utter ruthlessness, lack of
restraint and unlimited ambition of the narcotraffickers raises the possibility of violent miscalculation
and the political and economic calamity that would follow.

Collapse results in WMD terrorism
Brookes, Heritage national security affairs senior fellow, 2009
(Peter, Mexican Mayhem: Narcotics Traffickers Threaten Mexico and U.S, 3-4,
http://www.heritage.org/research/commentary/2009/03/mexican-mayhem-narcotics-traffickers-
threaten-mexico-and-us)
Lots of weapons in Mexico come from this side of the border; indeed, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and
Explosives (ATF) asserts a majority of the cartels' weapons come from the U.S., especially via gang networks operating in the Southwest. Mexico City has also
expressed concerns to Washington about precursor chemicals coming in from the U.S. that are then used by the cartels in the production of narcotics. Another
problem, according to experts, is that little inspection is done on the 100 million vehicles and trucks
entering or leaving Mexico annually at 25 crossing points, leading to plenty of finger-pointing on both
sides. As a result, popular support for Calderon's fight against the cartels has waned; because of the widespread violence, many Mexicans are for throwing in the
towel, saying drugs are an American problem. But that clearly wouldn't be good for either of us. If Mexico, a country of 110 million people,
becomes even a near narcostate, the effect on the U.S. -- make that the Western Hemisphere -- is
almost incalculable. If the cartels were to seize tracts of Mexican territory, it could lead to the
establishment of lawless, ungoverned spaces, which are favored by bad actors such as terrorists.
(Think: Pakistan's tribal areas -- home to al-Qaida and the Taliban.) Terrorists could certainly exploit
successful drug smuggling routes to bring people and explosives or even weapons of mass destruction
across the border into the U.S.

Even crude devices make escalation likely
Conley, ACC chief of Systems Analysis Branch, 2003
(Harry, Not with Impunity Assessing US Policy for Retaliating to a Chemical or Biological Attack, 3-5,
http://www.airpower.maxwell.af.mil/airchronicles/apj/apj03/spr03/conley.html, ldg)
The number of American casualties suffered due to a WMD attack may well be the most important
variable in determining the nature of the US reprisal. A key question here is how many Americans would have to be killed to prompt
a massive response by the United States. The bombing of marines in Lebanon, the Oklahoma City bombing, and the downing of Pan Am Flight 103 each resulted in a
casualty count of roughly the same magnitude (150300 deaths). Although these events caused anger and a desire for retaliation among the American public, they
prompted no serious call for massive or nuclear retaliation. The body count from a single biological attack could easily be one or two orders of magnitude higher
than the casualties caused by these events. Using the rule of proportionality as a guide, one could justifiably debate
whether the United States should use massive force in responding to an event that resulted in only a
few thousand deaths . However, what if the casualty count was around 300,000? Such an unthinkable result from a single CBW incident is not beyond
the realm of possibility: According to the U.S. Congress Office of Technology Assessment, 100 kg of anthrax spores delivered by an efficient aerosol generator on a
large urban target would be between two and six times as lethal as a one megaton thermo-nuclear bomb.46 Would the deaths of 300,000
Americans be enough to trigger a nuclear response? In this case, proportionality does not rule out the
use of nuclear weapons . Besides simply the total number of casualties, the types of casualties-
predominantly military versus civilian- will also affect the nature and scope of the US reprisal action.
Military combat entails known risks, and the emotions resulting from a significant number of military casualties are not likely to be as forceful as they would be if
the attack were against civilians. World War II provides perhaps the best examples for the kind of event or circumstance that would have to take place to trigger a
nuclear response. A CBW event that produced a shock and death toll roughly equivalent to those arising
from the attack on Pearl Harbor might be sufficient to prompt a nuclear retaliation. President Harry Trumans
decision to drop atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki- based upon a calculation that up to one million casualties might be incurred in an invasion of the
Japanese homeland47- is an example of the kind of thought process that would have to occur prior to a nuclear response to a CBW event. Victor Utgoff suggests
that if nuclear retaliation is seen at the time to offer the best prospects for suppressing further CB
attacks and speeding the defeat of the aggressor, and if the original attacks had caused severe
damage that had outraged American or allied publics, nuclear retaliation would be more than just a
possibility, whatever promises had been made.48

Advanced manufacturing is thriving because of integration and cooperation with
Mexico
Berube, Brookings Metropolitan Policy Program senior fellow, 2013
(Alan, Metro North America: Cities and Metros as Hubs of Advanced Industries and Integrated Goods
Trade, 11-7,
http://www.brookings.edu/~/media/research/files/reports/2013/11/07%20metro%20north%20america
/bmpp_metrona_final.pdf, ldg)

After decades of continued economic integration, the quantity and quality of trade within North
America is truly distinct. In 2011, the latest year for which goods and services trade data are both
available, the United States exchanged nearly $1.2 trillion worth of goods and services with Canada
and Mexico, the countrys first- and third-largest trading partners, respectively. To put this number in perspective, total U.S.
trade with Japan, Korea, and the BRICS nationsBrazil, Russia, India, China, and South Africais also
about $1.2 trillion (Figure 1).31 Integrated value chains have united North America as one economic
market that not only trades finished goods but shares in their production. Many products travel
across the border several times to take advantage of each countrys comparative advantages in
manufacturing. Value-added trade data reveal that for every $100 in final goods value that the United
States imports from Mexico, $40 is actually U.S.-made content. The equivalent share from Canada is $25. By contrast, for each
$100 in imports from China and the European Union, only $4 and $2, respectively, are U.S. value.32 THE NORTH AMERICAN ADVANCED INDUSTRY EXPORT
PLATFORM Production sharing not only minimizes the cost of goods consumed in each of the three
countries, but makes products exported to the rest of the world more competitive. In 2011, the North American
bloc sent over $1.2 trillion in goods outside the region.33 North Americas most export-oriented sectors tend to be in manufacturing, particularly in advanced
industriesR&D-intensive pursuits that require workers with significant technical knowledge and skills (see the box, What Are Advanced Industries and Why Are
They Important?). Advanced industries such as electronics ($115 billion), transportation equipment ($100
billion), industrial machinery ($82 billion), pharmaceuticals ($39 billion), and medical devices ($26
billion) drive North American goods exports to the rest of the world. Though not included in the definition of advanced
industries, energy commoditiesoil, gas, and coalare the other significant segment of North American exports ($108 billion).34 And while this report does not
focus on services, due to a lack of data, services play a critical role in advanced production sectors. For instance, every dollar of U.S. manufacturing output requires
19 cents of services, including logistics, advertising, and engineering.35 In 2012, the U.S. economy posted a $200 billion trade surplus in services.36 Boosting North
American advanced industry exports has clear advantages for each country. For the United States and Canada, both of which face
widening trade deficits in manufacturing, advanced industries represent some of the most export-
oriented segments of each economy. With little chance to compete on cost alone, each country
recognizes the increasing imperative to offer superior quality and value added. 37 For Mexico, which has
experienced a cyclical boom due to competitive wages and a favorable exchange rate, advanced industries represent opportunities to move into more sophisticated
parts of the value chain, improve productivity, and continue the nations economic ascent.38 Meeting the demand of developed economies in Europe and rising
markets in Africa, Asia, and South America for advanced industry products helps meet each countrys goals. Production sharing means that the
respective export economies of the United States, Canada, and Mexico rely greatly on intermediate
imports from their continental neighbors. At first glance, the benefits of imports may seem counterintuitive. Sourcing imports
internationally can displace domestic production and jobs, result in higher transportation costs for firms, and increase the risk of supply-chain disruptions.40 Yet
for both firms and countries, evidence shows that sourcing intermediate goods internationally
increases access to high- quality inputs, lowers overall costs for firms, and as a result increases
productivity and export prowess.41 In other words, imports improve product quality and lower
product cost, making exports more competitive in the global marketplace and ultimately supporting
jobs and wages at home. Co-production within North America also means that each country derives
more value from its partner countries exports to the rest of the world than from exports by other
global trading partners. The United States, for example, accounts for 20 percent and 16 percent of the value in Canadian and Mexican transportation
equipment exports, respectively, while Chinese, German, and Japanese transportation equipment exports all contain less than 4 percent U.S. value (Table 1). For
electrical and optical equipment, 14 percent of Canadian exports and 20 percent of Mexican exports are U.S. value added, well above the U.S. content in such
exports from China, Germany, and Japan. For machinery and chemicals, the same pattern holds.42 Simply put, the United States benefits more economically from a
Mexican or Canadian export than from a Chinese, Japanese, or German export. More recent global dynamics also indicate that this
is a unique moment for the North American production platform. Some experts suggest that changing
global wage structures, fluctuating currencies, volatile energy prices, and rapidly changing
technologies mean that North America, and the United States in particular, may be able to reshore
manufacturing jobs that left for East Asia over the past two decades.43 Others remain more pessimistic.44 Notwithstanding these
uncertainties, it does appear that North Americas free trade base and growing co-production in key
advanced industries positions it more strongly for near-term manufacturing growth. Five additional advantages
seem to favor the North American production platform: rising labor costs in China, transportation and logistical advantages from geographic proximity,
productionenhancing technological advancements, the shale gas revolution, and the growing prominence of urban economies as si tes of co-located design and
production. First, experts predict that rising wages in China will make North Americas manufacturing base, particularly Mexicos, more cost-competitive vis--vis
East Asia.45 After decades of Chinese wages undercutting production in Mexico, Chinese and Mexican labor costs are converging.46 Economists at JPMorgan Chase
note that wage advantages, along with a favorable exchange rate, have been responsible for Mexicos manufacturing surge over the past couple of years.47
Furthermore, changing wage dynamics do not impact all industries equally; the extent to which labor is a significant share of input costs will determine whether
location decisions change as a result. In the case of advanced industries, where automation has already been widely implemented, labor cost changes matter most
in the assembly stages for high-value products such as electronics and precision instruments.48 Second, for manufacturers selling into the
North American market, transportation costs and logistics advantages favor making products within
North America over East Asia. The rise of just in time manufacturing processes also relies on fast,
dependable shipping to lower warehousing costs and to keep factories running at full speed. Shipments from
China can cost as much as $5,000 per container compared to $3,000 per container from Mexico.49 Products from North American factories can reach U.S. supply
chains in less than a few days; containers from China can take up to three months to reach their U.S. destination.50 In the rush to offshore production to East Asia,
many companies focused strictly on labor costs and overlooked costs associated with longer supply chains and more complex logistics.51 As those costs have
become more apparent over time, the calculus for firms seems to be changing, particularly for industries such as chemicals, machinery, and transportation
equipment that rely on lean supply chains, locate production near final demand, and manufacture large and heavy products.52


Domestic manufacturing is key to overall economic resilience and innovation
Ettlinger, Center for American Progress Vice President for Economic Policy, 2011
(Michael, Prior to joining the Center, he spent six years at the Economic Policy Institute directing the
Economic Analysis and Research Network. Previously, he was tax policy director for Citizens for Tax
Justice and the Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy for 11 years. He has also served on the staff of
the New York State Assembly. The Importance and Promise of American Manufacturing Why It Matters
if We Make It in America and Where We Stand Today, http://www.americanprogress.org/wp-
content/uploads/issues/2011/04/pdf/manufacturing.pdf)

Manufacturing is critically important to the American economy. For generations, the strength of our country rested on the
power of our factory floorsboth the machines and the men and women who worked them. We need manufacturing to continue to be a
bedrock of strength for generations to come. Manufacturing is woven into the structure of our economy: Its
importance goes far beyond what happens behind the factory gates. The strength or weakness of American manufacturing carries
implications for the entire economy, our national security, and the well-being of all Americans. Manufacturing today
accounts for 12 percent of the U.S. economy and about 11 percent of the private-sector workforce. But its significance is even greater
than these numbers would suggest. The direct impact of manufacturing is only a part of the picture. First, jobs in the manufacturing sector are good middle-class
jobs for millions of Americans. Those jobs serve an important role, offering economic opportunity to hard-working, middle-skill workers. This creates upward
mobility and broadens and strengthens the middle class to the benefit of the entire economy. Whats more, U.S.-based manufacturing
underpins a broad range of jobs that are quite different from the usual image of manufacturing.
These are higher-skill service jobs that include the accountants, bankers, and lawyers that are associated with any industry, as well as a
broad range of other jobs including basic research and technology development, product and process engineering and design,
operations and maintenance, transportation, testing, and lab work. Many of these jobs are critical to American
technology and innovation leadership. The problem today is this: Many multinational corporations may for a period keep these higher-skill
jobs here at home while they move basic manufacturing elsewhere in response to other countries subsidies, the search for cheaper labor costs, and the desire for
more direct access to overseas markets, but eventually many of these service jobs will follow. When the basic manufacturing leaves, the
feedback loop from the manufacturing floor to the rest of a manufacturing operationa critical
element in the innovative processis eventually broken. To maintain that feedback loop, companies need
to move higher-skill jobs to where they do their manufacturing. And with those jobs goes American
leadership in technology and innovation. This is why having a critical mass of both manufacturing and associated
service jobs in the United States matters. The industrial commons that comes from the
crossfertilization and engagement of a community of experts in industry, academia, and government
is vital to our nations economic competitiveness. Manufacturing also is important for the nations
economic stability. The experience of the Great Recession exemplifies this point. Although manufacturing
plunged in 2008 and early 2009 along with the rest of the economy, it is on the rebound today while other key economic
sectors, such as construction, still languish. Diversity in the economy is importantand manufacturing is a
particularly important part of the mix. Although manufacturing is certainly affected by broader economic events, the sectors internal
diversitysupplying consumer goods as well as industrial goods, serving both domestic and external markets gives it great potential resiliency. Finally,
supplying our own needs through a strong domestic manufacturing sector protects us from
international economic and political disruptions. This is most obviously important in the realm of
national security, even narrowly defined as matters related to military strength, where the risk of a weak
manufacturing capability is obvious. But overreliance on imports and substantial manufacturing trade
deficits weaken us in many ways, making us vulnerable to everything from exchange rate fluctuations
to trade embargoes to natural disasters.

It is key to robust military capabilities
Ezell, ITIF senior analyst, 2011
(Stephen J. The Case for a National Manufacturing Strategy. April 2011. http://www2.itif.org/2011-
national-manufacturing-strategy.pdf)

A strong manufacturing base is vital to the economic well-being of a nationand to its national
security. Thus, a decline in American manufacturing risks national security. A number of reports have
warned about the loss of the U.S. industrial base and its high-tech capabilities, arguing that these
trends have the potential to profoundly impact the military.49 For example, a 2005 Defense Science
Board Task Force on High Performance Microchip Supply said the country was losing its high-tech
industrial capability and that urgent action is recommended. It warned that America's most strategic
industries were not in a position to change the competitive dynamics that had emerged globally to
shift the balance of production and markets away from the United States. As the National Defense Industrial
Association sums up the situation, If we lose our preeminence in manufacturing technology, then we lose our
national security.50 This is because: As the U.S. industrial base moves offshore, so does the
defense industrial base. Reliance on foreign manufacturers increases vulnerability to counterfeit
goods. As the U.S. industrial base increasingly moves offshore, so does the defense industrial base,
creating multiple vulnerabilities As Joel Yudken explains in Manufacturing Insecurity, Continued
migration of manufacturing offshore is both undercutting U.S. technology leadership while enabling
foreign countries to catch-up, if not leap-frog, U.S. capabilities in critical technologies important to
national security.51 If the U.S. defense industrial base is to retain its ability to develop the most technologically sophisticated defense pl atforms, the
United States will need to be at the forefront of advanced technology manufacturing capabilities in many areas, such as nanotechnology, advanced batteries,
semiconductors, sensors, etc. Unfortunately, U.S. vulnerabilities in advanced technology manufacturing capability span
a number of technologies. The mission of the Defense Production Act Title III is to target and bolster areas of high-tech manufacturing where the
United States has diminishing or no capability. Title III currently has active projects in lithium-ion (Li-ion) battery production, yttrium barium copper oxide high-
temperature superconductors, and photovoltaic solar cell encapsulants, among others. Lithium-ion battery production is particularly troubling. According to Title III
there is at present no domestic production capability for extremely long life Li-ion cells.52 As Title III makes clear in the defense context, dependence
on foreign manufacturersis not an option in some cases.53 Additional examples of defense-critical
technologies where domestic sourcing is endangered include propellant chemicals, space-qualified
electronics, power sources for space and military applications (especially batteries and photovoltaics), specialty metals, hard
disk drives, and flat panel displays (LCDs).54 In fact, Michael Webber, an engineering professor at the University of Texas, has studied the economic health of
sixteen industrial sectors within the manufacturing support base of the U.S. defense industrial system that have a direct bearing on innovation and production of
novel mechanical products and systems, and finds that, since 2001, thirteen of those sixteen industries have shown significant signs of erosion.55 Reliance
on foreign manufacturers increases U.S. vulnerability to receiving counterfeit goods According to a study
conducted by the Bureau of Industry and Security (BIS), in 2008 there were 9,356 incidents of counterfeit foreign products making their way into the Department of
Defense supply line, a 142 percent increase over 2005.56 Counterfeit materials can and have hampered the militarys ability to maintain weapon systems in combat
operationsa major vulnerability. Moreover, many distributors surveyed in the BIS study cited insufficient steps taken by foreign governments to disrupt
counterfeiting operations within their own borders.57 Ultimately, as Yudken concludes, Only a comprehensive strategy aimed at
reversing the erosion of the nations overall manufacturing base will be sufficient for preserving
and revitalizing the nations defense industrial base in the coming decades.58

Ensures hegemonic effectiveness and conflict suppression- no alt causes
Hubbard, Open Society Foundations program assistant, 2010
(Jesse, Hegemonic Stability Theory: An Empirical Analysis, 5-28,
http://isrj.wordpress.com/2010/05/28/hegemonic-stability-theory/)

Regression analysis of this data shows that Pearsons r-value is -.836. In the case of American
hegemony, economic strength is a better predictor of violent conflict than even overall national
power, which had an r-value of -.819. The data is also well within the realm of statistical significance, with a p-value of .0014. While the data for British
hegemony was not as striking, the same overall pattern holds true in both cases. During both periods of hegemony, hegemonic strength was negatively related with
violent conflict, and yet use of force by the hegemon was positively correlated with violent conflict in both cases. Finally, in both cases, economic power was more
closely associated with conflict levels than military power. Statistical analysis created a more complicated picture of the hegemons role in fostering stability than
initially anticipated. VI. Conclusions and Implications for Theory and Policy To elucidate some answers regarding the complexities my analysis unearthed, I turned
first to the existing theoretical literature on hegemonic stability theory. The existing literature provides some potential frameworks for understanding these results.
Since economic strength proved to be of such crucial importance, reexamining the literature that focuses on hegemonic stability theorys economic implications was
the logical first step. As explained above, the literature on hegemonic stability theory can be broadly divided into two camps that which focuses on the
international economic system, and that which focuses on armed conflict and instability. This research falls squarely into the second camp, but insights from the
first camp are still of relevance. Even Kindlebergers early work on this question is of relevance. Kindleberger posited that the economic instability
between the First and Second World Wars could be attributed to the lack of an economic hegemon
(Kindleberger 1973). But economic instability obviously has spillover effects into the international political arena. Keynes, writing after WWI, warned in his seminal
tract The Economic Consequences of the Peace that Germanys economic humiliation could have a radicalizing effect on the nations political culture (Keynes 1919).
Given later events, his warning seems prescient. In the years since the Second World War, however, the European continent has not relapsed into armed conflict.
What was different after the second global conflagration? Crucially, the United States was in a far more powerful position than Britain was after WWI. As the tables
above show, Britains economic strength after the First World War was about 13% of the total in strength in the international system. In contrast, the United States
possessed about 53% of relative economic power in the international system in the years immediately following WWII. The U.S. helped rebuild Europes economic
strength with billions of dollars in investment through the Marshall Plan, assistance that was never available to the defeated powers after the First World War
(Kindleberger 1973). The interwar years were also marked by a series of debilitating trade wars that likely worsened the Great Depression (Ibid.). In contrast, when
Britain was more powerful, it was able to facilitate greater free trade, and after World War II, the United States played a leading role in creating institutions like the
GATT that had an essential role in facilitating global trade (Organski 1958). The possibility that economic stability is an important factor in the overall security
environment should not be discounted, especially given the results of my statistical analysis. Another theory that could provide insight
into the patterns observed in this research is that of preponderance of power. Gilpin theorized that
when a state has the preponderance of power in the international system, rivals are more likely to
resolve their disagreements without resorting to armed conflict (Gilpin 1983). The logic behind this claim is simple it
makes more sense to challenge a weaker hegemon than a stronger one. This simple yet powerful theory can help explain the puzzlingly strong positive correlation
between military conflicts engaged in by the hegemon and conflict overall. It is not necessarily that military involvement by the hegemon instigates further conflict
in the international system. Rather, this military involvement could be a function of the hegemons weaker position, which is the true cause of the higher levels of
conflict in the international system. Additionally, it is important to note that military power is, in the long run,
dependent on economic strength. Thus, it is possible that as hegemons lose relative economic power,
other nations are tempted to challenge them even if their short-term military capabilities are still
strong. This would help explain some of the variation found between the economic and military data. The results of this analysis are of clear importance
beyond the realm of theory. As the debate rages over the role of the United States in the world, hegemonic stability theory has some useful insights to bring to the
table. What this research makes clear is that a strong hegemon can exert a positive influence on stability in the international system. However, this should not give
policymakers a justification to engage in conflict or escalate military budgets purely for the sake of international stability. If anything, this research
points to the central importance of economic influence in fostering international stability. To
misconstrue these findings to justify anything else would be a grave error indeed. Hegemons may play a
stabilizing role in the international system, but this role is complicated. It is economic strength, not
military dominance that is the true test of hegemony. A weak state with a strong military is a paper
tiger it may appear fearsome, but it is vulnerable to even a short blast of wind.

Hegemonic decline causes multiple scenarios for great power war
Zhang et al., Carnegie Endowment researcher, 2011
(Yuhan, Americas decline: A harbinger of conflict and rivalry, 1-22,
http://www.eastasiaforum.org/2011/01/22/americas-decline-a-harbinger-of-conflict-and-rivalry/, ldg)

This does not necessarily mean that the US is in systemic decline, but it encompasses a trend that appears to be negative and perhaps alarming. Although the US
still possesses incomparable military prowess and its economy remains the worlds largest, the once seemingly indomitable chasm that separated America from
anyone else is narrowing. Thus, the global distribution of power is shifting, and the inevitable result will be a
world that is less peaceful, liberal and prosperous, burdened by a dearth of effective conflict
regulation. Over the past two decades, no other state has had the ability to seriously challenge the US
military. Under these circumstances, motivated by both opportunity and fear, many actors have
bandwagoned with US hegemony and accepted a subordinate role. Canada, most of Western Europe, India, Japan, South
Korea, Australia, Singapore and the Philippines have all joined the US, creating a status quo that has tended to mute great power conflicts. However, as
the hegemony that drew these powers together withers, so will the pulling power behind the US
alliance. The result will be an international order where power is more diffuse, American interests and
influence can be more readily challenged, and conflicts or wars may be harder to avoid. As history
attests, power decline and redistribution result in military confrontation. For example, in the late 19th century
Americas emergence as a regional power saw it launch its first overseas war of conquest towards Spain. By the turn of the 20th century, accompanying the increase
in US power and waning of British power, the American Navy had begun to challenge the notion that Britain rules the waves. Such a notion would eventually see
the US attain the status of sole guardians of the Western Hemispheres security to become the order-creating Leviathan shaping the international system with
democracy and rule of law. Defining this US-centred system are three key characteristics: enforcement of property rights, constraints on the actions of powerful
individuals and groups and some degree of equal opportunities for broad segments of society. As a result of such political stability, free
markets, liberal trade and flexible financial mechanisms have appeared. And, with this, many
countries have sought opportunities to enter this system, proliferating stable and cooperative
relations. However, what will happen to these advances as Americas influence declines? Given that Americas authority, although sullied at times, has
benefited people across much of Latin America, Central and Eastern Europe, the Balkans, as well as parts of Africa and, quite extensively, Asia, the answer to this
question could affect global society in a profoundly detrimental way. Public imagination and academia have anticipated that a
post-hegemonic world would return to the problems of the 1930s: regional blocs, trade conflicts and
strategic rivalry. Furthermore, multilateral institutions such as the IMF, the World Bank or the WTO
might give way to regional organisations. For example, Europe and East Asia would each step forward
to fill the vacuum left by Washingtons withering leadership to pursue their own visions of regional political and economic orders. Free markets
would become more politicised and, well, less free and major powers would compete for
supremacy. Additionally, such power plays have historically possessed a zero-sum element. In the late 1960s
and 1970s, US economic power declined relative to the rise of the Japanese and Western European economies, with the US dollar also becoming less attractive.
And, as American power eroded, so did international regimes (such as the Bretton Woods System in 1973). A world without American
hegemony is one where great power wars re-emerge, the liberal international system is supplanted by
an authoritarian one, and trade protectionism devolves into restrictive, anti-globalisation barriers. This,
at least, is one possibility we can forecast in a future that will inevitably be devoid of unrivalled US primacy.
Innovation independently solves war by discouraging great power balancing
Taylor, Massachusetts Institute of Technology research assistant Department of Political
Science, 2004
(Mark Zachary, Ph.D. candidate, lecturer, The Politics of Technological Change: International Relations
versus Domestic Institutions http://web.mit.edu/polisci/research/wip/Taylor.pdf)

Technological innovation is of central importance to the study of international relations (IR), affecting almost every aspect of the
sub-field.2 First and foremost, a nations technological capability has a significant effect on its economic growth, industrial
might, and military prowess; therefore relative national technological capabilities necessarily influence the
balance of power between states, and hence have a role in calculations of war and alliance formation.
Second, technology and innovative capacity also determine a nations trade profile, affecting which products it will
import and export, as well as where multinational corporations will base their production facilities.3 Third, insofar as innovation-
driven economic growth both attracts investment and produces surplus capital, a nations technological ability will also affect
international financial flows and who has power over them.4 Thus, in broad theoretical terms, technological change is
important to the study of IR because of its overall implications for both the relative and absolute power of states. And if theory alone does not convince, then
history also tells us that nations on the technological ascent generally experience a corresponding and
dramatic change in their global stature and influence, such as Britain during the first industrial revolution, the United States and
Germany during the second industrial revolution, and Japan during the twentieth century.5 Conversely, great powers which fail to maintain
their place at the technological frontier generally drift and fade from influence on international scene.6 This
is not to suggest that technological innovation alone determines international politics, but rather that shifts in both relative and absolute
technological capability have a major impact on international relations, and therefore need to be better understood by IR
scholars indirect source of military doctrine. And for some, like Gilpin quoted above, technology is the very cornerstone of
great power domination, and its transfer the main vehicle by which war and change occur in world
politics.8 Jervis tells us that the balance of offensive and defensive military technology affects the incentives for
war.9 Walt agrees, arguing that technological change can alter a states aggregate power, and thereby
affect both alliance formation and the international balance of threats.10 Liberals are less directly concerned with
technological change, but they must admit that by raising or lowering the costs of using force, technological progress
affects the rational attractiveness of international cooperation and regimes.11 Technology also lowers information &
transactions costs and thus increases the applicability of international institutions, a cornerstone of Liberal IR theory.12 And in fostering flows of trade, finance, and
information, technological change can lead to Keohanes interdependence13 or Thomas Friedman et als globalization.14 Meanwhile, over at the third debate,
Constructivists cover the causal spectrum on the issue, from Katzensteins cultural norms which shape security concerns and thereby affect technological
innovation;15 to Wendts stripped down technological determinism in which technology inevitably drives nations to form a world state.16 However most
Constructivists seem to favor Wendt, arguing that new technology changes peoples identities within society, and sometimes even creates new cross-national
constituencies, thereby affecting international politics.17 Of course, Marxists tend to see technology as determining all social relations and the entire course of history,
though they describe mankinds major fault lines as running between economic classes rather than nation-states.18 Finally, Buzan & Little remind us that without
advances in the technologies of transportation, communication, production, and war, international systems would not exist in the first place.19
2
STATE BUDGETS

States are balancing their budgets through cuts that devastates the quality and
availability of higher education
Hiltonsmith, Demos policy analyst, 2014
(Robert, The Great Cost Shift Continues: State Higher Education Funding After The Recession, 3-6,
http://www.demos.org/publication/great-cost-shift-continues-state-higher-education-funding-after-
recession, ldg)

As student debt continues to climb, its important to understand how our once debt-free system of
public universities and colleges has been transformed into a system in which most students borrow,
and at increasingly higher amounts. In less than a generation, our nations higher education system has become a debt-for-diploma
systemmore than seven out of 10 college seniors now borrow to pay for college and graduate with an average debt of $29,400.1 Up until about two
decades ago, state funding ensured college tuition remained within reach for most middle-class
families, and financial aid provided extra support to ensure lower-income students could afford the
costs of college. As Demos chronicled in its first report in the The Great Cost Shift series, this compact began to unravel as states disinvested in higher
education during economic downturns but were unable, or unwilling, to restore funding levels during times of economic expansi on. Today, as a result, public
colleges and universities rely on tuition to fund an ever-increasing share of their operating expenses. And students and their families rely more and more on debt to
meet those rising tuition costs. Nationally, revenue from tuition paid for 44 percent of all operating expenses of public colleges and universities in 2012, the highest
share ever. A quarter century ago, the share was just 20 percent.2 This shiftfrom a collective funding of higher education to one borne increasingly by
individualshas come at the very same time that low- and middle-income households experienced stagnant or declining household income. The Great
Recession intensified these trends, leading to unprecedented declines in state funding for higher
education and steep tuition increases: NATIONWIDE CUTS: 49 states (all but North Dakota) are
spending less per student on higher education than they did before the Great Recession.3 In contrast, only 33
states cut per-student spending between 2001 and 2008,4 the period since the last recession. MANY DEEP CUTS: In many states, the cuts
have been especially deep. Since the recession, 28 states have cut per-student funding by more than
25 percent, compared to just one stateMichiganthat did so between 2001 and 2008. ESCALATING TUITION: Funding cuts have
led to large tuition increases. Nationally, average tuition at 4-year public universities increased by 20 percent in the four years since 2008 after
rising 14 percent in the four years prior. In seven states, average tuition increased by more than a third, and two statesArizona and Californiahave raised it by
more than two-thirds, or 66 percent. At public 2-year colleges, average tuition has risen by more than a third in six states. FAMILIES PRICED OUT:
Average tuition at 4-year public schools now consumes more than 15 percent of the median
household income in 26 states. Average total costincluding room and boardconsumes more than one third of the median household income in 22
states. The decreasing affordability of higher education is eroding the last relatively secure path into the
middle class, as more students take on larger amounts of debt to finance their higher educations, or
forego it altogether. With $1.2 trillion in outstanding student loan debt and climbing, student loan debt is now substantial enough to affect our overall economy as
indebted graduates find it harder to buy a home or a car.5 This brief updates our previous analysis of state funding trends by examining trends in state funding and
tuition since the Great Recession. State Cuts to Higher Education: How Much and Why? Every state but oneNorth Dakotahas cut
per-student funding since the Great Recession in order to help close wide budget gaps. Nationwide, these cuts
have averaged $2,394 per student, or 27 percent. As Figure 1 and Figure 2 show, the magnitude of the cuts varies widely from state to state.6 However,
most states have made deep cuts to higher education funding: 29 states have cut funding by more
than $2,000 per student, resulting in a national average cut in funding of more than 25 percent.
Higher education cuts triggered by the Great Recession were closely linked to state budget gaps. As
Figure 3 shows, Arizona, California, and Nevada had the three largest deficits, and also made some of the largest higher education cuts, as well. The budget gaps, in
turn, were significantly linked to the housing crisis. Declines in housing prices were the most severe in Arizona, California, Nevada, and Florida. All of the hardest-hit
states raised taxes after the Great Recession,7 but none raised them enough to close their entire gap, making higher education cuts all but inevitable. The Effects of
State Higher Education Cuts Historically, public colleges and universities get nearly all of their revenue from state
and local funding and tuition and fees. So, when states cut higher education funding, schools
essentially have two options for closing the gap: raise student charges tuition, fees, room, and boardor cut
salaries and services. Most states have chosen to do both since the Great Recession, implementing
steep hikes in charges for tuition, room, and board, and cutting thousands of course offerings and positions. Rising Tuitions
The effect of state cuts on student charges has been especially dramatic. Nationwide, tuition at public 4-year universities has risen by an average of 20 percent, or
$1,282, since 2008. The increase in total costincluding room and boardhas been even greater, rising by an average of $2,292 over the same period. Tuition at
public 2-year schools has increased sharply as well, rising by an average of 18.5 percent, or $414, since 2008. In many states, the tuition
increases have far outstripped the national average. Seventeen states have raised tuition prices by more than 20 percent since the
Great Recession, and seven statesCalifornia, Arizona, Hawaii, Alabama, Georgia, Nevada, and Washingtonhave seen tuition hikes of one-third or more. The
sharp rises in student charges since the Great Recession are closely linked to cuts in state funding for higher education. Figure 4 illustrates this connection, depicting
both per-student funding cuts and average increases in tuition in the 10 states with the largest tuition increases since the Great Recession. Families Cant Keep Up
with Rising Costs At the same time that states were cutting funding for higher education, families faced their
own budget pressures due stagnant or declining incomes. As a result, paying for college requires a much larger share of the
typical households income in many states. In a fully functioning system, much of this gap in ability to pay would be provided by financial aid and students working
in side-jobs to defray costs. What we know, however, is that aid programs, such as federal Pell grants, have lost their purchasing power as a result of rising tuition
and a greater number of eligible students. We also know that students are working more hours than ever before and taking on i ncreasing amounts of debt. The
result has been the debt-for-diploma system in which most students fill the gap between what their parents can pay, available grant aid and their earnings from
part-time work, by taking on student debt. In seven states, tuition consumes more than 20 percent of the state
median household income, while it consumes less than 10 percent of median income in five states. Figure 5 illustrates this affordability gap,
depicting the most and least affordable states, ranked by the share of median household income consumed by the average 4-year public university tuition in the
state. And as the full tables in the Appendix show, affordability is very closely linked to state funding levels: the five least
affordable statesVermont, South Carolina, Pennsylvania, Michigan, and New Hampshirewere
among the lowest third of states in funding per student . Affordability is also closely linked to average student debt: the five least
affordable states were all among the upper third of states, ranked by average student debt of graduates.8

This results in brain drain of talented domestic and foreign scientists
Daniels, John Hopkins president, 2014
(Ronald, Driving Innovation Through Federal Investments, 4-29,
http://www.appropriations.senate.gov/sites/default/files/hearings/Johns%20Hopkins%20University%20
-%20OWT.pdf, ldg)

Investing in the Next Generation The United States approach to research funding in recent years has placed
unique pressures on young scientists in particular. For example: In 1980, 5.6 percent of all NIH research funding
went to scientists 35 and younger. That number dropped to 1.3 percent in 2012. The average age at which a
young scientist receives an R01, the signature NIH award and an important platform for independent research, has inched upwards from 38 in 1980 to 41 in 2011.
The percent of principal investigators for R01s who were 36 years of age or younger has declined from
18 percent in 1983 to 3 percent in 2010. The number of awards that have gone to these investigators has slipped from 1,984 in 1980 to 1,135
today. The potential impact on our young scientists is grave without the funding to launch their own
research in the United States, our young scientists are discouraged. They are turning elsewhere,
pursuing positions outside of academic research, outside of the country, even outside of science
entirely. According to one report, 80 percent of scientists see an increase in recent years in the number of graduate students and fellows seeking positions
outside the academy, and 35 percent see an increase in young researchers seeking positions outside the United States. The ones who leave take
with them the next generation of innovation scholars observe that it is often the entering scientists
that are most likely to shatter paradigms and divine a new trailblazing approach that revolutionizes a
field. And the ones who stay report that they are chilled into offering more conservative proposals in
an effort to attract an ever shrinking pool of funding.

Vibrant higher education is key to biotech innovation and global sustainable ag
Abah, Nigerian National Cereals Research Institute, 2010
(J., The role of biotechnology in ensuring food security and sustainable agriculture, December,
http://www.academicjournals.org/article/article1380729543_Abah%20et%20al.pdf, ldg)

Food security and sustainable agriculture have become a burning issues in the national discuss at all levels of government as plans are being made for a changing
global climate and increasing global population. One of the most important environmental challenges facing the
developing world is how to meet current food needs without undermining the ability of future
generations to meet theirs. Agricultural production must be sufficient to feed us now and in the future. Evidently, the current state
of agricultural technology will not suffice to meet the production challenges ahead. Innovative
technologies have to be exploited in order to enable sufficient food availability in the future. In the
current practice of modern agriculture which relies on high inputs such as fuel-powered tractors, chemical
fertilizers and chemical pesticides, deploying a smart mix of farming techniques using genetic engineering of biotechnology and
integrating same into the traditional smallholders farming system offer a bright prospect of meeting the growing demand for
food by improving both yield and nutritional quality of crops and reducing the impact on the
environment. The issues of food security and sustainable agriculture in the developing world and especially in sub-Saharan Africa continued to dominate
public debate and have remained an issue of global concern. Exacerbating these issues is the complex subject of population growth. According to Population
Reference Bureau (PRB), the world population reached 6.6 billion people in 2006, up from 6 billion in 1999. It is projected that world population will beat the 8
billion mark in the year 2025; most of the increase is expected in the developing world (PRB, 2006). In order to meet these needs, FAO (1999) estimated that global
food production must increase by 60% in developing countries to accommodate the estimated population growth, close nutrition gaps and meet dietary needs. In a
similar report, FAO observed that more than 800 million people in the world do not have enough food to eat, causing 2400 people to die daily of hunger, three
quarters of whom are children and under five. Additionally, the United Nations subcommittee on nutrition (2000) estimated that 33% of children under five in the
developing countries have experienced stunted height-for-age growth. This suggests chronic undernourishment throughout childhood, which can hinder overall
health as well as intellectual development. Population growth has direct implications on available land (and this is in the light of decrease in arable land worldwide).
For Africa, where the rural population is close to 70% in most countries and where consequently the main economic and social activity is farming, these facts are
issues of grave concern. It is estimated that population growth and income will lead to a further doubling of food demand over the next generation (McCalla, 1999).
Yet, growth in farmers crop yields has been slowing down since the 1980s, and in some regions of the world, grain yields have tended to level off (Pinstrup-
Andersen et al., 1999). The challenge for developing countries therefore, is to ensure that their citizenry enjoys food security. Evidently, the current
state of agricultural technology will not suffice to meet the production challenge ahead. This problem
is further compounded by the fact that most of the agricultural research in the developing countries
focuses on a narrow range of crops and many of the crops used by local communities have not
benefited from modern research. Thus, innovative technologies have to be exploited in order to
enable sufficient food availability in the future. In this context, modern biotechnology offers the best
available options for diversifying agricultural production by speeding up the development of new
varieties, including those of underutilized crops . Biotechnology is broadly defined as a technique that uses living organisms or
substances from those organisms to make or modify a product, improve plants or animals, or develop microorganisms for specific uses (Persley, 2000). It also deals
with the construction of microorganisms, cells, plants or animals with useful traits by recombinant DNA techniques, tissue culture, embryo transfer and other
methods besides traditional genetic breeding techniques. Although, biotechnology applies across a number of fields, agricultural biotechnology however, appears to
be the most crucial for African countries and especially for resource-poor farmers whose sole livelihood depends on agriculture. The technique of
biotechnology alone cannot solve all the problems associated with agricultural production but it has the potential to address specific
problems such as increasing crop productivity, diversifying crops, enhancing nutritional value of food,
reducing environmental impacts of agricultural production and promoting market competitiveness.
Crop yields have grown slowest in many parts of the developing world, especially in Africa. It is estimated that cereal yields in Africa have increased by nearly half of
the rate in Latin America since 1970 (World Bank, 1993). Poor soils, low rainfall, high temperatures and the prevalence of pests continue to undermine food security
in many parts of Africa. These challenges are compounded by the high costs of imported agricultural inputs. Improving the situation will require greater investment
research and reliance on emerging technologies. Enhancing the nutritional value of crops is another important aspect of food security. A good example in this area is
the modification of rice to enhance its vitamin A content. United Nations projections show that while chronic malnutrition will decline in Asia and Latin America in
the coming decades, the numbers for Africa will increase significantly. Biotechnology will make it easier to maintain traditi onal diets while improving their
nutritional value. Modern biotechnology could help in enhancing the competitiveness of agricultural
products from the developing countries and thereby promoting their integration Abah et al. 8897 into
the global economy. Efforts to diversify agricultural production in the developing world will not only promote food security in those regions, but it will
also add new crops to world food market. As articulated in the 1990 "Farm Bill", sustainable agriculture means "an integrated system of plant and animal production
practices having a site-specific application that will, over the long term: (i) Satisfy human food and fiber needs, (ii) enhance environmental quality and the natural
resource base upon which the agricultural economy depends, (iii) make the most efficient use of nonrenewable resources and on-farm resources and integrate,
where appropriate, natural biological cycles and controls, (iv) sustain the economic viability of farm operations, and (v) enhance the quality of life for farmers and
society as a whole" (FACTA, 1990). The cluster of techniques that comprise biotechnology can, if effectively
harnessed and applied, radically transform farming systems by reducing post-harvest loss and
increasing crop resistance to drought. The main limiting factor to the ability of the developing countries to benefit from advances in modern
biotechnology is the lack of scientific and technological capacity and the low level of enterprise development in most of these countries. The responsibility to
formulate policies and strategies for the wider use of biotechnology lies with these countries. However, international cooperation and partnerships are essential in
promoting sustainable agriculture in the developing world. Biotechnology and sustainable agriculture in Africa debate raise several key-issues: (1) How do you
transfer biotechnology to African countries and strengthen their technological competence to acquire, assimilate, further develop and effectively apply the
technology for enhanced agricultural production? (2) What policy and institutional arrangements should be put in place to make the technology and its products
accessible to rural farmers in the region? Biotechnology on its own may not be the panacea for the worlds problem of food crisis. However, genetic engineering
presents outstanding potential to increase the efficiency of both crop improvement and animal production thereby enhancing gl obal food production and
availability in a sustainable way. This is achievable once the entire technology can be integrated into the traditional smallholder farming systems. Sustainable
agriculture will require that developing countries makes prudent choices and that they are not restricted to using only the technologies available today. Making such
choices requires access to a wider range of technologies, especially those resulting from advances in molecular biology. The international public
research system has a critical role in ensuring that access to potential benefits of new technologies is
guaranteed for poor people and environmental conservation is maintained. There must be
recognition of the need for increased public involvement in biotechnology and for complementing
private sector research, to ensure transparency and accountability and to promote a broad range of
public goods research just as markets expand for results of private goods research. There is a need for win-win-win scenarios for all concerned actors
and for creative efforts to identify and put to work enabling mechanisms for the developing countries to benefit from the gene revolution. To win the battle for food
security and sustainable agriculture, priority should be given to enhanced crop productivity which provides easy access to foodstuff for the bulk of the populace.

Resource and environmental constraints make industrial agriculture unsustainable-
results in food spikes
Hellwinckel et al., Tennessee's Agricultural Policy Analysis Center professor, 2009
(Chad, Peak Oil and the Necessity of Transitioning to Regenerative Agriculture, 10-7,
http://www.resilience.org/stories/2009-10-07/peak-oil-and-necessity-transitioning-regenerative-
agriculture)

The food crisis of 2008 gave a first glimpse of the problems that are emerging as global oil production peaks. As the total annual quantity of oil
physically capable of being extracted from the earth begins to decline over the next several decades,
agriculture may find itself dependent upon a scarce and expensive resource. In 2008, world commodity
markets reached their highest levels in 30 years, food prices skyrocketed and food shortages emerged,
leading to riots affecting more than 40 countries . After many years of having to deal with the negative consequences of chronically
low prices, poorer nations suddenly had to deal with the opposite. With the global economic downturn starting in late 2008, both energy and food commodity
prices receded from their high water mark. But forecasts of declining conventional oil production suggest it is only a matter of time before oil prices rise again, and a
food crisis re-emerges due to higher input costs and renewed emphasis on bioenergy production to fill the drop in conventional energy sources(1).
Agriculture, like all other industries over the past century, has taken great advantage of the extraction
and refining of plentiful, energy-dense, fossil fuels. Today, agriculture has evolved into a net energy
user for the first time in 10,000 yearsinstead of being a means of converting free solar energy into metabolizable energy, it now
transforms finite fossil energy into metabolizable energy. The industrial agricultural system has allowed for the cheap
production of plentiful food to feed a growing population, but evidence indicates that it is ill-suited to
meet the challenges of the 21st century. Over the next several decades, the practices of agriculture
must reverse the fossil energy dependence and once again become a net source of energy, stop
erosion and begin to regenerate soil, and meet human food needs . In other words, agriculture must transition to practices
that run on solar energy, regenerate fertility and produce in abundance. Fossil Energy Dependence To meet the needs of a growing population, the modern U.S.
food system uses 10.25 quadrillion BTUs of fossil energy inputs, or about 10% of U.S. annual fossil fuel consumption. The industrialization of
agriculture has, for the first time in history, led to the situation where agriculture actually uses more
energy than it creates, with 7.3 units of energy going to create and deliver one unit of metabolizable energy(2). This energy deficit of agriculture is an
historic anomaly. Up until the past 50 years, agriculture had always yielded more energy than it used(3). Historically, by producing more energy than the farmer
needed, others were freed from food production, and civilizations were built on the small positive gains in energy from agriculture. The Energy Returned on Energy
Invested ratio (EROEI) of U.S. agriculture in 1920 has been estimated to be 3.1, but by the 1970s had fallen to 0.7 (4). Add the energy requi red to move, process,
package, deliver and cook food in the modern food economy, and EROEI becomes 0.14, indicating that agriculture has lost its traditional role as an energy
production system and become simply another user of fossil fuels. Historically, the foundation of civilization rested on consistent solar radiation. Now it rests on the
annual extraction of finite fossil fuels. One solution is to find other energy sources such as wind or solar, for energy-intense agriculture. Yet when comparing the
EROEI ratios of the alternative fuels, the benefits of oil are apparent(5). Today, economies are running off the large oil discoveries of the 1950s and 1960s with
EROEI ratios of 50+ (6). Alternative fuels will likely have an increasing role in meeting the energy needs of the larger economy, but to believe agriculture can
continue to function under the current energy balance is folly. It is imperative that agriculture return to a more balanced energy ratio over the next century. Soil
Loss By using energy-dense inputs to produce on remaining land, industrial agriculture has been able to
offset soil loss with intensification of production. But in the transition to less energy-intensive
methods, continuing soil losses are not feasible. Every year 75 billion metric tons of soil erode from the earths agricultural lands, and
30 million acres are abandoned due to over-exhaustion of the soil (7,8). This is equivalent to losing an area the size of Ohio every year. Erosion is a
problem that has followed cultivation for 10,000 years. Its slow effects are evident in the lands surrounding fallen civilizations such
as in the Tigris/Euphrates valley, Israel, Greece or the hills of Italy. Over time, agriculture has led to the loss of one-third of
global arable land, much of it within the past 40 years (9). Green revolution methods of mechanization
has sped the rate of erosion in many regions and led to the abandonment of traditional practices,
such as integrated crop-animal systems or polyculture plantings, that had slowed erosion and enabled some traditional
systems to function for centuries(10). Soil is a depletable resource that forms over thousands of years. It is estimated that it takes 800 years
for one inch of soil to form in the American Midwest(11). Modern agriculture is depleting soils at a
rate of one to two magnitudes faster than they are formed (12). The United States, which has much lower erosion rates than
Africa and Asia, is still losing soil at a rate of four tons per acre per year (13,14). Once soil is eroded, it cannot be easily or quickly
recreated. This use of soils can be thought of as spending the accumulated capital of millennia, not unlike the use of fossil fuels. In the past, if one culture
exhausted its soils and declined, civilization could re-emerge in newly settled fertile areas. Today, with 3.7 billion acres under cultivation, there are few remaining
virgin soils. If this trend of soil depletion continues, we will face an increasingly hungry world, even
without the added burden of biofuels production. Establishing Regenerative Practices Long-term agricultural policies must be guided
by three imperatives: 1) reverse fossil energy dependence and once again become a net source of energy; 2) stop erosion and begin to regenerate soil; and 3) meet
human food needs. There is increasing evidence that regenerative agriculture can produce more food with less energy than industrial agriculture, while increasing
the health of soils (15,16). Regenerative agriculture(17) allows natural systems to maintain their own fertility, build soil, resist pests and diseases and be highly
productive. Regenerative agriculture uses the natural dynamics of the ecosystem to construct agricultural
systems that yield for human consumption. Regenerative methods regenerate the soil, the fertility,
and the energy consumed in semi-closed nutrient cycles, and by capturing, harvesting and reusing
resources such as sun, rain, and nutrients that fall within the farms boundary. Other terms refer to similar principles,
such as natural farming, permaculture, agro-ecology, integrated agriculture, perennial polyculture, wholistic management, forest gardening, natural systems
agriculture and sustainable agriculture. Successful regenerative practices are used by small landholders capable of
managing more intensive and complex systems which rely on the integration of crop-animal-human
functions, use of perennial species, and the growing of multiple crops in the same field (18). Many of
these practices are based on traditional cultural land-use practices, but others are newly forged
systems.

Food spikes risk global food wars and imperils billions
Klare 12 [Michael, Professor of peace and world security studies at Hampshire College, As Food Prices
Rise, Dangers of Social Unrest Seem Imminent, August 9, http://highbrowmagazine.com/1459-food-
prices-rise-dangers-potential-social-unrest-seem-imminent]

The Great Drought of 2012 has yet to come to an end, but we already know that its consequences will
be severe. With more than one-half of Americas counties designated as drought disaster areas, the
2012 harvest of corn, soybeans, and other food staples is guaranteed to fall far short of predictions. This,
in turn, will boost food prices domestically and abroad, causing increased misery for farmers and low-
income Americans and far greater hardship for poor people in countries that rely on imported U.S.
grains.
This, however, is just the beginning of the likely consequences: If history is any guide, rising food prices
of this sort will also lead to widespread social unrest and violent conflict.
Foodaffordable foodis essential to human survival and well-being. Take that away, and people
become anxious, desperate, and angry. In the United States, food represents only about 13 percent of
the average household budget, a relatively small share, so a boost in food prices in 2013 will probably
not prove overly taxing for most middleand upper-income families. It could, however, produce
considerable hardship for poor and unemployed Americans with limited resources.
You are talking about a real bite out of family budgets, commented Ernie Gross, an agricultural
economist at Omahas Creighton University. This could add to the discontent already evident in
depressed and high-unemployment areas, perhaps prompting an intensified backlash against incumbent
politicians and other forms of dissent and unrest.
It is in the international arena, however, that the Great Drought is likely to have its most devastating
effects. Because so many nations depend on grain imports from the U.S. to supplement their own
harvests, and because intense drought and floods are damaging crops elsewhere as well, food supplies
are expected to shrink and prices to rise across the planet.
What happens to the U.S. supply has immense impact around the world, says Robert Thompson, a
food expert at the Chicago Council on Global Affairs. As the crops most affected by the drought, corn
and soybeans, disappear from world markets, he noted, the price of all grains, including wheat, is likely
to soar, causing immense hardship to those who already have trouble affording enough food to feed
their families.
The Hunger Games, 2007-2011
What happens next is, of course, impossible to predict, but if the recent past is any guide, it could turn
ugly. In 2007-2008, when rice, corn, and wheat experienced prices hikes of 100 percent or more, sharply
higher pricesespecially for breadsparked food riots in more than two dozen countries, including
Bangladesh , Cameroon , Egypt , Haiti , Indonesia , Senegal , and Yemen . In Haiti, the rioting
became so violent and public confidence in the governments ability to address the problem dropped so
precipitously that the Haitian Senate voted to oust the countrys prime minister, Jacques-douard Alexis.
In other countries, angry protestors clashed with army and police forces, leaving scores dead.
Those price increases of 2007-2008 were largely attributed to the soaring cost of oil, which made food
production more expensive. (Oils use is widespread in farming operations, irrigation, food delivery, and
pesticide manufacture.) At the same time, increasing amounts of cropland worldwide were being
diverted from food crops to the cultivation of plants used in making biofuels.
The next price spike in 2010-11 was, however, closely associated with climate change. An intense
drought gripped much of eastern Russia during the summer of 2010, reducing the wheat harvest in that
breadbasket region by one-fifth and prompting Moscow to ban all wheat exports. Drought also hurt
Chinas grain harvest, while intense flooding destroyed much of Australias wheat crop. Together with
other extreme-weather-related effects, these disasters sent wheat prices soaring by more than 50
percent and the price of most food staples by 32 percent.
Once again, a surge in food prices resulted in widespread social unrest, this time concentrated in North
Africa and the Middle East. The earliest protests arose over the cost of staples in Algeria and then
Tunisia, whereno coincidencethe precipitating event was a young food vendor, Mohamed Bouazizi,
setting himself on fire to protest government harassment. Anger over rising food and fuel prices
combined with long-simmering resentments about government repression and corruption sparked what
became known as the Arab Spring. The rising cost of basic staples, especially a loaf of bread, was also a
cause of unrest in Egypt , Jordan , and Sudan . Other factors, notably anger at entrenched autocratic
regimes, may have proved more powerful in those places, but as the author of Tropic of Chaos, Christian
Parenti, wrote, The initial trouble was traceable, at least in part, to the price of that loaf of bread.
As for the current drought, analysts are already warning of instability in Africa , where corn is a major
staple, and of increased popular unrest in China , where food prices are expected to rise at a time of
growing hardship for that countrys vast pool of low-income, migratory workers and poor peasants.
Higher food prices in the U.S. and China could also lead to reduced consumer spending on other goods,
further contributing to the slowdown in the global economy and producing yet more worldwide misery,
with unpredictable social consequences.
The Hunger Games, 2012-?
If this was just one bad harvest, occurring in only one country, the world would undoubtedly absorb the
ensuing hardship and expect to bounce back in the years to come. Unfortunately, its becoming evident
that the Great Drought of 2012 is not a one-off event in a single heartland nation, but rather an
inevitable consequence of global warming which is only going to intensify. As a result, we can expect not
just more bad years of extreme heat, but worse years, hotter and more often, and not just in the United
States, but globally for the indefinite future.
Until recently, most scientists were reluctant to blame particular storms or droughts on global warming.
Now, however, a growing number of scientists believe that such links can be demonstrated in certain
cases. In one recent study focused on extreme weather events in 2011, for instance, climate specialists
at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) and Great Britains National Weather
Service concluded that human-induced climate change has made intense heat waves of the kind
experienced in Texas in 2011 more likely than ever before. Published in the Bulletin of the American
Meteorological Society, it reported that global warming had ensured that the incidence of that Texas
heat wave was 20 times more likely than it would have been in 1960; similarly, abnormally warm
temperatures like those experienced in Britain last November were said to be 62 times as likely because
of global warming.
It is still too early to apply the methodology used by these scientists to calculating the effect of global
warming on the heat waves of 2012, which are proving to be far more severe, but we can assume the
level of correlation will be high. And what can we expect in the future, as the warming gains
momentum?
When we think about climate change (if we think about it at all), we envision rising temperatures,
prolonged droughts, freakish storms, hellish wildfires, and rising sea levels. Among other things, this will
result in damaged infrastructure and diminished food supplies. These are, of course, manifestations of
warming in the physical world, not the social world we all inhabit and rely on for so many aspects of our
daily well-being and survival. The purely physical effects of climate change will, no doubt, prove
catastrophic. But the social effects including, somewhere down the line, food riots, mass starvation,
state collapse, mass migrations, and conflicts of every sort, up to and including full-scale war, could
prove even more disruptive and deadly.
In her immensely successful young-adult novel, The Hunger Games (and the movie that followed),
Suzanne Collins riveted millions with a portrait of a dystopian, resource-scarce, post-apocalyptic future
where once-rebellious districts in an impoverished North America must supply two teenagers each
year for a series of televised gladiatorial games that end in death for all but one of the youthful
contestants.
These hunger games are intended as recompense for the damage inflicted on the victorious capitol of
Panem by the rebellious districts during an insurrection. Without specifically mentioning global
warming, Collins makes it clear that climate change was significantly responsible for the hunger that
shadows the North American continent in this future era. Hence, as the gladiatorial contestants are
about to be selected, the mayor of District 12s principal city describes the disasters, the droughts, the
storms, the fires, the encroaching seas that swallowed up so much of the land [and] the brutal war for
what little sustenance remained.
In this, Collins was prescient, even if her specific vision of the violence on which such a world might be
organized is fantasy. While we may never see her version of those hunger games, do not doubt that
some version of them will come into existencethat, in fact, hunger wars of many sorts will fill our
future. These could include any combination or permutation of the deadly riots that led to the 2008
collapse of Haitis government , the pitched battles between massed protesters and security forces that
engulfed parts of Cairo as the Arab Spring developed, the ethnic struggles over disputed croplands and
water sources that have made Darfur a recurring headline of horror in our world, or the inequitable
distribution of agricultural land that continues to fuel the insurgency of the Maoist-inspired Naxalites
of India .
Combine such conflicts with another likelihood: that persistent drought and hunger will force millions of
people to abandon their traditional lands and flee to the squalor of shantytowns and expanding slums
surrounding large cities, sparking hostility from those already living there. One such eruption, with grisly
results, occurred in Johannesburgs shantytowns in 2008 when desperately poor and hungry migrants
from Malawi and Zimbabwe were set upon, beaten, and in some cases burned to death by poor South
Africans. One terrified Zimbabwean, cowering in a police station from the raging mobs, said she fled her
country because there is no work and no food. And count on something else: millions more in the
coming decades, pressed by disasters ranging from drought and flood to rising sea levels, will try to
migrate to other countries, provoking even greater hostility. And that hardly begins to exhaust the
possibilities that lie in our hunger-games future.
At this point, the focus is understandably on the immediate consequences of the still ongoing Great
Drought: dying crops, shrunken harvests, and rising food prices. But keep an eye out for the social and
political effects that undoubtedly wont begin to show up here or globally until later this year or 2013.
Better than any academic study , these will offer us a hint of what we can expect in the coming decades
from a hunger-games world of rising temperatures, persistent droughts, recurring food shortages, and
billions of famished , desperate people .

Plan generates multiple vectors for revenue-their evidence only assumes direct excise
taxes.
Caulkins, Carnegie Mellon public policy professor, 2013
(Jonathan, Article: High Tax States: Options for Gleaning Revenue from Legal Cannabis, 91 Or. L. Rev.
1041, lexis, ldg)

II Additional Sources of Government Revenue To date, most analysis has emphasized revenues from excise taxes, and
sometimes from conventional sales taxes, on sales to consumers in the legalizing jurisdiction.
However, there are other potential sources of tax revenue. A. Licensing Fees Most proposals to regulate the
marijuana industry include some form of licensing of producers, manufacturers, and stores, with
associated licensing fees. Fees are typically modest, perhaps intended to cover only the administrative
cost of processing the applications and other costs of maintaining a regulatory regime. For example, Washington
I-502's fee is $ 1,000 per year for a producer. n90 If I-502's [*1062] three-tiered excise-tax structure ended up producing tax revenue of fifty dollars per ounce, that
means the producers' license fee would vanish into irrelevance by comparison if production volumes were in the thousands, or even hundreds, of pounds per
licensee. This does not imply that fee revenue has to be negligible, especially in a big state. In California, the Alcohol Beverage
Commission is funded through license fees and has an annual budget of about $ 50 million. n91 Also, as was
noted above in Part I, section D, states could limit the number of licenses enough to drive up their market value, and then auction them to the highest bidder - a
scheme that has a variety of benefits to the public, but not to the producers. B. Drug Tourists If one jurisdiction legalizes and others do
not, drug tourism can develop in which users in the "dry" state visit a "wet" state to purchase
marijuana. This has been an issue in the Netherlands and in discussions in the United States. n92 Indeed, some Dutch localities, interested in drug-tourism
revenues, are planning to fight a national ban on the sale of marijuana to tourists. n93 It is perhaps worth distinguishing three categories of drug tourists: day-
trippers, destination tourists, and what might be called "tip-the-scalers." The first, day-trippers, are those who take short excursions for the purpose of purchasing
marijuana. Of all the states, Colorado and Washington are among the worst positioned to take advantage of this sort of tourism because relatively few people
reside within 250 miles of their borders. As shown in Figure 1, day-tripping might be much more significant if a state on the eastern seaboard, such as Connecticut
or Maryland, legalized marijuana. [*1063] Figure 1: Estimated Number of Marijuana Users Within a 100-, 250-, and 500-mile Radius of Colorado, Washington, and
Connecticut n94 ESTIMATED NUMBER OF MARIJUANA USERS WITHIN A 100-, 250-,AND 500-MILE RADIUS OF COLORADO, WASHINGTON, ANDCONNECTICUT The
second are destination tourists who organize a trip around marijuana activities, but those activities go beyond the practical aspects of purchasing product. Seattle's
Hempfest draws hundreds of thousands of people, not just for product sales, but also for an array of vendors, music, and activities. Similarly, for example, people
visit Napa Valley's wineries for an overall experience and not just to obtain better deals on wine. The third involves people who take a trip motivated by another
objective, but for which the legalizing state beats out a competitor state - that is, tips the scale - because legal marijuana is viewed as an amenity. For example,
suppose snowboarders from the East Coast travel to Vail, Colorado instead of Park City, Utah because they could [*1064] obtain marijuana legally in Vail. Under any
of these scenarios, the state will capture tax revenues and other economic benefits from tourists' spending on other goods and services, such as gasoline, restaurant
meals, and lodging, in addition to taxes collected on the marijuana purchases. The importance of drug tourism will depend partially on the prevalence of these three
different types of drug tourists. The Colorado Tourism Office reports that the tax revenues per tourist dollar spent vary due to differing local tax rates and types, but
the average is about 5.5% per tourist. n95 Hence, if a drug tourist spent $ 300 on meals, lodging, and other expenses
for every $ 100 worth of marijuana purchased, the sales tax revenue on those ancillary purchases
could exceed the excise plus sales-tax revenue from the marijuana sale. n96 For Colorado tourists, per-
visit spending varies from $ 1,000 for skiers down to $ 48 for day-trippers, with an average of $ 370.
n97 Likewise, the importance of drug tourism depends on the number of tourists. Washington state and Colorado together have roughly six percent of the
nation's current marijuana users, n98 so if even a modest share of users elsewhere obtained their marijuana directly or indirectly via drug tourism, the volume of
sales via drug tourism might be significant compared to the volume of sales to in-state residents. [*1065] C. FICA and Income Taxes on "New" Jobs Another
part of the marijuana industry that becomes taxable under legalization is the salaries of workers, who
(unlike workers in illicit industries) pay income and payroll taxes. How important that is depends on the share of wages in
total costs. In many industries, labor costs predominate. If that were true also for the new marijuana industry, payroll taxes might be roughly comparable to excise-
tax revenues in Colorado. To see why, suppose, for example, the proportion of the retail sales price that comes from paying wages is the same as the wholesale
price as a proportion of retail. Then, suppose that wholesale prices are two-thirds of retail prices, and two-thirds of the marijuana industry's cost structure comes
from wages. Since the FICA rate is 15.3%, counting the employer's half, n99 it would produce essentially the same revenue as a fifteen percent excise tax on the
wholesale value. Ironically, that would be revenue to the federal government, not to the state that legalized. That said, states could also collect
income taxes on marijuana-industry wages; for example, 4.63% in Colorado. D. Hosting Support Industry Even if
most of the marijuana industry's cost structure will come from labor, it will also purchase capital
equipment (e.g., grow lights), materials (e.g., growing medium), utilities (e.g., electricity), and
professional services (e.g., legal counsel). Many of those purchases will generate sales-tax revenue,
and they may also sustain a local ancillary industry, just as auto-assembly plants sustain a supply chain of parts suppliers.
Furthermore, what the marijuana industry spends locally on wages and equipment becomes income
for others in the state, which triggers additional spending. Economic development studies discuss this additional spending in
terms of a "multiplier effect" of hosting an industry. For example, Gazel explains this effect for casino gambling. n100 In this context, the marijuana industry creates
an initial round of economic activity through the purchase of equipment, [*1066] materials, utilities, and professional services ("direct effects"). Those businesses in
turn buy the goods and services they need, creating another round of spending, and so on ("indirect effects"). Further, as incomes of regional employees in these
industries rise, household spending increases ("induced effects"). To the extent that these expenditures stay in a legalizing
state and do not "leak" out, each dollar spent on the marijuana industry will have an additional
impact on the economy and revenues as spending ripples through the economy. E. Consumer Cost Savings If
legalizing marijuana drives down prices, then marijuana spending may decline as well, since demand
for marijuana may be sufficiently price inelastic n101 so as to offset non-price factors through which
legalization might promote greater use. n102 If so, legalization could act a bit like a technological
innovation that increases consumer welfare and frees money up for other uses. Suppose that, for the sake of
argument, before legalization, consumers were spending $ 30 billion on marijuana and paying no sales tax on those expenditures. Suppose further that after
legalization, use went up but prices fell enough to reduce spending to $ 20 billion. The discussion above in Part I considered the potential sales tax revenue on the $
20 billion, but what of the residual $ 10 billion? Unless total personal income shrinks (via some macroeconomic contraction f rom increased production efficiency
displacing workers), it seems plausible that some of that $ 10 billion might be spent on other goods and services that would be taxed.
Plan allows states to better participate in bond markets which solves finance issues.
Dunn, Fortune Magazine, 2014
(Catherine, How marijuana munis could save the states, 1-30, http://fortune.com/2014/01/30/how-
marijuana-munis-could-save-the-states/, ldg)

Bonds backed by billions of dollars in pot sales taxes could shore up hard-hit state budgets that is, if the
feds would get out of the way. FORTUNE Thomas Doe, an analyst in the municipal bond market, was in Denver to give a speech last
September when an unmistakable scent caught his attention. Hed been walking down the 16th Street Mall, the citys main retail drag, and Im smelling it in the
air, says Doe, who goes by Tom. Then, completing the tableau, Doe popped into a hotel lobby and spotted three dudes wearing tie-dye and snacking on chips
this just a few months before marijuana for recreational use went on sale in Colorado. Thats when things really started to click for the 55-year-old founder and CEO
of Municipal Market Advisors, a research firm with subscribers including some 300 institutional investors, along with government regulators. Earlier last year Doe
and his colleagues had joked about whether a market for medical marijuana tourism could revive the flagging finances of a place like Puerto Rico, whose bond rating
has dropped in recent years. After Does trip to Denver, though, his thoughts on the matter of cannabis and credit ratings
turned serious, particularly in light of certain revenue projections. The Colorado Legislative Council Staff estimated additional
revenues from legalization, for example, at $100 million over two years (PDF). In Washington State, where recreational sales will begin later this year, a fiscal
impact study said tax revenue could reach up to $1.9 billion over five years, averaging nearly $400
million annually. Indeed, legalizing marijuana nationwide, to believe a 2010 report by the Cato Institute, would generate
some $8.7 billion in tax revenue, in addition to billions in cost savings related to law enforcement. Doe believes thats enough
money to help cash-strapped municipalities meet pension obligations, undertake construction
projects, and lower their borrowing costs in the bond market and, therefore, enough to inspire other states to legalize
marijuana, too. It would be a real positive for states that are struggling right now, he tells Fortune. Theyve got such an infrastructure
funding gap and they have challenges with funding their pensions that this is significant revenue. Gregory Whiteley, portfolio
manager for government securities at Jeffrey Gundlachs DoubleLine Capital, agrees about the potential upside. By all accounts the legal recreational marijuana
market is potentially quite large, so the impact on state and local finances could be significant, he says. Its not a totally new
idea. Back in 2010, hundreds of attendees surveyed at a Bond Buyer conference in California agreed that bonds backed by marijuana taxes
would materialize were the state to legalize the recreational use. (That measure, Proposition 19, failed the same year.) A
state estimate, from 2009, had put revenue potential at $1.4 billion a year (PDF). Though solid data is still lacking, Whiteley says that for now the subject is
definitely on my radar. Doe, meanwhile, has been busy putting the issue on the radar of analysts and investors. He began to speak publicly last fall about the
future of marijuana and public finances first to attendees at a bond market industry conference in Chicago in October, then to institutional investors at the
Massachusetts Investor Conference in December. This month he told clients in a research note that a successful experience in Colorado could result in a domino
effect of legalization across the country. Colorados legalization of marijuana on Jan. 1 will provide hard data as to the potential revenue source from the cannabis
product directly as well as ancillary products and services, according to the note provided to Fortune. Should tax revenue match projections then other states and
cities are apt to follow the lead of Colorado. State budget planners arent convinced by marijuanas potential just yet. Budget office folks are going to be very
cautious until they see money coming in, says Scott Pattison, executive director of the National Association of State Budget Officers. NASBOs membership would
also want to see whether any revenue gains are offset by expenditures resulting from legalization say, additional costs related to law enforcement or public
health. In other words, Pattison notes, Are there extra expenses, or do we spend less in certain areas? Budget officers would certainly take notice, however, of
revenue figures that exceed 2% of a states budget. Then I think theyll start to say, Yeah, wow, Pattison says. By Does reckoning, $400 million is enough to fund,
hypothetically, 10 social service programs that cost $40 million each, or to finance major construction. $400 million of new tax revenue would be material, he
says, adding, Ive seen states borrow $400 million to help fund infrastructure projects.
3
LATIN AMERICAN RELATIONS
US drug policy has damaged relations with Latin America and stymied diplomacy in
other areas
WOLA 2013
(Washington Office of Latin America, Time to Listen: New Trends in U.S. Security Assistance to Latin
America and the Caribbean, 9-18, http://www.wola.org/publications/time_to_listen, ldg)

The United States diplomatic influence is ebbing in Latin America and the Caribbean. U.S. military influence,
though, remains strong. The result is inertia, a policy on autopilot, focused on security threats and capabilities
at a time when creativity is badly needed. Moving in a more constructive direction would not be
difficult. It could start with simply listening to what Latin American government and civil-society
leaders are saying. The clamor for a new relationship is loud, but still falling on deaf ears. That is the
overarching theme of Time to Listen, a new publication from the Latin America Working Group Education Fund, the Washington Office on Latin America, and the
Center for International Policy. It is the latest in these groups series of publications about trends in U.S. security relations with Latin America and the Caribbean.
These can be viewed here. Crammed with statistics and graphics, Time to Listen guides readers through todays trends on the U.S. security relationship with Latin
America. The three groups maintain a database of U.S. aid programs to the region. They find U.S. assistance today to have dropped near the lowest levels in more
than a decade - about US$2.2 billion foreseen for 2014. But dollar amounts are deceptive. While big ticket aid packages like Plan Colombia and the Mrida
Initiative are running their course, other, less transparent forms of military-to-military cooperation are on the rise. Special Operations Forces, whose budgets are
not being cut and who have less role to play in Iraq and Afghanistan, are deploying more frequently to Latin America for trai ning and other missions. U.S. personnel
are working alongside Central American and Caribbean security forces to patrol their coasts and jungles. Disturbingly, some of these counternarcotics operations
have led to the deaths of civilians. U.S. funds are sending Colombian soldiers and police to train with thousands of counterparts around the region. And as new
unmanned technologies begin to proliferate around the continent, the U.S. use of weaponized drones elsewhere in the world has set a dangerous precedent.
While military-to-military relations remain robust, the U.S. diplomatic effort is flagging. That is
partially due to budget cuts nd a more intense focus on other parts of the world. But much of it has to
do with a failure to listen to Latin American leaders growing calls for change. These calls are loudest
in the realm of drug policy. In the past year and a half, thanks to Latin American initiatives, notes Time to Listen, drug policy has been on the
agenda at the United Nations, Summit of the Americas and Organization of American States. For the first time, sitting presidents are
calling for alternatives to the punitive, military-heavy war on drugs approach that the U.S.
government has promoted, with little or no success, for 40 years. But these calls arent being heeded.
The vast majority of U.S. security assistance continues to flow through counter-drug funding programs: eradicating the crops of the poorest, transferring weapons
and lethal skills to institutions with recent records of human rights abuse, and encouraging militaries to take on civilian policing roles. And today, U.S. security forces
are increasing their direct participation in interdiction operationssome of them rather violenton other countries soil, especially in Central America and the
Caribbean. Despite calls for change, U.S. drug policy in Latin America looks much as it has since the 1980s and 1990s. There are partial, and encouraging, exceptions.
On human rights, Washington occasionally sends the right message. U.S. diplomats pushed back, with partial success, against Colombias attempt to reduce civilian
courts jurisdiction over cases of military human rights abuse. The State Department has helpfully sided with regional leaders who wish to preserve the Inter-
American human rights system. And in the last two years the Obama administration, prodded by Congress, has begun introducing changes in applying the Leahy Law
that could result in improved future enforcement. Still, the Obama administrations human rights messages continue to be contradictory. For example, the
administration is promoting a role for Colombias security forces in training other nations police and military despite grave abuses that remain unpunished. The U.S.
government has been troublingly silent about recent human rights abuses in Honduras. And the example of the Guantnamo Bay detention center remains as a
prominent reminder to the region of the superficiality of the U.S. commitment to human rights. The Obama administration deserves praise for officials' public
statements about Colombias ongoing peace process, which have been consistently supportive. We must hope that this helpful tone continues once the process
reaches a point at which the United States might be required to take actions, like reorienting aid or acquiescing to changes in drug policy resulting from the talks. It
would not be hard to break out of the current moment of paralysis, to begin treating this hemisphere
as one of opportunities instead of potential threats. But it would require the Obama administration to
do something that Washington has rarely done in the history of U.S.-Latin American relations: to
listen to the regions leaders and civil societies. That is the thread woven through the reports ten recommendations for an improved
U.S. security relationship with Latin America.

Closer cooperation with Laitn America is key to renewable energy development and
an effective ECPA which sets a model for global energy governance
Brune, Truman National Security Fellow, 2010
(Nancy, Latin America: A Blind Spot in US Energy Security Policy, 7-26,
http://ensec.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=250:south-of-the-border-americas-
key-to-energy-security&catid=108:energysecuritycontent&Itemid=365, ldg)

Moving forward In many ways, the fate of Latin America and the US are strongly linked. This is no less true
with our energy security interests. At this time, the US needs to move past the rhetoric and take concrete measures to direct resources,
capabilities and even some creativity into building a stronger, strategic relationship with our neighbors in Latin America in order to address our long term security
needs. How do we do this? First, the United States should commit sufficient financial, human and technological
resources to making the Energy Climate Partnerships of the Americas (ECPA), formed in April 2009 at the Fifth
Summit of the Americas, a viable, strong enterprise. The ECPA supports initiatives that focus on energy efficiency,
renewable energy, cleaner fossil fuels, critical infrastructure and energy poverty alleviation. However,
regional experts note that there has been little progress. While energy security can be strengthened by making progress in these areas,
the US needs to broaden the scope of the ECPA to explicitly discuss issues of energy security (including physical security of energy infrastructure), market-enhancing
regulatory frameworks, as well as energy integrationone of the regions greatest challengeswhich affects price stability and supply networks. Latin
America has frequently launched regional entities with the objective of improving energy integration
and collaboration. Among these are the Regional Electrical Integration Commission (1964), the Latin American Reciprocal State Oil Assistance Association
(1965), the Latin American Energy Organization (1973), and Initiative for Regional Infrastructure South American integration (2000). As recently as 2007, the South
American Energy Council was established. However, the overwhelming consensus is that energy integration and
coordination among Latin American nations remains limited and that these institutions have been ineffective, largely because
they could not overcome the challenges associated with asymmetrical regulatory frameworks, policy coordination and implementation of rules and procedures. In
their recent piece in Foreign Affairs, David G. Victor and Linda Yueh conclude that (global) energy governance requires a mechanism
for coordinating hard-nosed initiatives focused on delivering energy security and environmental
protection." The US, a country with strong institutions and regulatory bodies, must take a leadership
role to ensure that ECPA avoid the fate of previous regional energy initiatives by articulating clear mechanisms for
making decisions and resolving conflicts, establishing performance metrics, coordinating policies across countries, and monitoring and evaluating outcomes. In
other words, the US, as author of the ECPA initiative, has the added responsibility of guaranteeing its success. The energy security of the US
and of our Latin American partners cannot afford another failed effort to manage the regions energy
problems. If successful, the ECPA could serve as a model of regional, and possibly global, energy
governance, replacing the international and national institutions that are struggling to remain
relevant. Second, the US must leverage the opportunity presented by the creation of the ECPA to strengthen and expand strategic, bilateral energy
arrangements with our resource-wealthy neighbors, just as China, Iran, Russia and India are doing. America should not view ECPA as a substitute for bilateral
arrangements, but as a long-overdue occasion to jump start relations and create bold, new partnerships. To this end, the US should remove the $.58 tariff on
imported Brazilian ethanol, a policy measure which has paralyzed efforts to move forward on the Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) on biofuels, signed by
Brazil and the US in 2007, in which the two countries expressed an intention to cooperate in research and the production and export of ethanol, with the goal of
developing a global biofuels market. The current landscape is ripe for technological partnerships which should provide the cornerstone of strategic, bilateral energy
partnerships. According to EIAs World Energy Outlook of 2007, Latin America needs to invest
approximately $1.3 trillion in overall investment in its energy sector by 2030. Moreover, the potential
for renewable energy production has remained unexplored due to engineering difficulties,
environmental concerns and lack of investment. Americas technological expertisewielded by our
private sector companies, research institutions and unique configuration of national laboratories
could assist and support strategic partnerships between the US and our Latin American neighbors.
These sorts of strategic collaborations could enable the Western Hemisphere to become the global
behemoth in renewable energy and biofuels, an area in which we are quickly losing ground to China. America stands at a crossroads. On
the one hand, we can continue our muddled, reactive engagement with Latin America. Or, we can
forge a bold new vision of collaborative engagement to strengthen our energy security and manage
the regions energy problems. Our global counterparts recognize that the countries south of the border are critical to their energy security
interests. Will America?

Newest and most rigorous studies conclude warming is anthropogenic no alt causes
Muller, University of California-Berkeley physics professor, 2012 (Richard A., former MacArthur
Foundation fellow, "The Conversion of a Climate-Change Skeptic," 7-28-12, http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/30/opinion/the-conversion-of-a-
climate-change-skeptic.html?pagewanted=all)

Call me a converted skeptic. Three years ago I identified problems in previous climate studies that, in my
mind, threw doubt on the very existence of global warming. Last year, following an intensive research effort
involving a dozen scientists, I concluded that global warming was real and that the prior estimates of
the rate of warming were correct. Im now going a step further: Humans are almost entirely the cause. My total
turnaround, in such a short time, is the result of careful and objective analysis by the Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature project, which I founded with my
daughter Elizabeth. Our results show that the average temperature of the earths land has risen by two and a
half degrees Fahrenheit over the past 250 years, including an increase of one and a half degrees over the most recent 50 years.
Moreover, it appears likely that essentially all of this increase results from the human emission of
greenhouse gases. These findings are stronger than those of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the United
Nations group that defines the scientific and diplomatic consensus on global warming. In its 2007 report, the I.P.C.C. concluded only that most of the warming of the
prior 50 years could be attributed to humans. It was possible, according to the I.P.C.C. consensus statement, that the warming before 1956 could be because of
changes in solar activity, and that even a substantial part of the more recent warming could be natural. Our Berkeley Earth approach used
sophisticated statistical methods developed largely by our lead scientist, Robert Rohde, which allowed us to determine earth
land temperature much further back in time. We carefully studied issues raised by skeptics: biases from
urban heating (we duplicated our results using rural data alone), from data selection (prior groups selected fewer than 20 percent of the
available temperature stations; we used virtually 100 percent), from poor station quality (we separately analyzed good stations and poor ones) and
from human intervention and data adjustment (our work is completely automated and hands-off). In our papers we demonstrate that
none of these potentially troublesome effects unduly biased our conclusions. The historic temperature pattern we
observed has abrupt dips that match the emissions of known explosive volcanic eruptions; the particulates from such events reflect sunlight, make for beautiful
sunsets and cool the earths surface for a few years. There are small, rapid variations attributable to El Nio and other ocean currents such as the Gulf Stream;
because of such oscillations, the flattening of the recent temperature rise that some people claim is not, in our view, statistically significant. What has caused the
gradual but systematic rise of two and a half degrees? We tried fitting the shape to simple math functions (exponentials, polynomials),
to solar activity and even to rising functions like world population. By far the best match was to the
record of atmospheric carbon dioxide, measured from atmospheric samples and air trapped in polar ice. Just as important, our record
is long enough that we could search for the fingerprint of solar variability, based on the historical record
of sunspots. That fingerprint is absent. Although the I.P.C.C. allowed for the possibility that variations in sunlight could have ended the Little
Ice Age, a period of cooling from the 14th century to about 1850, our data argues strongly that the temperature rise of the past
250 years cannot be attributed to solar changes. This conclusion is, in retrospect, not too surprising; weve learned from
satellite measurements that solar activity changes the brightness of the sun very little. How definite is the
attribution to humans? The carbon dioxide curve gives a better match than anything else weve tried. Its
magnitude is consistent with the calculated greenhouse effect extra warming from trapped heat radiation. These facts dont
prove causality and they shouldnt end skepticism, but they raise the bar: to be considered seriously, an alternative explanation must match the data at least as well
as carbon dioxide does. Adding methane, a second greenhouse gas, to our analysis doesnt change the results.
Moreover, our analysis does not depend on large, complex global climate models, the huge computer programs that are notorious for their hidden assumptions and
adjustable parameters. Our result is based simply on the close agreement between the shape of the observed temperature rise and the known greenhouse gas
increase. Its a scientists duty to be properly skeptical. I still find that much, if not most, of what is attributed to climate change is speculative, exaggerated or just
plain wrong. Ive analyzed some of the most alarmist claims, and my skepticism about them hasnt changed. Hurricane Katrina cannot be attributed to global
warming. The number of hurricanes hitting the United States has been going down, not up; likewise for intense tornadoes. Polar bears arent dying from receding
ice, and the Himalayan glaciers arent going to melt by 2035. And its possible that we are currently no warmer than we were a thousand years ago, during the
Medieval Warm Period or Medieval Optimum, an interval of warm conditions known from historical records and indirect evidence like tree rings. And the recent
warm spell in the United States happens to be more than offset by cooling elsewhere in the world, so its link to global warming is weaker than tenuous. The
careful analysis by our team is laid out in five scientific papers now online at BerkeleyEarth.org. That site also
shows our chart of temperature from 1753 to the present, with its clear fingerprint of volcanoes and carbon dioxide, but containing no component that matches
solar activity. Four of our papers have undergone extensive scrutiny by the scientific community, and the
newest, a paper with the analysis of the human component, is now posted, along with the data and
computer programs used. Such transparency is the heart of the scientific method; if you find our conclusions implausible, tell us of any errors of data
or analysis. What about the future? As carbon dioxide emissions increase, the temperature should continue to rise. I
expect the rate of warming to proceed at a steady pace, about one and a half degrees over land in the
next 50 years, less if the oceans are included. But if China continues its rapid economic growth (it has averaged
10 percent per year over the last 20 years) and its vast use of coal (it typically adds one new gigawatt per month), then that same
warming could take place in less than 20 years. Science is that narrow realm of knowledge that, in principle, is universally accepted. I
embarked on this analysis to answer questions that, to my mind, had not been answered. I hope that the Berkeley Earth analysis will help settle the scientific debate
regarding global warming and its human causes. Then comes the difficult part: agreeing across the political and diplomatic spectrum about what can and should be
done.
Not too late to solve warming-international cooperation in the next year is key
Leber, ThinkProgress reporter, 2014
(Rebecca, Climate Change Scientists Warn: We're Almost Too Late, 8-27,
http://www.newrepublic.com/article/119236/un-draft-climate-report-issues-warning-world, ldg)
There is an alarming message in a major new report on climate change, a draft of which the New York Times obtained on Tuesday. The United Nations
I ntergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, a group of leading scientists who review the latest
and best available research, say we are dangerously close to the day when it will no longer be possible
to limit global warming to 3.6 degrees Fahrenheit (2.0 degrees Celsius) by mid-centurysomething
that world leaders have pledged to do. Of course, the pledge might already be delusional, given that countries continue to burn fossil fuels
at an unprecedented rate. In the first decade of the twenty-first century, emissions grew at 2.2 percent per year. Thats nearly twice as much as they increased in
the three decades that preceded it. And its no secret why. While emissions have been slowing in industrialized countri es, that hasnt offset the growth in emissions
from China and India. The report also finds companies and countries are sitting on four times more of the fossil fuels than the world should be burning if it
reasonably expects to keep the worst of global warming at bay. In other words, countries will have the opportunity to fill the atmosphere with way too many
greenhouse gasesthe question is whether they can somehow resist the temptation. This latest draft is a revision of an earlier one,
which Reuters obtained in August. That version suggested that we would need drastic greenhouse gas
cuts of 40 to 70 percent worldwide by 2050, in order to keep to the 3.6 degrees target. What that
means in plain language is that countries like the U.S. and China would need to start confronting the
economic costs of switching away from fossil fuels now, in order to avoid a much more dangerous
(and costly) future. Why is 3.6 degrees so important? Most research today looks at the consequences warming on this scale. Its not a sure thing, as the
scientists acknowledge. The actual increase would fall somewhere within a fairly broad range. But even more optimistic scenarios, in which the planet ends up
warming little, would entail more extreme weather, acidic oceans, and a changing ecosystem. On the other end of the spectrum are some really nightmarish
possibilities. At eight degrees of warming, which the draft report sees as a distinct possibility, the effects would include vast ice sheets in Greenland and Antarctica
destabilizing completely, changing coastal civilization as we know it as sea levels rise by 23 feet. Recent studies suggest the western Antarctic ice sheet may already
be past the point of irreversible melting, so this scenario is not far-fetched. The clock is ticking and the nations of the world are
well it remains to be seen what the nations of the world will do. Next month the United Nations
will hold a Climate Summit. Its the prelude to a much bigger round of international negotiations, in
Paris in 2015. President Barack Obama seems to be brokering a climate accord ahead of these talks
seen as the best chance coordinate and agree upon the greenhouse gas cuts neededthat would sidestep
Republican opposition by not requiring Senate ratification. Because as this new report indicates, waiting another day to
take action on climatelet alone a whole yearis tempting fate.
Failure to solve warming causes extinction geological history proves
Bushnell, NASA Langley Research Center chief scientist, 2010 (Dennis M. has a MS in mechanical
engineering, won the Lawrence A. Sperry Award, AIAA Fluid and Plasma Dynamics Award, the AIAA Dryden Lectureship, and is the recipient of
many NASA Medals for outstanding Scientific Achievement and Leadership, "Conquering Climate Change," The Futurist 44. 3, May/Jun 2010,
ProQuest)

Unless we act, the next century could see increases in species extinction, disease, and floods affecting one-third
of human population. But the tools for preventing this scenario are in our hands. Carbon-dioxide levels are now
greater than at any time in the past 650,000 years, according to data gathered from examining ice cores. These increases in CO2
correspond to estimates of man-made uses of fossil carbon fuels such as coal, petroleum, and natural gas. The global climate
computations, as reported by the ongoing Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) studies, indicate that such man-made CO2 sources could
be responsible for observed climate changes such as temperature increases, loss of ice coverage, and ocean
acidification. Admittedly, the less than satisfactory state of knowledge regarding the effects of aerosol and other issues make the global climate
computations less than fully accurate, but we must take this issue very seriously. I believe we should act in accordance with the precautionary principle: When
an activity raises threats of harm to human health or the environment, precautionary measures become
obligatory, even if some cause-and-effect relationships are not fully established scientifically. As paleontologist Peter Ward discussed in his book Under a
Green Sky, several "warming events" have radically altered the life on this planet throughout geologic
history. Among the most significant of these was the Permian extinction, which took place some 250 million years ago. This
event resulted in a decimation of animal life, leading many scientists to refer to it as the Great Dying.
The Permian extinction is thought to have been caused by a sudden increase in CO2 from Siberian
volcanoes. The amount of CO2 we're releasing into the atmosphere today, through human activity, is 100 times greater
than what came out of those volcanoes. During the Permian extinction, a number of chain reaction events, or
"positive feedbacks," resulted in oxygen-depleted oceans, enabling overgrowth of certain bacteria,
producing copious amounts of hydrogen sulfide, making the atmosphere toxic, and decimating the ozone
layer, all producing species die-off. The positive feedbacks not yet fully included in the IPCC projections include the
release of the massive amounts of fossil methane, some 20 times worse than CO2 as an accelerator of warming, fossil CO2
from the tundra and oceans, reduced oceanic CO2 uptake due to higher temperatures, acidification and algae
changes, changes in the earth's ability to reflect the sun's light back into space due to loss of glacier ice, changes in land
use, and extensive water evaporation (a greenhouse gas) from temperature increases. The additional effects of these feedbacks
increase the projections from a 4C-6C temperature rise by 2100 to a 10C-12C rise, according to some estimates. At those temperatures,
beyond 2100, essentially all the ice would melt and the ocean would rise by as much as 75 meters, flooding the homes of
one-third of the global population. Between now and then, ocean methane hydrate release could cause major tidal waves, and
glacier melting could affect major rivers upon which a large percentage of the population depends. We'll see increases in flooding, storms,
disease, droughts, species extinctions, ocean acidification, and a litany of other impacts, all as a consequence of man-
made climate change. Arctic ice melting, CO2 increases, and ocean warming are all occurring much faster than previous IPCC forecasts, so, as dire as the
forecasts sound, they're actually conservative.

2ac
Relats
2AC Treaty

No Linklegalization with regulations does not violate the terms of the treatytheir
authors assume a laissez faire approach
Duke 13Steven, Professor of Law, Yale Law School, Article: The Future of Marijuana in the United
States, Oregon Law Review 91 Or. L. Rev. 1301, lexis
B. Legalizing Marijuana Is Prohibited by International Treaties "Decriminalization" is the mechanism of choice for the
countries and most states that have sought to de-escalate drug prohibition. Decriminalization entails sharply reducing to the equivalent of a
traffic offense or completely eliminating criminal penalties for the possession and use of small amounts of the drug. No government,
however, has ever legalized the drug's distribution, even if that distribution is small-scale and not for
profit. Although decriminalization reduces some of the dreadful costs of full-scale prohibition, it
retains and could even encourage black-market distribution. 77 Reducing or eliminating penalties for consumers while
failing to legalize and regulate distribution could even exacerbate the violence and corruption that are inherent in illegal distribution networks.
Alcohol Prohibition criminalized only the manufacture and distribution of alcohol, not its possession or use. 78 It was, therefore, a model of
decriminalization. Though a good start toward legalization, decriminalization cannot be the ultimate solution. There is a common
belief that the drug control treaties, chiefly the 1961 United Nations Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs, 79 prohibit any
signatory state from legalizing the drugs covered by the treaty, one of which is cannabis. That is why it is
often said that the Netherlands does not legalize the distribution of marijuana but merely [*1317] declines to prosecute the "coffee houses"
that openly serve the drug to consumers. 80
Whether the Convention prohibits all efforts to legalize marijuana is debatable. The provision that is often
read as prohibitory is Article 4(c), which states that the parties shall take such measures as may be
necessary, "subject to the provisions of this Convention, to limit exclusively to medical and scientific
purposes the production, manufacture, export, import, distribution of, trade in, use and possession of
drugs." 81 That clearly allows "medical" liberalization. Article 33 provides that the parties "shall not permit the
possession of drugs except under legal authority." 82 This is either meaningless or contemplates the
granting of "authority." Article 36 says that the parties shall make intentional possession, use, et
cetera, of drugs "contrary to the provisions of this Convention" punishable and that "serious offenses"
should be "liable to adequate punishment particularly by imprisonment or other penalties of
deprivation of liberty." 83 This obligation, however, is subject to the parties' "constitutional limitations." 84 Article 28 permits
the cultivation of cannabis, provided it is controlled and the parties seek to "prevent the misuse of,
and illicit traffic in, the leaves of the cannabis plant." 85 Article 30 requires that the trade in drugs exist "under license"
except when carried out by a state enterprise. 86 These provisions appear to have been written by someone devoted to ambiguity. Some
provisions seem to invite legalization rather than precluding it. Nonetheless, the prevailing view is that legalization of marijuana, other than for
medical or scientific uses, is contrary to the l961 Convention and later treaties as well. 87
Some countries, most recently Portugal, Mexico, and Argentina, have decriminalized or legalized the
small-scale possession and consumption of marijuana and other drugs. If the UN Convention [*1318]
requires these states to make marijuana possession criminally punishable, then these reforms,
desirable as they are, violate the Convention. Surprisingly, however, the UN Office on Drugs and Crime
praises the Portugal experiment and opines that it does not violate the Convention. Decriminalizing drug use
"falls within the Convention parameters" because "drug possession is still prohibited, but the sanctions fall under the administrative law, not
the criminal law." 88 Apparently, therefore, an unenforced ten dollar civil fine would satisfy the Convention. Perhaps full legalization
with regulation would also suffice, leaving only laissez-faire prohibited.

Prohibition is comparatively worse for US reputation the plan shores up credibility
Duke 13Steven, Professor of Law, Yale Law School, Article: The Future of Marijuana in the United
States, Oregon Law Review 91 Or. L. Rev. 1301, lexis
H. Prohibition Impairs International Relations
Prohibited drugs are typically produced in different countries than they are consumed. The consumer
countries blame the producer country and often bully or bribe the producer to enforce its drug laws
more effectively. The United States takes such a position with [*1314] Mexico, whose cartels supply a large
portion of the marijuana and other illicit drugs that Americans consume. Mexico, on the other hand,
attributes its internal violence to the U.S. appetite for Mexico's drugs. The United States repeatedly
pressures other countries to more aggressively punish producers of drugs for export. Indeed, the United
States customarily intervenes and objects when any country, even one as small as Jamaica, considers
liberalizing its prohibition laws. 68
Not only would the creation of legal drug markets throughout the world allow for enormous drug
prohibition resources to be spent productively on something else and would reduce international
crime, it would also greatly diminish the international blame game and help rid the United States of
its reputation as an international bully. 69

Reputational capital is not uniform or zero sum have a high threshold for a link
argument
Guzman 8Andrew, is Jackson H. Ralston Professor of Law and Associate Dean at UC Berkeley School
of Law @ Berkeley, Reputation and International Law, http://andrewguzman.net/wp-
content/uploads/2012/07/Reputation-and-International-Law.pdf
Reputation can be defined as judgments about an actors past behavior used to predict future behavior7 . Consistent with that definition we
can define a states reputation for compliance with international law as judgments about an actors
past response to international legal obligations used to predict future compliance with such
obligations. This reputation is an estimate of the states true willingness to comply even when non-
reputational payoffs favor violation. This willingness to comply depends on the states discount rate, the
domestic politics in the state (e.g., the extent to which domestic political structures make violation of
international law difficult or costly), that states willingness to impose costs on others,8 the value of future opportunities to
cooperate (which may be jeopardized by a current violation), and so on.
Other states are assumed to be unable to observe this underlying willingness to comply, and so they
must estimate it based on the actions of the state. In principle every observing state has its own
perception of a particular states reputation. Thus, the United States may have different reputations in
Canada, Argentina, Russia, and Syria. For the moment we abstract away from this issue and assume that every observer has the
same view of the states reputation. This assumption is relaxed later in the article.
A simple model of reputation would treat the acquisition and loss of reputation in an extremely straightforward waystates that honor
their commitments acquire reputational capital , and states that violate their commitments lose it. A
moments thought, however , makes it clear that things must be more complicated than this. If it were simply a
matter of counting the instances of compliant behavior, states could build their reputations by signing
many treaties that impose trivial obligations. A sensible model of reputation building cannot, for example, lead to the
conclusion that Bolivia, a land-locked country, can improve its reputation by committing to keep its ports open. Similarly, it cannot be
that the tiny island republic of Vanuatu, whose total GDP in 2004 was $316 million, can improve its reputation by
agreeing to refrain from placing weapons in space. The acquisition of reputation clearly must be more complex than
simply complying with commitments.

Global prohibition is falling apartWestern hemisphere backlash
Meacham 13Carl, is director of the Americas Program at the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS) in Washington, D.C.
Michelle Sinclair and Jillian Rafferty, staff assistants with the CSIS Americas Program, provided research assistance. Uruguay legalizes
marijuana: What will this mean for U.S. narcotics policy in the region?, http://csis.org/publication/uruguay-legalizes-marijuana-what-will-
mean-us-narcotics-policy-region
Q3: What will the law mean for U.S. counternarcotic efforts in the Western Hemisphere?
A3: Producing, selling, and possessing marijuana all remain illegal in the United States under federal law. To date,
however, 20 states and Washington, DC have legalized use of physician-prescribed marijuana for medical purposes. And in 2012, the state
governments of Washington and Colorado both legalized the recreational use of marijuanain direct contradiction to federal law.
Although the government has kept its firm opposition to legalizing marijuana under federal law, the U.S. Department of Justice announced that
it will not challenge Washingtons and Colorados laws, which some have read as tacit acceptance of the state-led legislative trend.
The trend towards greater acceptance of cannabis is still stronger among the U.S. publicand is clearly reflected in Gallups latest poll,
published in October 2013, showing that 58 percent of Americans support the legalization of marijuana while just 39 percent are opposed.
Meanwhile, world leaders are urging countries to implement alternative methods to the war on drugs . In
November, former UN secretary general Kofi Annan and former Brazilian president Fernando Henrique Cardoso released
a statement urging their contemporaries to break *the+ century-old taboo and seek a new approach
to the issue.
This, in combination with regional leaders' explicit appeal to Vice President Biden during his travel to the region in May 2013 and the OAS
report released the same month, has resulted in increasing pressure throughout the hemisphere to reconsider
the strategy behind the war on drugs.
These recent trends advocate a move away from the current policythe approach championed by the
United States for more than forty yearsin favor of a health-centered approach.
And as the first to experiment with an innovative approach, Uruguays legislation poses a direct challenge to the U.S.
governments established policy in leading the war on drugs.
If Uruguays law proves to be successful, other Latin American countries may followgenerating still-
greater pressure on the United States to reconsider its current approach to counter-narcotic policy.
Conclusion: Over the past year, there has been a major shift in the debate on regional drug policy. Many of the Western
Hemisphere's leaders have expressed their growing frustration with the high costs of the drug warin
both monetary and human termsand, like Uruguay, are increasingly willing to experiment with new approaches.
Meanwhile, the U.S. continues to champion a "zero tolerance" approach in its efforts to combat drug trafficking through the region, while
reforms are implemented at the state level.
And moving forward, the apparent contradictions in its stance on drugs may well make it increasingly
difficult for the United States to advocate a "zero tolerance" policy throughout the region.
With Americans support for cannabis legalization increasing, it is likely that the momentum will
continue to spur further legalization efforts across the United Stateswhile Uruguays bill may inspire
other countries in kind.

Bond thumps DA
Davis 14Benjamin, Associate Professor of Law, University of Toledo College of Law, Bond Thoughts:
Federalism Aggression on Human Rights, 6/2/14, http://www.blog.saltlaw.org/bond-thoughts-
federalism-aggression-on-human-rights/
The Bond v. United States case came out today in which the Supreme Court supposedly ducked the Missouri v/
Holland question by focusing on interpreting the implementing legislation for the chemical weapons convention under federalism
concerns in a supposed act of avoidance of the constitutional question.
The decision seems to be an indirect trimming of Missouri v. Holland in the sense that going beyond Reid v. Covert
on a constitutional level, the federalism structural attack was made in the majoritys view of the language of
the implementing legislation which tracked the treaty language. Here the Court opts for a clear
statement being needed if the Congress truly meant to reach the kind of actions of this jilted spouse.
Absent a clear statement of that purpose, the Court stated it would not presume Congress to have
authorized reaching the conduct of the individual in question which the majority of the Court viewed would have been a
stark intrusion by the federal government into traditional state police power authority. That appears to be a fairly strong curtailment of a kind
of deference to Congress powers expressed in Missouri v. Holland with regard to that implementing legislation.
Justices Scalia, Thomas and Alito concur in the majority opinion with a full throated view that the treaty power
does not reach domestic internal matters. Without stating it directly, anyone familiar with the human rights treaties
that the United States has entered into can see inherent in this view the challenge here to the power of the federal government to even enter
human rights treaties. This challenge is blinkered by the international range of possibilities that the framers envisioned for treaty-making and
not by the range of possible treaties that a sovereign has come to recognize as appropriate to enter. And, of course, it is blinkered by a
complete absence of any comprehension of the devastation of the two World Wars that helped to push forward the modern era of human
rights law making human rights a concern of both states and of citizens within states. Further, it attempts to erase or at least obscure the
human rights character of the domestic civil rights movement.
To me, the lesson here is that the federalism onslaught on international law that was enshrined in Medellin
continues forward in four ways: 1) first, in the attacking of the implementing legislation for non-self-executing
treaties on federalism grounds, 2) second, in the application in the future of the limited self-executing
treaties in terms of both Bill of Rights and structural concerns of federalism, 3) the assertion of non-self-
execution to any human rights treaty and 4) in an all out attack on the Treaty Power being used to address
domestic internal matters which would include human rights (independent of the self/non-self-execution) issue.
What the Court could have done is simply recognize the implementing legislation consistent with Missouri v/ Holland and leave the matter to
one of both state and federal prosecutorial discretion. That would not have trimmed back the chemical weapons convention in domestic law
while still vindicating our federalism.
Rather than an anodyne case, Bond should be seen, unfortunately, as an attack on the domestic vindication of
human r ights l aw. What we need to emphasize is that these international obligations are obligations that the United
States freely accepted and should be made to respect by ordinary Americans whether in our separation of powers or in our
federalism. Otherwise, we are accepting a further kind of social violence internally to the detriment of the ordinary citizens freedom. That
is to turn the double security of our rights as the people that these structures are to protect, into structures of oppression.


Non-unique---state legalization
Elliot 14Steve, United Nations Condemns Marijuana Legalization As Treaty Violation, 'Grave
Danger', 3/4/14, http://hemp.org/news/content/united-nations-condemns-marijuana-legalization-
treaty-violation-grave-danger
The United Nations drug watchdog group, the I nternational Narcotics Control Board, on Tuesday released its 2014 Annual
Report, in which it "deeply regrets" the states of Colorado and Washington have legalized marijuana and
said that cannabis legalization poses a "very grave danger to public health."
The INCB is in charge of enforcing international drug treaties , so it's no surprise that the body would take a dim view
of moves towards cannabis legalization in the United States and Uruguay, because such moves are technically in violation of international drug
treaties, reports Alan Travis of The Guardian.
The annual report claims that marijuana in Colorado has led to increases in car accidents involving "drug drivers" (the statistics actually show
otherwise), and that marijuana-related treatment admissions are on the rise.
"Drug traffickers will choose the path of least resistance, so it is essential that global efforts to tackle the drug problem are unified," said INCB
President Raymond Yans. "When governments consider their future policies on this, the primary consideration should beg the long-term health
and welfare of the population."
Yans said the UN is "concerned" about marijuana legalization initiatives, and that the non-medical use of cannabis poses "a very grave danger
to public health and wellbeing."
"We deeply regret the developments at the state level in Colorado and Washington, in the United States, regarding the legalization of the
recreational use of cannabis," the report states. "INCB reiterates that these developments contravene the
provisions of the drug control conventions , which limit the use of cannabis to medical and scientific
use only."

Credibility theory is bunk states work with us no matter what because we are more
powerful
Walt 12
Stephen, IR prof @ Harvard, Why are U.S. leaders so obsessed with credibility?, 9/11/12,
http://www.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2012/09/11/the_credibility_fetish
Of course, we probably overstated the importance of "credibility" even then. Sloppy analogies like the infamous "domino
theory" helped convince Americans that we had to fight in places that didn't matter (e.g., Vietnam) in order
to convince everyone that we'd also be willing to fight in places that did. We also managed to convince ourselves that credible nuclear
deterrence depended on having a mythical ability to "prevail" in an all-out nuclear exchange, even though winning would have had little
meaning once a few dozen missiles had been fired.
Nonetheless, in the rigid, bipolar context of the Cold War, it made sense for the United States to pay some attention to its credibility as an
alliance leader and security provider. But today, the United States faces no peer competitor, and it is hard to think of any
single event that would provoke a rapid and decisive shift in the global balance of power. Instead of a clear
geopolitical rival, we face a group of medium powers: some of them friendly (Germany, the UK, Japan, etc.) and some of them partly
antagonistic (Russia, China). Yet Russia is economically linked to our NATO allies, and China is a major U.S. trading partner and has been a major
financier of U.S. debt. This not your parents' Cold War. There are also influential regional powers such as Turkey, India, or Brazil, with whom the
U.S. relationship is mixed: We agree on some issues and are at odds on others. And then there are clients who depend on U.S. protection
(Israel, Saudi Arabia, Afghanistan, Taiwan, etc.) but whose behavior often creates serious headaches for whoever is in the White House.
As distinguished diplomat Chas Freeman recently commented, "the complexity and dynamism of the new order place a premium on diplomatic
agility. Stolid constancy and loyalty to pre-existing alliance relationship are not the self-evident virtues they once were. We should not be
surprised that erstwhile allies put their own interest ahead of ours and act accordingly. Where it is to our long-term advantage, we should do
the same."
What might this mean in practice? As I've noted repeatedly, it means beginning by recognizing that the United States is both very powerful and
very secure, and that there's hardly anything that could happen in the international system that would alter the global balance of power
overnight. The balance is shifting, to be sure, but these adjustments will take place over the course of decades.
Weaker states who would like U.S. protection need it a lot more than we need them, which means
our "credibility" is more their problem than ours. Which in turn means that if other states want our help, they should be
willing to do a lot to convince us to provide it.
Instead of obsessing about our own "credibility," in short, and bending over backwards to convince the Japanese, South Koreans,
Singaporeans, Afghans, Israelis, Saudis, and others that we will do whatever it takes to protect them, we ought to be asking them what they are
going to do for themselves, and also for us. And instead of spending all our time trying to scare the bejeezus out of countries like Iran (which
merely reinforces their interest in getting some sort of deterrent), we ought to be reminding them over and over that we have a lot to offer and
are open to better relations, even if the clerical regime remains in power and maybe even if -- horrors! -- it retains possession of the full nuclear
fuel cycle (under IAEA safeguards). If nothing else, adopting a less confrontational posture is bound to complicate their own calculations.
This is not an argument for Bush-style unilateralism, or for a retreat to Fortress America. Rather, it is a call for greater imagination and flexibility
in how we deal with friends and foes alike. I'm not saying that we should strive for zero credibility, of course; I'm merely saying that we'd be
better off if other states understood that our credibility was more conditional . In other words, allies need
to be reminded that our help is conditional on their compliance with our interests (at least to some degree)
and adversaries should also be reminded that our opposition is equally conditional on what they do. In
both cases we also need to recognize that we are rarely going to get other states to do everything we want. Above all, it is a call to
recognize that our geopolitical position, military power, and underlying economic strength give us the
luxury of being agile in precisely the way that Freeman depicts.
Of course, some present U.S. allies would be alarmed by the course I'm suggesting, because it would affect the
sweetheart deals they've been enjoying for years. They'll tell us they are losing confidence in our leadership,
and they'll threaten to go neutral, or maybe even align with our adversaries. Where possible, they will enlist
Americans who are sympathetic to their plight to pressure on U.S. politicians to offer new assurances. In most cases, however, such
threats don't need to be taken seriousl y. And we just have to patiently explain to them that we're not necessarily abandoning
them, we are merely 1) making our support more conditional on their cooperation with us on things we care about, and 2) remaining open to
improving relations with other countries, including some countries that some of our current allies might have doubts about. I know: It's a
radical position: we are simply going to pursue the American national interest, instead of letting our allies around the world define it for us.
The bottom line is that the United States is in a terrific position to play realpolitik on a global scale, precisely because it
needs alliance partners less than most of its partners do. And even when allies are of considerable value to us, we
still have the most leverage in nearly every case. As soon as we start obsessing about our credibility,
however, we hand that leverage back to our weaker partners and we constrain our ability to pursue
meaningful diplomatic solutions to existing conflicts . Fetishizing credibility, in short, is one of the reasons American
diplomacy has achieved relatively little since the end of the Cold War.

No impact to ilawlegal norms dont shape behavior
Posner 3/5/14Eric, Professor of Law at the University of Chicago Law School, Have the Use of Force
Rules Reduced the Frequency of War? http://ericposner.com/have-the-use-of-force-rules-reduced-the-
frequency-of-war/
As I explained earlier, I have never claimed that international law is inconsequential. For example, trade law seems to matter. But it is always
an empirical question whether a specific rule affects state behavior or not, and in a meaningful rather
than trivial way. Anecdotal evidence gets one only so far. To address this problem, scholars use statistical methods
basically, event study methodology, to test whether state behavior changes in the predicted fashion after the state ratifies a treaty. This
approach has been productively used in the area of trade (yes) and human rights (generally, no). It helps in these areas that different states
ratify the treaties at different times. Unfortunately, the use of force rules came into effect all at once for everyone in 1945, so there is not
enough variation to do a real test. (Many countries joined the UN system later, but usually when they came into existence, or for other unusual
reasons that cannot be controlled for.) Still, I thought it would be interesting to take a look at the incidence of interstate war, and I found
the graph I reproduce above in Kristian Skrede Gleditsch & Steve Pickering, Wars Are Becoming Less Frequent (2013), which seems
like a carefully written paper. The bars show the number of interstate wars (excluding civil wars) with at least 1,000 battle deaths in a given
year. Note that the 2011 Libya war is excluded because the data set ends in 2010, and the 2008 Russo-Georgian war is excluded, presumably
because of insufficient battle deaths. One can certainly detect a decline in the frequency of interstate wars (as shown
by the various trendlines). But it would be very hard to attribute any causal influence to the 1945 UN
charter. If you trust the linear time trend, 1945 just falls in the middle of a long-term decline. If you take one of
the nonlinear time trends, it falls before an increase in the number of wars. If one is looking for
causes, the end of the cold war with the onset of U.S. hegemony seems like the most plausiblethe
infrequent warfare over the last 20 years pulls down all the time trends. However, all in all it is hard to
find any causal pattern at all. If you want to, you can find reasons for giving causal effect to the 1945 law. You can say that it
took a while for the a new norm to work itself through the system, or that the cold war or
decolonization was an anomaly that interrupted what would otherwise have been a smooth pattern
of causal influence. Maybe. But it seems to me that if one makes such claims, one needs to acknowledge
a low level of confidence.

Off
2AC-Legalize
The affirmative is already required to mandate broad sweeping change from the
status quo-this preserves negative ground and clash
Strange-Director of Debate, Dartmouth-14 Wording Paper
http://www.cedadebate.org/forum/index.php/topic,5931.msg13200.html#msg13200

The objective is a topic requiring sweeping change by the affirmative. The sentiment expressed in the
topic committee discussions is for topical action to involve large change: large change is preferred for
better clash in debates and to provide a basis for the uniqueness of DAs.
Turn-our interpretation focuses the debate on substance over implementation
questions
Carcieri-prof poli sci, SF state-12 46 U.S.F. L. Rev. 689
Article: California's Proposition 19: Selective Prohibition and Equal Basic Liberties

While I shall try to avoid vague words like "legalization" (rather than "regulation") and "drugs" (instead
of "cannabis"), I shall try to meet the Los Angeles Times' challenge. Kenneth Falcon has already gone far
in this direction, suggesting specific changes to various provisions of the RCTCA for those redrafting it for
placement on state ballots in 2012 and beyond. 22 As a legal counselor, he is engaged in the
circumscribed, essentially empirical, work of advising clients how best to maximize the chances of
achieving their goals in light of existing law. My target audience, by contrast, consists of those with
the power to change existing law - the voters (by way of editorial page editors ). I am thus speaking
from an underlying normative constitutional perspective. 23 While this will include a reply to
structural concerns over intergovernmental relations, the core of my reply is substantive as follows .
24
Legislative context supports
Galiber-former NY senator-90 18 Hofstra L. Rev. 831
A SYMPOSIUM ON DRUG DECRIMINALIZATION: A BILL TO REPEAL CRIMINAL DRUG LAWS: REPLACING
PROHIBITION WITH REGULATION

My bill does not directly address two areas which will eventually have to be dealt with under a
legalization system--pricing and taxation. One of the central benefits of legalization will be the
elimination of the criminal cash economy in addition to eliminating violence and adulterated products. It
is thus vital that the retail cost of the drugs be set at a level high enough to discourage unnecessarily
profligate drug use, but low enough to eliminate profitable sales outside the licensed distribution
network. It will be a difficult task to assess the true cost of the drugs at the source, the farm in a newly
created free-market drug economy. 79
2AC AT: Courts
Plan doesnt commit to an agent. CP is clarification of how it could happen.
Chicago 7 (University of Chicago Manual of Style, Capitalization, Titles,
http://www.chicagomanualofstyle.org/CMS_FAQ/Capita lizationTitles/CapitalizationTitles30.html)Q. When
I refer to the government of the United States in text, should it be U.S. Federal Government or U.S. federal government? A. The
government of the United States is not a single official entity. Nor is it when it is referred to as the federal
government or the U.S. government or the U.S. federal government. Its just a government, which, like those in all
countries, has some official bodies that act and operate in the name of government: the Congress, the Senate, the
Department of State, etc.
Courts link to politics.
Harrison, Jenner and Block Litigation associate, 2005
(Lindsay, Does the Court Act as "Political Cover" for the Other Branches? 11-18
legaldebate.blogspot.com)

While the Supreme Court may have historically been able to act as political cover for the President
and/or Congress, that is not true in a world post-Bush v. Gore. The Court is seen today as a politicized
body, and especially now that we are in the era of the Roberts Court, with a Chief Justice hand picked
by the President and approved by the Congress, it is highly unlikely that Court action will not, at least
to some extent, be blamed on and/or credited to the President and Congress. The Court can still get away with a
lot more than the elected branches since people don't understand the technicalities of legal doctrine like they understand the actions of the
elected branches; this is, in part, because the media does such a poor job of covering legal news. Nevertheless, it is preposterous to
argue that the Court is entirely insulated from politics, and equally preposterous to argue that Bush
and the Congress would not receive at least a large portion of the blame for a Court ruling that, for
whatever reason, received the attention of the public.
Ruling on political questions means the CP gets ignored
Tirbe Harvard law professor, 2010
(Laurence, TOOHOTFORCOURTSTO HANDLE: FUEL TEMPERATURES, GLOBAL WARMING, AND THE
POLITICAL QUESTION DOCTRINE,
http://www.wlf.org/Upload/legalstudies/workingpaper/012910Tribe_WP.pdf)

We can stipulate that the Constitutions framers were not driven by the relationships among chemistry, temperature, combustion engines, and
global climate when they assigned to the judicial process the task of interpreting and applying rules of law, and
to the political process the mission of making the basic policy choices underlying those rules. Yet the
framework established by the Constitution they promulgated, refined over time but admirably constant in this fundamental respect, wisely embodied the
recognition that enacting the ground rules for the conduct of commerce in all of its manifestationsincluding designing incentives for innovation and creative
production (through regimes of intellectual property), establishing the metrics and units for commercial transactions (through regimes of weights and measures),
and coping with the cross-boundary effects of economic activity (through the regulation of interstate and foreign commerce)was a task quintessentially political
rather than judicial in character. Yet the litigious character of American society, observed early in the republics history by deTocqueville, has ineluctably drawn
American courts, federal as well as state, into problems within these spheres more properly and productively addressed by the legislative and executive branches.
This has occurred in part because political solutions to complex problems of policy choice inevitably leave some citizens and consumers dissatisfied and inclined to
seek judicial redress for their woes, real or imagined. And it has occurred in part because the toughest political problems appear on the horizon long before
solutions can be identified, much less agreed upon, leaving courts to fill the vacuum that social forces abhor no less than nature itself. One can believe
strongly in access to courts for the protection of judicially enforceable rights and the preservation of legal
boundariesas the authors of this WORKING PAPER do while still deploring the perversion of the judicial process to
meddle in matters of policy formation far removed from those judicially manageable realms. Indeed, the
two concerns are mutually reinforcing rather than contradictory, for courts squander the social and
cultural capital they need in order to do what may be politically unpopular in preserving rights and protecting
boundaries when they yield to the temptation to treat lawsuits as ubiquitously useful devices for making the
world a better place.


Afghanistan 2AC

Plan solves Afghanistan stability
Pagan, Syracuse JD, 2014
(Christopher, LEGALIZING MARIJUANA WILL REDUCE TERRORISM AND BORDER INSTABILITY, 7-25,
http://www.pslaw.org/legalizing-marijuana-will-reduce-terrorism-border-instability/)

Legalizing marijuana should be a top national security objective that is, if the United States wants to
minimize terrorism and border instability. How do legalizing marijuana and maintaining national security relate to each other? Well, heres
the breakdown! The United States has been waging wars with Iraq and Afghanistan for the past two decades
and has tried relentlessly to stabilize both Iraq and Afghanistan by attempting to build some type of
political and economic structure within each of those nations. Additionally, as the 2011 U.S. National Strategy for
Counterterrorism states, the Presidents top national security priority is ensuring the security of the citizens of the United States and the interests of the United
States from terrorists. With that in mind, Afghanistan is the largest provider of cannabis in the world and the United
States is the worlds largest consumer of cannabis. Citizens of the United States spend about $40.6
billion a year on cannabis. Therefore, if the United States legalizes cannabis, Afghanistan and its
people and economy could establish a source of income by supplying the United States legal
cannabis industry. This would create some sort of economic stability in Afghanistan and even
destabilize terror groups . This is because terrorist groups are the main beneficiaries of the illegal drug
trade in Afghanistan. According to the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime, the terrorist groups use profits from drug trafficking
to fund acts of terrorism, violence and other conflicts. The illegal drug trade in Afghanistan is supporting the ongoing influx of terror
activities. Therefore, so long as marijuana is still illegal in the United States, the terrorist groups will
benefit from illegal drug trafficking. However, if the United States would legalize marijuana, the illegal
drug trade in Afghanistan would disappear and terrorist groups would lack funds to carry out their
terror activities.

Instabiltiy spreads and causes great power war
Hooman Peimani 2, Senior Research Fellow at the Centre for International Cooperation and Security, Senior International
Relations consultant with the United Nations in Geneva, PhD in International Relations, Failed Transition, Bleak Future?, p. 122-
7
In the short run, the prospect for peace is not very great for the countries of the Caucasus and Central Asia. Many influences have
paved the way for the rise of wars in different forms, ranging from civil wars to regional wars. The situation is ripe, and will
remain so, for instability and war for a predictably long period of time. Only a drastic change in the state of affairs in the two regions could
remove the possibility of such destructive developments, which is a highly unrealistic scenario in the near future. The outbreak of any type of
military conflict for any length of time will be disastrous for the Caucasians and Central Asians, who have experienced sharp
declines in their living standards since independence. Their limited resources and insignificant foreign assistance have
prolonged the transitional period from the old Soviet social and economic system to a form of free-
enterprise economy with its corresponding social system. Apart from the tragic cost of any military
conflict in human lives, such an event will deplete their scarce resources and perpetuate the existing agonizing limbo
between the two economic and social systems. In the absence of adequate resources to complete the already long transitional process, this limbo may well
become their own economic and social system for an unpredictable period of time. The impact of war and instability in the Caucasus or
Central Asia will not be confined to the countries immediately affected. Any local conflict could
escalate and expand to its neighboring countries, only to destabilize its entire respective region.
Furthermore, certain countries with stakes in the stability of Central Asia and/or the Caucasus could well be dragged into such a
conflict, intentionally or unintentionally. Regardless of the form or extent of their intervention in a future major
war, the sheer act of intervention could further escalate the war, increase the human suffering, and plant
the seeds for its further escalation. Needless to say, this could only further contribute to the devastation of all
parties involved and especially of the hosting CA or Caucasian countries. In fact, certain factors could even kindle a military
confrontation between and among the five regional and nonregional states with long-term interests in Central Asia and the Caucasus.
This scenario could potentially destabilize large parts of Asia and Europe. The geographical location of the two
regions as a link between Asia and Europe shared to different extents by Iran, Turkey, and Russia creates a natural geographical
context for the expansion of any regional war involving those states to other parts of Asia and
Europe. Added to this, Iran, China, Turkey, Russia, and the United States all have ties and influence in
parts of Asia and Europe. They are also members of regional organizations such as the Economic Cooperation Organization (Iran and Turkey) or
military organizations such as NATO (Turkey and the United States). These geographical, political, economic and military ties could help expand
any conflict in which they are involved.
2AC Regulation CP
Perm do the CP Legalization and Regulation are distinct-regulation happens after the
plan
Bandow senior fellow at the Cato Institute 2000 Doug Dealing with Legalization The American
Prospect http://prospect.org/article/dealing-legalization
The question of what would follow the end of drug prohibition is thus vitally important. "Even if a
legalization option were adopted," says one outspoken opponent, Congressman Charles Rangel (D-NY), "many questions
remain as to how drug usage would be regulated." But, he complains, advocates of legalization "never seem to have
answers."

The CP doesnt achieve sufficient economies of scale to compete with organized
crime-big business is key
Ashworth, InvestorPlace Contributor, 2014
(Will, Tobacco Companies Could Make Cannabis Big Business, 1-3,
http://investorplace.com/2014/01/big-cannabis-benefits/view-all/#.U9ZfGvk7um4, ldg)

The retail sale of recreational cannabis began Jan. 1 in Colorado, with 37 licensed retailers offering
products to a very thirsty clientele. Lines were long, driving the price of one-eighth of an ounce of
high-quality marijuana to $70 significantly higher than the $25 that medical marijuana recipients
paid the day before. Opponents of Colorados move feel price escalation will force users recreational and medical back on
to the street in pursuit of cut-rate pot from organized crime. The Justice Department has indicated it
will stay out of the way as long as Colorado meets eight regulatory points, one of which is preventing the
diversion of marijuana revenue to organized crime. If the current supply doesnt increase, plain-old economics is going to take hold.
The rest of the country will get around to doing the same (for the revenue), but everyone needs to understand that players bi g and small can participate successfully
in the cannabis industry just as craft brewers, distillers and winemakers compete with the big boys like Diageo (DEO) and Anheuser-Busch InBev (BUD). The
time has come to consider the benefits of Big Cannabis. Taxes According to the Tax Policy Center, state and local governments
collected $24 billion in alcohol- and cigarette-related taxes in 2011; Colorado accounted for $237 million of that windfall. State officials estimate it could raise $67
million annually from $578 million in pot sales. That would increase the states revenue haul from discretionary items such as cigarettes, alcohol and cannabis by
30% almost overnight. In 2012, medical marijuana sales in Colorado were just shy of $200 million generating tax revenue of just $5.4 million. A large portion of the
estimated $67 million went to drug dealers. By legalizing pot, Colorados added more than $60 million in tax revenue while taking some cash out of the hands of
organized crime. Thats a win/win for everyone in the state. 2014 STOCK BLACKLIST: Any one of these widely-held stocks could wipe out all of your profits.
Download this free "sell list" and see if you own any of these ticking time bombs. Click here yours FREE! Retailers Until January 1, the 3D Cannabis Center sold
medical marijuana to approved users only. Owner Toni Fox generates $30,000 in monthly revenues but reckons shell be able to bump that figure to $250,000 once
her facility is expanded to accommodate the additional foot traffic that comes with a 700% increase in revenue. The state has issued 136 retail licenses, many of
which, like Fox, were previously retailers of medical marijuana. Now that they can sell to anyone over the age of 21 (dont forget your ID), you can expect most of
them to benefit from the legalization of pot. According to IBISWorld senior analyst Nima Samadi, medical marijuana is a $1.7 billon industry globally expected to
grow to $5 billion by 2018. If we see legalization in states other than Colorado and Washington, we could be talking about a retail boom like none thats been seen
before. Investors will clamor for the opportunity to own a piece of the action. How long will it be before one of Colorados cannabis retailers does an IPO? Three
years? five? Thats unknown, but it will happen in my lifetime. Heck, Starbucks (SBUX) is headquartered in Seattle. Perhaps Howard Schultz wants in on the action. I
realize its a long way off, but theres no reason a big retailer like SBUX cant co-exist with entrepreneurs like Toni Fox and the rest of the pot-selling crusaders. Law
Enforcement America spends more on drug enforcement than any other nation on earth. In a September press release from Law Enforcement Against Prohibition
(LEAP), the organization reveals the insidiousness of law enforcements prosecution of marijuana offenses. According to the FBI, there were almost 750,000
marijuana arrests in 2012, 88% for possession. This means 660,000 Americans were arrested for the simple act of possessing marijuana. The state of Pennsylvania,
for instance, defines a large amount of Marijuana possession as 30 grams or more punishable as a misdemeanor with a sentence of up to a year in prison and/or a
maximum fine of $5,000. If youre lucky and dont go to jail but get the maximum fine, your $5,000 payment might be for possessing as little as $560 worth of pot
(based on Colorados inflated $70 per eighth of an ounce), the equivalent of maybe 25 joints. It probably seems like a lot to the uninitiated but amongst friends it
probably doesnt get you very far. Law enforcement spends far too much time running around catching marijuana users when they could be spending it more
constructively apprehending those that commit violent crimes. Big Tobacco Im sure there are people out there who can roll joints
quickly and efficiently. However, theres no way they can do so at the pace of the large cigarette
companies. As weve already seen in Colorado, theres a supply issue that could keep the majority of pot
sales in the hands of organized crime. The only way to loosen their grip is to increase both the volume
and speed of production so more product can get in the hands of legal retailers, allowing natural market forces to lower prices to the point its no
longer profitable for organized crime. Its possible that Colorados entrepreneurs can handle this on their own. However, a nationwide push (down the
road obviously) is going to require big bucks, and nobody has more of those than the likes of Altria Group
(MO), Reynolds American (RAI) and Lorillard (LO). Each of these companies has more than a century
of experience with tobacco. You dont think theyd be able to figure out pot? I believe theyd have a much easier time
with cannabis than theyve had introducing electronic and smokeless cigarette products. Gerry Sullivan, head
of the Vice Fund (VICEX), whose fund I wrote about in December, believes cigarette companies are likely to become the
Budweiser(s) of marijuana. For this reason hes maintaining his cigarette positions, which include the three from above plus Philip Morris
International (PMI). All are in the funds top 10 holdings. These cigarette companies might not publicly express an interest
in the cannabis trade, but it would be far more lucrative than eCigs. Besides, a big push into cannabis
would give them the cash flow necessary to make a face-saving exit from tobacco.


2AC H
Dems win nowprefer Princeton predictions
LoGiurato, Business Insider, 9-17-14 (Brett, Meet The New Nate Silver,
http://www.businessinsider.com/sam-wang-nate-silver-forecasts-dem-senate-hold-2014-9, accessed 9-
17-14, CMM)
In 2012, as President Barack Obama fell behind in pre-election polls but not in election statistician Nate Silver's odds, this phrase quickly caught
on: "Keep calm and trust Nate Silver!" This summer, Democrats have a new election guru to turn to for comfort:
Sam Wang, a neuroscientist and professor at Princeton University who runs a model at Princeton's
Election Consortium. Most of the 2014 election models from The Washington Post, The New York Times, and from
Silver, among others have for a while projected Republicans not only furthering their grip on control of the House of
Representatives, but also having a good chance of flipping Senate control as well. But Wang's model has been the most
bullish for Democrats. His model has two forecasts: If the election were held today, Democrats would
have an 80% chance of retaining control of the Senate. Predicting for Election Day, he estimates slightly
less bullish 70% odds. He predicts that as of today, Senate Democrats and Independents that caucus
with the party will make up 50 seats in the chamber, enabling them to keep control by the thinnest of
margins. (In such a 50-50 situation, Vice President Joe Biden would cast the theoretical deciding vote.) On Tuesday, other models
began shifting toward a better chance for Democratic control of the Senate. The Washington Post on
Tuesday put Democrats' odds at 51%. The New York Times' new "Leo" model has control of the Senate
at a 50-50 tossup. And Silver's site, FiveThirtyEight, has Republicans' chances slimming to about 53%.
"My model is slightly more favorable because it relies on current polling conditions" as its main factor, Wang
said in a recent interview with Business Insider. The differences between their models and their differing
predictions has opened up a pseudo-rivalry between Wang and Silver in the lead-up to the midterm elections.
During an interview with WNYC's Brian Lehrer last week, Silver said Wang's model used "arbitrary assumptions," something Wang rejected as
an "out-and-out falsehood." In a blog post on Tuesday, Wang playfully responded to a comment from Silver in which Silver said he would like to
"place a large wager against" Wang. He called Silver's forecast that day, which gave Republicans a 64% chance of
swinging Senate control, into question, saying the "special sauce" (or formula) Silver used for his model
was "messy stuff." But the difference between Wang and Silver, Wang says, is substantive. It is
predicated on the divide between the models Wang's relies only on a reading of the latest polls,
while Silver's model adds in the "fundamentals" of the race when making predictions. Those
fundamentals vary by state. They can take into account fundraising, the liberal-conservative ideology
of individual candidates, and national factors like presidential approval rating and the history of the
president's party performing badly in the sixth year of his presidency, for example. "When he started in 2008, he
brought lively commentary and the addition of econometric assumptions to predict the future," Wang told Business Insider of Silver. "He made
the hobby fun for people to read about. All horse race commentators owe him a debt. "The difference between us is
substantive. In most years, adding assumptions doesn't alter the picture too much: 2008, 2010, and
2012 were not hard prediction problems. However, this year's Senate race is as close as 2004, and giving
an accurate picture of the race is challenging. Adding assumptions can bias an analyst's
interpretation." Somewhat similar to Silver's, Wang's interest in political prognostication grew out of the insatiable need to fuel what
had been a hobby. He is the son of Taiwanese immigrants, grew up in California, graduated with a B.S. from the California Institute of
Technology by age 19, and subsequently graduated with a Ph.D. from Stanford. He began his model in 2004, when he was intensely
following the presidential campaign that pitted President George W. Bush against Democrat John Kerry. In the constant horse-race mentality
and the over-reporting on single polls, he said, he saw an opportunity to contribute a new, more comprehensive and accurate element to the
conversation. "I was motivated by the extreme closeness of the Kerry-Bush contest, and the news stories about single polls were driving me
crazy," Wang told Business Insider. "I thought a simple way to summarize all the polls at once would improve the quality of coverage." Since
then, his model has nearly nailed the result in every national election. In 2004, the model predicted
Bush would grab 286 electoral votes to Kerry's 252. That was off by only a single electoral vote. (He made
a personal prediction that turned out to be wrong.) The 2008 presidential election was similar off by a single vote
in each direction. The model only missed Nevada's Senate race in 2010, a race in which nearly every
poll was off the mark. And the model in 2012 correctly predicted the vote in 49 of 50 states, the
popular vote count of 51.1% to 48.9%, and 10 out of 10 tight Senate races including Montana and
South Dakota, which Silver missed. To Wang, it proves that a model that solely focuses on polls is a
reliable indicator of eventual electoral outcomes. And he thinks models based on "fundamentals" like
Silver's and like The New York Times' new model, dubbed "Leo," significantly alter the picture this
year. "As of early September, both The New York Times's model 'Leo' and the FiveThirtyEight model
exert a pull equivalent to adjusting Senate polls in key races by several percentage points. In other words,
Republican candidates have slightly underperformed analyst expectations," Wang said. And this year, that
could mean the expected Republican "wave" might never materialize. Wang sees Democratic
candidates outperforming expectations all over the map.

Marihuana ballot initiatives fail to boost Dems
Enten, senior political writer and analyst for FiveThirtyEight, 14 (Harry, 5-1-14, Sorry
Democrats, Marijuana Doesnt Bring Young Voters to the Polls,
http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/sorry-democrats-marijuana-doesnt-bring-young-voters-to-the-
polls/, accessed 7-14, CMM)
Some Democrats think theyve found a great smoky hope in state ballot measures seeking to legalize
marijuana. Come November, Alaska will vote on whether to make recreational marijuana legal, and several other
states are thinking about doing to the same. In Alaska, the referendum will appear on the ballot alongside a
competitive U.S. Senate race between Democrat Mark Begich and an as yet undecided Republican. The Begich
campaign declined to comment on whether it expected pot to help its chances,1 yet the idea that pro-marijuana ballot
measures can help Democrats makes sense. Young voters, who are very much in favor of marijuana
legalization and who tend to lean Democratic, havent made up as high a percentage of voters in
midterm elections as they do in general elections; if they come out to vote on pot, maybe Alaska
Democrats can get their candidate into office. But a closer look at the evidence suggests Begich might
not stand to benefit. Overall, past marijuana ballot measures havent meant that more young people
come out to vote. This years senate race in Alaska would likely have to be very close for the marijuana
ballot measure to make a difference. The conventional wisdom that marijuana ballot measures help
Democrats goes back to the 2012 exit polls conducted in Colorado, Oregon and Washington. Those surveys
showed that young people were a larger percentage of the electorate in 2012 than in 2008. In Colorado, 18- to 29-year-olds made up 6 points
more of the electorate (from 14 percent to 20 percent), 12 points more in Washington (10 percent to 22 percent), and 5 points more in Oregon
(12 percent to 17 percent), where the ballot measure failed.2 But theres some contradictory evidence from another
source: The governments Current Population Survey (CPS) didnt show anywhere near the increase in young
voters that exit polls did. The Census Bureau found youth turnout rose by 0.2 points in Colorado, dropped by 0.9 points in Oregon,
and dropped by 2.7 points in Washington from 2008 to 2012, an average 1.2-point drop across all three states. This drop is pretty much the
same as the 1.5-point drop in young voters nationally, as measured by the CPS. Theres reason to think we should trust the
CPS more than the exit polls. The latter arent designed to estimate the ages of voters, as the Center for
Information and Research on Civic Learning and Engagement has pointed out. Thats not to say CPS estimates are immune to margin of error.
But a third source of evidence backs up the CPS: pre-election polls. In Colorado,3 Oregon4 and Washington5 a variety
of pollsters had numbers more in line with the CPS than the exit polls. We can also look at prior years recreational
marijuana ballot measures, including those that sought to legalize, decriminalize or lessen the penalty for recreational marijuana.
For the 14 such ballot measures since 1998, the voting pool was made up of 0.2 percentage points
fewer 18- to 29-year-olds, according to the CPS, compared to the prior similar election (i.e. the prior midterm
for midterm years and the prior presidential election for presidential election years). Looking only at the midterms, the 18-to-29 demographic
rose 0.1 percentage points on average. Once again, marijuana on the ballot doesnt appear to have made a
difference in whether young people voted. Past research by political science professors Caroline Tolbert
and John Grummel of Kent State University and Daniel Smith of the University of Denver showed that ballot measures
drive up voter turnout overall. And in 2012, when pot was on the ballot, significantly more voters
turned out in both Colorado and Washington, though not in Oregon, where the referendum didnt
pass. But those voters didnt help Democrats. There was no relationship between a change in turnout
in these three states and how well President Barack Obama, or marijuana, did in individual counties. On
average, Obama lost the same amount of support in these states 3.4 points from 2008 as he did nationally.
None of this proves that marijuana wasnt helpful for Democrats among a subset of voters, but it suggests that the overall effect
was small and fairly neutral.

Republicans also support legalizationno vote swap
Fabian, political editor for Fusion, 4/29/14 Jordan, Jordan Fabian is political editor for Fusion, the new cable and digital network from ABC
News and Univision. Prior to joining Univision in 2011, he worked as a staff writer at The Hill newspaper, "Poll: Democrats Face an Ugly
Midterms Without Young Voters", April 29 2014, fusion.net/leadership/story/harvard-youth-poll-democrats-face-ugly-midterms-young-635862
President Obama and Democrats will have a tough time counting on young voters in this Novembers midterm elections, a new poll says. Young
voters are increasingly unlikely to cast a ballot this fall, according to a poll from Harvard Universitys Institute of Politics released Tuesday. The
survey found a growing sense of political apathy among adults under 30, driven by a lack of trust in political process and institutions. And one
issue that Democrats have hoped would drive youth turnout, marijuana legalization, might be more complicated than that. Heres a closer look
at the polls three main takeaways: 1. Bad news for Democrats Young people helped elect President Obama to office in 2008 and 2012. But this
year, theyre not so eager to vote. Just 23 percent of people ages 18 to 29 said they will definitely cast a ballot in the congressional elections in
November. By comparison, 45 percent of voters under 30 showed up in 2012, with Obama winning six in ten. Harvards midterm estimate has
dropped 10 percentage points since last fall and its eight points lower than the polls numbers before the 2010 midterms, when Republicans
won control of the House. Theres a lot at stake this November, as Democrats are in danger of losing control of the Senate. In presidential
election years, young people have become a key part of Obamas winning coalition and given an edge to Democrats in Congress. But
millennials traditionally stay home in midterm election years, and this one is no different . In addition, the young
voters who said they would show up come from traditionally Republican groups. Forty-four percent of those who
said they voted for Mitt Romney in 2012 said they will definitely vote this year, compared to 35 percent who voted for Obama. Young men
were nine points more likely to vote than women. Whites were also more likely to vote than African-Americans and Hispanics. The one silver
lining for Democrats? President Obamas approval ratings have jumped six percentage points to 47 percent from a historic low of 41 percent
last November. 2. A lack of trust Young Americans were already cynical about the countrys political process and
institutions. And the problem has only gotten worse in the last year. Trust in the president has dipped from 39 percent to
32 percent, trust in the military went from 57 percent to 47 percent, and trust in the Supreme Court fell from 40 percent to 36 percent. The
decline in trust was driven by changing attitudes among self-described Democrats and independents, according
to Harvard. The number of young people who say elected officials seem to be motivated by selfish reasons has jumped eight points since 2010
to 62 percent, another indicator that adults under 30 are losing faith in government. Twenty-nine percent say that political involvement rarely
has any tangible results, up from 23 percent from four years ago. 3. Marijuana isnt the key Legalized marijuana is more popular than
ever, leading some political consultants to believe that the issue could be used as a youth turnout mechanism. But the Harvard poll paints a
more mixed picture. Forty-four percent of those under 30 say they support legalizing marijuana, 23 percent strongly so. Thirty-four percent
oppose it, and 22 percent are not sure. Thats much different from what the Pew Research Center found earlier this year, which is that 69
percent of adults ages 18 to 33 want pot to be legal. Harvard found that millennials dont think monolithically about
weed. Almost half of young Democrats back legalized pot, but legalization also drew support from 32
percent of Republicans . And the desire for legalization isnt stronger among non-white millennials, who are often
more likely to be arrested for marijuana. Forty-nine percent of whites back legalization, more than 10 points higher than blacks (38 percent)
and Hispanics (37 percent). All of this shows that marijuana is a more complicated political issue for young voters
than what many in politics believe.

Theres massive backlash to the plan that swamps the link
Galston, senior fellow and Chair in Governance Studies at Brookings, and Dionne, senior fellow in
Governance Studies at Brookings, 13 (William and E.J., May, The New Politics of Marijuana
Legalization: Why Opinion is Changing,
http://www.brookings.edu/~/media/research/files/papers/2013/05/29%20politics%20marijuana%20leg
alization%20galston%20dionne/dionne%20galston_newpoliticsofmjleg_final.pdf, accessed 8-29-14,
CMM)
Despite last years legalization victories in Colorado and Washington, the battles of recent years suggest that, on
the whole, there is more intensity among those who oppose legalization and more ambivalence
among those who favor it. For example, a survey conducted during the battle over Californias Proposition
19 that would have legalized marijuana use found that 39 percent of the states voters were strongly
opposed to legalization while only 34 percent strongly favored it. The rest of the voters held their
views less intensely. Similarly, the survey found that 41 percent of voters said they were definitely
opposed to legalization, while only 27 percent were definitely in favor. There are other ambivalences in public
attitudes toward marijuana, notably a substantial dif - ference between attitudes toward legalization for recreational purposes and attitudes
toward medical marijuana. For example, the Pew survey that found a 52-to-45 percent majority in favor of overall legalization also found a
much larger majority, 77-to-16 percent, saying that marijuana had legitimate medical uses. Other surveys suggest that
decriminalization tends to enjoy more support than outright legalization.

Terrorism focus shields the link
Bolton, The Hill, 9-8-14 (Alexander, The return of the politics of terror,
http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/216896-the-return-of-the-politics-of-terror, accessed 9-10-14,
CMM)
The politics of terrorism have returned with a vengeance for the midterm elections. National security
dominated the first election cycles after the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, with Democrats fearful of being labeled unpatriotic if
they criticized then-President George W. Bush. The Republican advantage eroded years later as public opinion soured against the Iraq War. By
the time President Obama sought reelection in 2012, he was able to tout the killing of Osama bin Laden to portray Democrats as the party of
strength in foreign policy. But now, with the 13th anniversary of 9/11 just days away, Obama and the Democrats
are back on the defensive. Obamas response to the advances made by the radicals of the Islamic State in
Iraq and Syria (ISIS) has provoked a chorus of criticism, including from vulnerable Democrats up for
reelection this year. And its not just the broad threat posed by ISIS that has changed the political landscape Obama has given
GOP critics an opening by fumbling several public statements. One gaffe came during a recent press
conference when he admitted that, when it comes to countering ISIS, we dont have a strategy yet. Former
spokesman Robert Gibbs called it a wince-able moment. Senate Democrats who are running for reelection in a tough
political environment are sounding the alarm bell. Sen. Al Franken (D-Minn.) fired off a letter to Attorney General Eric
Holder demanding to know what the Justice Department is doing to intercept American jihadists returning from Syria. I was troubled by the
presidents recent suggestion that the administration has not yet developed a comprehensive strategy to address the growing threat of ISILs
activities in Syria, he wrote, using an alternative acronym for ISIS. Separately, Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell (Ky.)
pounced on Obamas remarks during a trip to Estonia where he characterized ISIS as a manageable
threat. This is not in my view a manageable situation. They want to kill us, he warned. It was a rare instance when some Democrats sided
with McConnell over the president. Do not believe ISIL is manageable, agree these terrorists must be chased to the gates of hell, tweeted
Sen. Jeanne Shaheen (D-N.H.), who is facing a tough reelection race. Following the criticism, Obama on Friday tried to walk back his comments,
saying ISIS must be destroyed and cannot be contained. He will expand on that idea when he delivers a televised address to the nation on
Wednesday. Previewing his message in an interview with Meet the Press Sunday, Obama said that he wanted the American people to
understand ISIS is a serious threat but that we have the capacity to deal with it. Democrats who could replace Obama in the Oval Office,
including Vice President Biden and Hillary Clinton, are also using more muscular foreign policy rhetoric. Biden has vowed to follow ISIS to the
gates of hell, while Clinton has blamed the growth of ISIS on the failure to help build a credible fighting force against strongman Bashar
Assad in Syria. Republicans who are mulling their own quest for the White House in 2016 are attacking Obamas foreign policy with gusto. Texas
Gov. Rick Perry (R) blasted the president for dithering and debating and always playing catch-up on international crises that threaten U.S.
interests. Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) declared we ought to bomb *ISIS+ back to the Stone Age. Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.), who in the past warned
against foreign entanglements and called for ending foreign aid, declared in Time magazine, I am not an isolationist, and faulted Obama for
letting a jihadist wonderland blossom in Libya and Syria. Some Democrats are frustrated by what they see as a lack of
clear leadership from the president. All of these members back in their home states have been
getting asked about all of these foreign policy issues for the last couple weeks. Very few if any have
gotten any guidance from the White House or indication about what the president is thinking, said a
Democratic strategist who has spoken with several lawmakers. The consequence, the strategist added, is that some
endangered Democrats are beginning to flail about a little. There is a growing belief among policy
experts that ISIS poses a greater national security threat than al Qaeda did before 9/11. The radical
group is estimated to control billions of dollars in assets, and has trained American and European
citizens who could return home to stage an attack.


No unique linkother issues more polarizing
Rucker, Washington Post, 8-9-14 (Philip, Robert Costa and Matea Gold, Unlike previous midterm
election years, no dominant theme has emerged for 2014,
http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/unlike-previous-midterm-election-years-no-dominant-theme-
has-emerged-for-2014/2014/08/09/8775aca6-1f0a-11e4-ae54-0cfe1f974f8a_story.html, accessed 8-17-
14, CMM)
Ask voters in North Carolinas Research Triangle what Novembers midterm elections are about and one will
tell you drones. A second will say closing the prison at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. Yet another, the middle-class
squeeze. At a Sunday school classroom in Ypsilanti, Mich., voters are concerned about deteriorating roads, teen
sex parties, truancy in schools and violent crime. Six hundred miles west at a Republican campaign office in Urbandale, Iowa,
people fear that America is on an irreversible decline like Germany after World War I, as one man predicted. Across Colorado, voters are
thinking about a whole other set of concerns veterans care, drivers licenses for undocumented immigrants, the soaring cost of housing, the
erosion of Christian conservative values, Russias rise, and fracking. This is an election about nothing and everything.
Unlike in previous midterm election years, no dominant national theme has emerged for the 2014
campaign, according to public opinion surveys as well as interviews last week with scores of voters in
five key states and with dozens of politicians and party strategists. Even without a single salient issue,
a heavy cloud of economic anxiety and general unease is hanging over the fiercely partisan debate.
Listening to voters, you hear a downbeat tone to everything political the nations economy, infrastructure and schools; the crises flaring
around the world; the evolving culture wars at home; immigration laws; President Obama and other elected leaders in Washington. I probably
feel the way everyone else feels, said Lindsay Perry, a 32-year-old Democrat, as she tried to keep her 9-month-old son from tipping over her
salad last week at a Durham, N.C., bakery. Clearly, its really dysfunctional and its essentially driven by monied interests at this point. Its really
just discouraging. It just seems clear the peoples interests arent being represented. Over the past 20 years, every midterm election has had a
driving theme. In 1994, Newt Gingrich led Republicans to power in a backlash against President Clintons domestic agenda. In 1998, it was a
rebuke to Republicans for their drive to impeach Clinton. Terrorism motivated voters in 2002, while anger over the Iraq war propelled
Democratic gains in 2006. And 2010 turned into an indictment of Obamas economic stewardship and, for many, his health-care plan. As
long as it has been polling, Gallup has asked voters to state their most important problem. For the
first midterm cycle since 1998, no single issue registers with more than 20 percent of voters.
Immigration was the top concern for 17 percent of those Gallup surveyed in July, while 16 percent
said government dissatisfaction and 15 percent the economy.

No internal gridlock
Ornstein, resident scholar at the AEI, 9-3-14 (Norman, Americas midterms will not break the
deadlock, http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/0/5acaa630-3200-11e4-b929-
00144feabdc0.html#axzz3CHjzNMIS, accessed 9-3-14, CMM)
The US capitol is gripped by dysfunction. Republican hostility towards President Barack Obama is
obstructing progress on domestic initiatives such as immigration reform, and international ones such as the
administrations efforts to secure new agreements that would boost international trade. Midterm elections in November
provide an opportunity to break the deadlock. Alas, America is unlikely to take it. While voters despise
politicians of both parties, they are even more down on Republicans than Democrats. Yet this is not reflected in the electoral arithmetic. All 435
seats in the House of Representatives, now controlled by Republicans, are up for election, along with 36 seats in the 100-member Senate,
currently run by Democrats. In theory, either or both of the chambers could change in party control. But the
odds are that Republicans will hold on to the House of Representatives, and they are more likely than not to
seize control of the Senate. Democrats are less enthusiastic and more upset with their leader; while
Republicans, having been frozen out of the White House for six years, are angry and eager to vote. Similar circumstances
resulted in a huge Republican victory in the 2010 midterms. The effect will be less dramatic this year. But Democrats are
disillusioned with Mr Obama, a result of issues such as the continuing war in Afghanistan, renewed involvement in Iraq, revelations about the
National Security Agencys mass surveillance programme and the immigration crisis at the southern border. This is not the only factor that
harms the Democrats prospects. Republican victories in 2010 gave the party control of state politics in a majority of the 50 states, and they
used their power to dominate congressional redistricting, leaving them with few truly vulnerable House seats. The Senate, where Republicans
need to gain six seats to take control, is not subject to redistricting. Still, of the 36 seats up for election this year, 21 are held by Democrats,
many in firmly Republican states that voted for Mitt Romney, Mr Obamas opponent in 2012. Only two or three Republican seats are in danger.
November is likely to leave the US with divided government, and there is a strong possibility that
Congress will fall entirely under Republican control. Will that break the fever that has paralysed
Washington? No. In decades past, divided government was a way for the US system to operate in a
bipartisan fashion; both parties shared the responsibility to govern. President Ronald Reagan, facing a Democratic House, engineered
compromises on budgets, including programmes such as Social Security and Medicare, and enacted a sweeping bipartisan tax reform plan. But
sharp differences between the parties have since morphed into a kind of tribalism, with the president
facing visceral opposition from across the aisle to anything he might want. Republicans in Congress
have become a parliamentary opposition party in a country that does not have a parliamentary
system. The result has been deadlock. At the same time, Republicans have moved sharply to the right.
Although Tea Party activists won few victories over establishment figures in primaries this year House majority leader Eric Cantor was the
exception this is largely because establishment figures saw off challengers by adopting radical Tea Party positions themselves. A
Republican victory in the Senate would be seized by the partys politicians as vindication for the
strategy of obstruction. Why compromise with a lame duck president when Republican rule looms?
They would try to use control of the legislative process to bludgeon Mr Obama on everything from immigration to climate change. As Mitch
McConnell, Senate Republican leader, has said: We will be pushing back against this bureaucracy...All across the federal government, were
going to go after it. Besides voting 50 times to repeal Mr Obamas healthcare reform act, Republicans have investigated alleged scandals
ranging from claims that the state department did too little to protect US diplomats in Benghazi to accusations of impropriety at the Internal
Revenue Service. If they controlled Congress, they would seek to dish even more dirt. True, a Republican Congress would be
more visible to voters and more readily blamed for obstruction. The party would need to build a
positive record of accomplishment. But in the most obvious area for compromise, immigration
reform, agreement is slipping even further out of reach. Marco Rubio the Republican senator who was the catalyst for a
bipartisan immigration reform bill that passed the Senate in 2013, but was defeated in the House has abandoned his support for the measure
and taken a strident line against Mr Obama. Americans of all persuasions are hoping to see a less divisive kind of
politics. Novembers elections are likely to disappoint them.

WTO solves protectionism fears.
Lester 2014 Simon, Trade Policy Analyst Cato Institute, The WTO vs. the TPP, 5/2/2014
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/simon-lester/the-wto-versus-the-tpp_b_5252810.html
This view is probably not an uncommon one. But is it correct? It is worth looking at just what the WTO does, and how it
compares to the TPP as a possible alternative trade agreement and organization. The most important
function of the WTO is probably its extensive rules constraining domestic protectionism. These rules take a
number of forms. First, all 159 WTO members have made promises not to charge tariffs above rates that are set out in legally binding
schedules. If the tariffs are higher than agreed, the WTO's highly effective dispute settlement mechanism can -- and has been -- invoked.
Second, WTO rules also discipline special tariffs imposed against dumping and subsidies. Through the WTO, these tariffs are subject to detailed
rules to prevent them from being abused, which they frequently have been over the years. Third, WTO rules govern customs procedures,
including valuation and classification issues, to prevent these procedures from being used as a disguised means of protection. Fourth, WTO
rules include general prohibitions on using domestic regulations and taxes for protectionist purposes. The WTO's jurisprudence on these issues
is widely respected, and WTO rulings have addressed a range of regulatory protectionism. Fifth, WTO rules also put limits on subsidies,
imposing constraints on the use of subsidies to give an advantage to domestic producers. And sixth, WTO rules include a number of
commitments to open up particular services markets to foreign competition, and as with trade in goods they prohibit the use of services
regulation as a means of protectionism. From the perspective of a free trader, there can be little doubt that the existing rules
are important and valuable, and contribute greatly to constraining protectionist impulses. In terms of
negotiating new commitments, it is true that the WTO has struggled in recent years (and there is probably enough blame to go around here --
no single country is responsible for the deadlock). Nonetheless, trade officials continue to press forward at the WTO, and the recent Trade
Facilitation Agreement was a modest success. Important talks on various other issues are ongoing. Let's turn now to the TPP. Will the TPP prove
to be a viable alternative to the WTO? On many of the issues noted above, the TPP is unlikely to do much. It will
not address anti-dumping/countervailing duties or subsidies at all. And the WTO's rules on regulatory
protectionism are already working quite well, so it is difficult to imagine what the TPP would do in this
regard. The TPP does have the potential to go further than the WTO in terms of tariff reductions and services liberalization.
Of course, such commitments would be preferential , only given to a handful of trading partners, and
thus would not be truly free trade. There are significant economic benefits to having free trade cover as many countries as
possible, including the avoidance of complex and trade-restricting rules of origin. The TPP would also go beyond the WTO in areas such as
intellectual property protection, foreign investment protection, and environmental and labor regulation. But further is not necessarily
better. These items have been added to the trade agenda to drum up new support. However, they have also stirred up a good deal of new
opposition, and made trade negotiations more complex and difficult. In a comparison between the WTO and the TPP, it
seems clear that the WTO continues to function well as an enforcer of existing rules. The U.S. has
brought and won important cases against, inter alia, Chinese export restrictions and European tariffs on IT
products; and claims against discriminatory U.S. regulations have been brought successfully by our trading
partners, which is a win for American consumers. Even though its negotiating process has struggled recently, it still
plays an important role in trade liberalization as an administrator of the rules. By contrast, the TPP is
still speculative (we are not very close to an agreement at this point), it has many significant gaps in coverage, and it is
expanding into new areas that are problematic. The "lawyers and bad actors" that Nunes cites will always be with us. That's
just the nature of things these days. On balance, though, the WTO has kept the bad actors in check, and done so with far
fewer lawyers, making less money, than many areas of public policy (imagine how many lawyers there will be if the TPP includes an investor-
state dispute settlement process). It deserves praise for this, and those pushing for the TPP may eventually
realize that the WTO is functioning pretty well after all.

Fresh Water 2AC

Illegal cultivation damages watersheds and increases pesticide pollution
Christensen, Godon Thomas Honeywell Energy, Telecommunications & Utilities Group chair,
2014
(Eric, Pot, Power & Pollution: The Overlooked Impacts of Marijuana Legalization on Utilities and the
Environment, 4-17, http://www.energynaturalresourceslaw.com/2014/04/pot-power-pollution-the-
overlooked-impacts-of-marijuana-legalization-on-utilities.html)

Water utilities and irrigation districts should also pay attention to the process of legalizing marijuana in Washington. In addition to being heavy
energy users, indoor grow operations also use huge amounts of water, especially if the operation uses hydroponics.
One recent estimate suggests that a one-room hydroponic operation may require as much as 151
liters of water per day, equivalent to application of nearly 100 inches of water per year. Often, water
discharged from indoor operations carries heavy nutrient and pesticide loads, of potential concern for wastewater utilities. Illegal operations
frequently steal fresh water and illegal dump wastewater, and legalization therefore represents an
opportunity to curb these practices . Even when grown outdoors, marijuana is a water-intensive crop.
Experts suggest that marijuana grown outdoors has water needs similar to water-intensive crops such as hops and corn. Not surprisingly, illegal
growers pay little heed to legal requirements for water diversions. Illegal diversions can severely
reduce water flows where marijuana cultivation is common. For example, recent reports indicate that illegal diversions for
marijuana farms have dewatered northern California streams, making the bad effects of its severe drought even worse. Such practices have
serious implications for legitimate water users downstream, as well as fisheries and other water-
dependent resources. Legalization should reduce this form of illegality, and may reduce pressure in
Washington watersheds that are already bumping up against limits on diversions , even on the relatively moist
west side of the state. Implications for Environmental Protection Contrary to the stereotype of marijuana growers as genial and environmentally-conscious hippies,
illegal marijuana growers are often heavily-armed and operate with little or no regard for the environmental impacts of their operations. A growing body
of evidence demonstrates that illegal marijuana operations often use extremely heavy doses of
pesticides and rodenticides, far above what would be allowed for legitimate agricultural enterprises. In
addition, labeling, storage, use, and disposal restrictions and other regulations aimed at reducing the
environmental and human health impacts of pesticide use are often ignored. Illegal operations have many other
environmental impacts. For example, thousands of "trespass" operations, illegally occupying sites on National Forests and other public lands, especially in California,
have cropped up in recent years. Often, these operations are associated with illegal clearing of forests and severe damage to other public resources such as streams,
lakes, and soils. Illegal operations in remote locations often rely on heavily-polluting diesel generators for
power. Indoor grow operations relying on diesel generators may require 70 to 140 gallons of diesel fuel to produce a single plant. Greenhouse gas emissions
associated with illegal marijuana production provide a good proxy for its total environmental impacts. One recent analysis suggests that U.S. marijuana operations
produce about 15 million metric tons of carbon dioxide, equivalent to the emissions of three million average automobiles. Moving these illegal
operations out of the shadows should help reduce these environmental impacts. Legal growers will
have to comply with environmental regulations in the same manner as operators in other legal
industries. In addition, specific regulatory requirements may increase the incentives for legalized
growers to reduce their environmental impacts. For example, as noted above, the LCB's draft regulations require growers to disclose
information about pesticide use, creating an incentive to reduce that use. Similarly, some commentators propose a specific tax on carbon-intensive grow
operations, which would create incentives to reduce energy intensity and switch to low-carbon or carbon-free energy sources. Already, the LCB, which originally
proposed to allow only indoor production, has revised its regulations to allow for outdoor production in response to comments about the carbon footprint
associated with indoor production,

Freshwater biodiversity is independently key to prevent extinction
Dudgeon et al, University of Hong Kong Ecology & Biodiversity professor, 2006
(David, he has spent 30 years researching the ecology, biodiversity and conservation of the animals that
inhabit streams and rivers, author of over 150 papers in international journals, with Angela H.
Arthington, Mark O. Gessner, Zen-Ichiro Kawabata, Duncan J. Knowler, Christian Leveque, Robert J.
Naiman, Anne-Hele`ne Prieur-Richard, Doris Soto, Melanie L. J. Stiassny, and Caroline A. Sullivan,
"Freshwater biodiversity: importance, threats, status and conservation challenges," Biological Reviews,
81.2, 2006, 163-82, Wiley Online Library)

Freshwater biodiversity is the over-riding conservation priority during the International Decade for Action Water for Life
2005 to 2015. Fresh water makes up only 0.01% of the Worlds water and approximately 0.8 % of the Earths surface, yet this tiny fraction of global water
supports at least 100 000 species out of approximately 1.8 million almost 6 % of all described species. Inland waters and freshwater
biodiversity constitute a valuable natural resource, in economic, cultural, aesthetic, scientic and educational terms. Their
conservation and management are critical to the interests of all humans, nations and governments. Yet this precious heritage is in crisis. Fresh
waters are experiencing declines in biodiversity far greater than those in the most aected terrestrial ecosystems, and if trends in human demands for water remain unaltered and species losses continue at current rates, the
opportunity to conserve much of the remaining biodiversity in fresh water will vanish before the Water for Life decade ends in 2015. Why is this so, and what is being done about it? This article explores the special features of
freshwater habitats and the biodiversity they support that makes them especially vulnerable to human activities. We document threats to global freshwater biodiversity under ve headings : overexploitation; water pollution ; ow
modication; destruction or degradation of habitat; and invasion by exotic species. Their combined and interacting inuences have resulted in population declines and range reduction of freshwater biodiversity worldwide.
Conservation of biodiversity is complicated by the landscape position of rivers and wetlands as receivers of land-use euents, and the problems posed by endemism and thus non-substitutability. In addition, in many parts of the
world, fresh water is subject to severe competition among multiple human stakeholders. Protection of freshwater biodiversity is perhaps the ultimate conservation challenge because it is inuenced by the upstream drainage
network, the surrounding land, the riparian zone, and in the case of migrating aquatic fauna downstream reaches. Such prerequisites are hardly ever met. Immediate action is needed where opportunities exist to set aside intact
lake and river ecosystems within large protected areas. For most of the global land surface, trade-os between conservation of freshwater biodiversity
and human use of ecosystem goods and services are necessary. We advocate continuing attempts to check species loss but, in many situations, urge adoption of a
compromise position of management for biodiversity conservation, ecosystem functioning and resilience, and human livelihoods in order to provide a viable long-term basis for freshwater conservation. Recognition of this need will
require adoption of a new paradigm for biodiversity protection and freshwater ecosystem management one that has been appropriately termed reconciliation ecology. I. INTRODUCTION In December 2003, the United Nations
General Assembly adopted resolution 58/217 proclaiming 2005 to 2015 as an International Decade for Action Water for Life. The resolution calls for a greater focus on water issues and development eorts, and recommits
countries to achieving the water-related goals of the 2000 Millennium Declaration and of Agenda 21: in particular, to halve by 2015 the proportion of people lacking access to safe drinking water and basic sanitation. These
are vitally important matters, yet their importance should not obscure the fact that the Water for Life resolution comes at a time when the biodiversity and biological resources of inland waters
are facing unprecedented and growing threats from human activities. The general nature of these threats is known, and they are manifest in all non-polar regions of the Earth, although their relative magnitude varies signicantly
from place to place. Identifying threats has done little, however, to mitigate or alleviate them. This article explores why the transfer of knowledge to conservation action has, in the case of freshwater biodiversity, been largely
unsuccessful. The failure is related to the special features of freshwater habitats and the biodiversity they support that makes them especially vulnerable to human activities. We start by elucidating why freshwater biodiversity
is of outstanding global importance, and briey describe instances where humans have caused rapid and signicant declines in freshwater species and habitats. If trends in human demands for water remain unaltered and species
losses continue at current rates, the opportunity to conserve much of the remaining biodiversity in fresh water will vanish before the Water for Life decade ends. Such opportunity costs will be magnied by a signi- cant loss in
option values of species yet unknown for human use. In addition, these vital ecological and potential nancial losses may well be irreversible. Importantly, eective conservation action will require a major change in attitude toward
freshwater biodiversity and ecosystem management, including general recognition of the catchment as the focal management unit, and greater acceptance of the trade-os between species conservation, overall ecosystem
integrity, and the provision of goods and services to humans. At the same time, it is incumbent upon scientists to communicate eectively that
freshwater biodiversity is the over-riding conservation priority during the Water for Life decade and beyond ; after all,
water is the fundamental resource on which our life-support system depends ( Jackson et al., 2001; Postel & Richter,
2003 ; Clark & King, 2004).



1ar



Hope CP
1ar solvency

The CP doesnt result in a large and sustainable industry
Kleiman 14--Mark, is Professor of Public Policy in the UCLA Luskin School of Public Affairs How to
Avoid Dumb Marijuana Legalization, http://www.rehabs.com/pro-talk-articles/how-to-avoid-dumb-
marijuana-legalization/
If we legalize alcohol-style well get a big increase in consumption. The systems being put into place
in Washington and Colorado roughly resemble those imposed on alcohol after Prohibition ended;
we created a hugely lucrative commercial industry which has consolidated and used its lobbying
muscle to further its objectives, which are precisely contrary to the public interest.
Making the same mistake with cannabis would be worse than prohibition. Despite their public
relations positions, alcohol purveyors depend on active alcoholics to stay in business. Since 80
percent of alcohol sold is consumed by 20 percent of users, from the industry perspective substance
abuse isnt the problem; its the target demographic.
Commercial cannabis will be exactly the same. Creating a big cannabis industry will bring about
marketing practices and lobbying agenda dedicated to creating and sustaining problem drug use,
particularly among minors who are the future of the industry.
The trick to legalizing marijuana, then, is to frustrate the logic of the market, to interfere with its
tendency to create and exploit people with substance abuse disorders. Price and information are the
two major policy levers that could deter cannabis abuse. Marijuana is already cheap and will get
cheaper under legalization. Taxes are one way to keep prices up, but without uniformity between
states, taxes will foster interstate smuggling, as the tobacco markets illustrate. Only a federal
system will solve the smuggling problem. But government can require potency disclosure and
product labeling as well as outreach to prevent both drug abuse and impaired driving.
To prevent big marijuana from having its corporate thumb on the public policy scale, we could
require that cannabis be sold only through nonprofits, but the most effective system is state-run
retail stores.
Theres plenty of precedent for this: Utah, Pennsylvania and Alabama restrict hard liquor sales to
state operated or state-controlled outlets, and operationally they work fine. A state store system
would also allow the states to control the pot supply chain. By contracting with many small
growers, rather than a few giant ones, states could check the industrys political power
(concentrated industries are almost always more effective at lobbying than those comprised of
many small companies) and maintain consumer choice by avoiding a beer-like oligopoly offering
virtually interchangeable products.
The time to act at the national level is now. The state-by-state process is getting us locked in to the
wrong model; once there are billions of dollars a year of pot being commercially sold under state-
level legalization, it will be virtually impossible to put them out of business.
To avoid getting locked into bad policies, lawmakers in Washington need to act, and quickly.
Despite public opinion against cannabis prohibition, no national-level figure of any standing has been
willing to speak out for change. Thats unlikely to last. Soon enough, candidates for president are
going to be asked their positions on marijuana legalization. Theyre going to need a good answer. I
suggest something like this: Im not against all legalization; Im against dumb legalization.

Deferring completely to states creates a race to bottom-one state will have weak regs
and flood the country-leads to federal crackdowns--- durable fiat doesnt solve
because the feds will help enforce state laws.
Boyd, Third Way Social Policy & Politics Program visiting senior fellow, 2014
(Graham, Marijuana Legalization: Does Congress Need to Act?, June,
http://content.thirdway.org/publications/830/Third_Way_Report_-_Marijuana_Legalization-
_Does_Congress_Need_to_Act.pdf, ldg)

Defining federal law simply by deferring to states would ignore important federal interests and create
confusion. One suggested legislative proposal is to pass federal legislation which defers completely to
state marijuana laws. While the federal government can surely withdraw entirely from a field of regulation, it is unworkable and arguably
unconstitutional for the federal law enforcement decisions to rest entirely on a judgment about compliance with state law. Given the interstate
market for marijuana and the widely divergent approaches to marijuana among the states, ceding all
control to state laws is not an effective long-term solution. First, important federal interests are at stake in marijuana
enforcementincluding the eight outlined in the Second Cole Memorandumon which federal officials legitimately claim the need to retain the authority to act.
And second, all state legalization schemes are not created equal. Automatically deferring to any state law,
even if it is poorly crafted, could mean that if a state legalized recreational marijuana use without
incorporating limits like those suggested by Cole, federal authorities would lack any authority to act to
keep drugs away from children or to stop organized crime. Moreover, crafting a broad federal
exemption based on compliance with state law breeds confusion. Who will decide what constitutes
compliance with state law? To enforce the exemption, federal law enforcement officials would have
to determine and eventually prove violations of state lawssomething that is beyond their expertise
and their purview. The House of Representatives recently passed an amendment as part of an appropriations bill which
would, if enacted, bar the DEA from taking action against medical marijuana operations which are legal
under the laws of their state. Although this policy would be a positive step toward consistency compared to current law, crafting a
similar provision for all recreational marijuana use (no matter how well or poorly regulated) would go
too far in the direction of ceding this issue to the states , for the reasons outlined above and below.

1ar a2: Big MJ
States will develop regulations against Big Cannibis
Milbank Quarterly 14
The Milbank Quarterly features peer-reviewed original research, policy review, and analysis from
academics, clinicians, and policymakers, "Tobacco Companies Were Waiting for the Opportune Moment
- the Legalization of Marijuana", June 3 2014, Center for Tobacco Control Research & Education,
https://tobacco.ucsf.edu/tobacco-companies-were-waiting-opportune-moment-legalization-marijuana
Implications for health policy For an on the ground view of the realities of these new policy dilemmas,
the study is accompanied by a commentary by Colorado Governor John W. Hickenlooper in which he
acknowledges that, as one of the first states to legalize marijuana, Colorado is a testing ground for
this experiment in marijuana legalization. In determining regulations, Colorado has turned to
examples from the alcohol, gaming and tobacco industries when it comes to underage use and the
impact on public health. He believes the state is asking the right questions and attempting to
collect the right data, while focusing on the well-being of Coloradans. As marijuana is
decriminalized, policymakers need to guard against Big Tobacco or other powerful corporate interests
from bringing modern branding, marketing and product engineering to bear on marijuana, says
Rachel Barry, MA, one of the study authors. The third author is Heikki Hiilamo, PhD, Professor of Social
Policy at the University of Helsinki. Some of the same regulations that have been applied to tobacco
could be applied to marijuana, say the researchers. These include restrictions on advertising; taxation;
prohibiting free samples, flavored products and products that also contain nicotine; no brand-name
sponsorship of events; and warning labels on packaging as well as no sales in vending machines, no
point-of-sale advertising and Internet sales. Smoking marijuana should not be allowed anywhere
where smoking conventional cigarettes is not allowed.

Regulations prevent Big Tobacco takeoversmart policies can prevent industrial
corruption and its comparatively better than prohibition
Belville 14
Russ, Executive Producer of 420RADIO.org and the host of the Russ Bellville radio show, "Big Tobacco
Feared Healthy MarijuanaStill Does", June 5 2014, www.hightimes.com/read/big-tobacco-feared-
healthy-marijuanastill-does
The latest paper from the Center for Tobacco Control Research and Education at UC San Francisco
shows that tobacco company executives of the 1970s feared legalized marijuana as a product that
would become a healthier alternative to their tobacco cigarettes and considered ways they could
capture the cannabis market, despite repeated public denials of interest in cannabis. We are in the business of relaxing people who
are tense and providing a pick up for people who are bored or depressed, reads one Philip Morris top management memo from 1970. The
human needs that our product fills will not go away. Thus, the only real threat to our business is that society will find other means of satisfying
these needs. Another report to the British tobacco industries from 1976 noted, There is an obvious danger that, if more restrictions are
placed on tobacco and if the marijuana habit notches up further small advances in legality, many people may switch from one to the other in
their search for a form of escape from our neurotic civilization. Of course, we have seen more restrictions on tobacco and its rapid decline in
use by Americans, especially young people, who are now more likely to have tried marijuana than cigarettes. The 1976 memo even noted that
Marijuana supporters would claim that was a net improvement from the health aspect, and warned that tobacco companies marketing
marijuana cigarettes would be extremely bad public relations, because the goal of minimizing the health risks of cigarettes would be entirely
defeated if tobacco were productively and commercially equated with marijuana. The researchers conclude that the tobacco
companies are prepared to enter the marijuana market with the intention of increasing its already
widespread use, echoing Kevin Sabets favorite talking point on the threat of Big Marijuana.
*P+olicymakers and public health authorities, the researchers explain, should develop and implement
policies that would prevent the tobacco industry from becoming directly involved in the burgeoning
marijuana market Well, we couldnt agree more on that; why let stodgy old Philip Morris dominate the
marijuana industry when we can build a shiny new marijuana industry that benefits our consumers
and producers while protecting the public from the kinds of abuses wrought by Big Tobacco? Weve
already agreed to advertising and storefront regulations more restrictive than retail restrictions on
pornography. Our industry organizations are leading the charge in promoting effective child-proof
packaging and labeling. And, of course, nothing our Big Marijuana industry could do would ever match the
devastation to society wrought by todays Big Marijuana -- the Mexican cartels, violent criminals and street-
dealing kids running the current market. The fact is that the state-by-state marijuana legalization that is
unfolding is precisely the kind of incubator for a distributed, competitive, well-regulated marijuana
market and an insulator from multi-national tobacco corporations this paper is calling for. So long as
marijuana is federally illegal, no Big Tobacco company can get involved without becoming bait for the next federal prosecutor looking to haul
them into court, where they havent been very successful lately. State laws on residency and investment are producing
brand-new millionaires and increased tax revenues and jobs for the people of the states that pass
these legalization initiatives, not for multi-national tobacco companies that avoid paying taxes by
moving jobs and assets offshore. If you really want to hurt Big Tobacco, legalize marijuana.

Midterms
1ar impact
Terrorism turns trade
Koh, Singapore Management University economics and social science professor, 2007
(William, Terrorism and its impact on economic growth and technological innovation Technological
Forecasting and Social Change, 74.2, February, Science Direct, ldg)
Impact on trade flows and technological diffusion For countries that are situated close to the technological frontier, innovation and
the development of new technologies is one of the prime drivers of economic growth for advanced industrial countries. However, for countries that are situated far
away on the technological frontier, foreign direct investment and trade are the main mechanisms for transmitting leading edge technologies and business practices
among countries. The concern here is that the war on terrorism would adversely impact trade flows, as costlier airfreight
and longer processing times at customs increase the cost of trade. While there is little evidence so far to suggest that cross-
border investment flows globally have slowed down in the wake of global terrorism, if the reduction in investment flows becomes
significant, it could slow down the diffusion of technology and impede technological advancement as
well as economic growth. Nonetheless, as national efforts are focused on fighting terrorism, it will lead to greater international collaboration on the sharing
of technological developments. Increased border controls or immigration restrictions may also impede the flow of
labor and technical talents. The just-in-time supply chain management system, commonly practiced nowadays for most industries, depends to a
large degree on the efficiency of border crossings. The introduction of comprehensive controls at the national borders due
to heightened terrorism concerns could lead to a slowdown in the movement of tradeable goods. If this
becomes substantial, it could have a negative effect on economic growth and on innovation.
1ar a2: cir
No immigration reform
Liasson 9/9 (Mara, NPR, In An Era Of Gridlock, Does Controlling The Senate Really Matter?,
http://www.npr.org/2014/09/09/347144865/in-an-era-of-gridlock-does-controlling-the-senate-really-matter)
Republicans are increasingly confident that when this year's midterm elections are over, they will control both houses of
Congress. But in this period of polarization and gridlock, what difference would it make? This midterm
election doesn't seem to be about anything in particular other than whether you like President Obama or not. There's no overarching issue, no
clashing national agendas. Instead, it's just a series of very expensive, brutally negative races for Congress. "I'm not so sure it's going to be a
referendum on anything, but what it is all about, I would respectfully suggest, is who controls the Senate for the next two years," says former
Democratic Senate aide Jim Manley. And that's about it. It's all about who controls the Senate. The House is not
expected to change hands. But, since nothing much happens in the Senate now under a narrow Democratic
majority, why would anything be different under a narrow Republican majority? President Obama tried to
answer that question on Sunday's Meet the Press. He said the fate of his agenda on issues like the minimum wage, equal
pay and infrastructure funding hangs in the balance if he doesn't have at least one chamber of Congress
making his arguments . "I know that given the gridlock that we've seen over the last couple years, it's easy to say that these midterms
don't matter. But the fact of the matter is that on every issue that's important to middle-class Americans,
overwhelmingly we're seeing a majority prefer the Democratic option," Obama said. From the Republican
point of view, stopping that Democratic agenda would be a positive outcome. Scott Reed, senior political
strategist at the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, says a lot would change with a Republican Senate. "I wouldn't go as far as to call it a mandate, but
I'd call it a step in the right direction, and I think the press will be forced to cover it as ... a repudiation of the president's leadership style, and
thus it will be a new day," Reed says. "The president and the White House team will be focused on legacy, legacy, legacy, and there will be an
opportunity to try to get some things done that are good for the country." Those things might include compromises on immigration or energy,
for example. But so far, the Republican leadership hasn't laid out a governing agenda. Last week, the Wall Street Journal editorial page implored
the GOP to run a campaign that is about more than attacking Obama. Minority Leader Mitch McConnell has begun talking about
what he'd do as majority leader in the Senate. In remarks at a private meeting with the Koch brothers that were reportedly
leaked to a liberal-leaning YouTube channel called the Undercurrent, McConnell laid out an aggressive agenda. He said, "We're going to go after
them" on health care, on financial services, on the Environmental Protection Agency, across the board. He goes on to say he will
place riders on spending bills that only need 50 votes to pass . That strategy would set up a series of
confrontations with the president . "There will be an opportunity to pass some bills ... and send them
to the president, where he will have the opportunity to either veto them or not," Reed says. In addition
to veto fights, there would be other changes. Republicans would get more oversight of the Obama
administration, the White House would get more subpoenas. "Just imagine all the subpoenas that former Secretary
Clinton would have to deal with over the next two years under such a scenario," former aide Manley says. "For me, it's nothing short of a
nightmare." If Republicans overreach and let the Tea Party call the shots, Obama might be able to do what other presidents have done when
they lost control of Congress: turn the tables. Former Obama White House aide Stephanie Cutter doesn't exactly see a silver lining for
Democrats if they lose the Senate. But, she says, "If Republicans win control of the Senate, there is opportunity. ... Hopefully if they come to
table we could get something done." She adds, "If they decide not to do that, then the opportunity is to really show the difference in agenda
and vision for this country between Democrats and Republicans." So if the Senate changes hands, one thing won't
change: gridlock. Perhaps more dramatic and clarifying than the gridlock we have today, but gridlock
all the same. And it will set the table for the 2016 presidential elections

1ar gop lose (:50)

Dems will win momentum
Easley, PoliticsUSA, 9-16-14 (Jason, Momentum Has Shifted With Two New Models Showing
Democrats Favored To Keep The Senate, http://www.politicususa.com/2014/09/16/momentum-
shifted-models-showing-democrats-favored-senate.html, accessed 9-17-14, CMM)
Momentum is shifting as the nation moves closer to Election Day. Two new models give Democrats a
better than fifty percent chance of keeping control of the US Senate. The Washington Posts Election
Lab model has Democrats as a 51% favorite to keep the Senate. According to The Post, here is what changed,
* Colorado: On Aug. 27 the last time I wrote a big piece on the model Election Lab said Sen. Mark Udall (D) had a 64
percent chance of winning. Today he has a 94 percent chance. * Iowa: Two weeks ago, the model gave
state Sen. Joni Ernst (R) a 72 percent chance of winning. Today she has a 59 percent chance. * Kansas:
Republican Sen. Pat Robertss reelection race wasnt even on the radar on Aug. 27. Today, Election Lab
predicts that he has just a 68 percent chance of winning. Princeton professor Charles Wangs model gives
Democrats a 70% chance of keeping control of the Senate. While the modeling for presidential elections has come a
long way, the same cant be said for other lower profile contests. Models are only as good as the polling data that they are based on. Inaccurate
polls will lead to inaccurate models, but what is clear is that momentum has shifted in the battle for control of the
US Senate. Republican candidates are greatly underperforming expectations in North Carolina,
Michigan, Arkansas, and Iowa. The Republican Party was feeling good about their chances of
defeating Democratic incumbents in Arkansas, Louisiana, and North Carolina, but it very possible that
they could lose two or even all three elections. The models all agree that Republicans will hold on to Senate seats in
Kentucky and Georgia, however Democrats might not need to pick up a Republican controlled seat to keep the
Senate. Models are an aggregate snapshot of the current electoral landscape. The picture can and will change in
the weeks ahead. Momentum has shifted, as the Democratic bid to keep the Senate has gotten stronger.

1ar biodiversity
Watershed protection key to freshwater biodiversity- US is key
Master et al, Nature Serve chief zoologist, 98
(Lawrence, PhD in Biological Sciences from the University of Michigan, 20 years with The Nature
Conservancy, and Stephanie R. Flack, Nature Conservancy Potomac River project director, and Bruce A.
Stein, Climate Change Adaptation National Advocacy Center director, "Rivers of Life," 1998,
www.natureserve.org/library/riversoflife.pdf)

Hidden beneath the shimmering surface of our nations rivers and lakes is an extraordinary variety of aquatic
creatures, largely unseen and unfamiliar to most of us. Though we are a nation devoted to the beauty and recreational values of our streams, creeks, and
rivers, few of us know that U.S. streamlife is exceptional on a global level, even compared with the tropics. This
remarkable freshwater diversity should be a source of great national pride. Instead, it is a source of grave concern. Rivers and lakes are the
circulatory system of our nation. These ecosystems furnish a variety of services, from clean drinking water and recreational
opportunities to transportation and food. The very quality of our lives, and freshwater species survival, is tied to their health. Our Aquatic Impoverishment Inhabitants of freshwater ecosystems have, as a whole, suffered far more
than plants and animals dependent on upland habitats such as forests and prairies. Although the plight of salmon in the Pacific Northwest and New England is widely recognized, this report focuses on the many other freshwater
species groups that are in dire straits: Two-thirds of the nations freshwater mussels are at risk of extinction, and almost 1 in 10 may already have vanished forever. Half of all crayfish species are in jeopardy. Freshwater fishes and
amphibians are doing little better, with about 40 percent of the species in these groups at risk. These losses are not confined to urban areas or to a specific region of the country. Aquatic systems are under stress nationwide, with
the largest number of imperiled species found in the Southeast. Arid western states have fewer species, but a greater proportion of them are at risk of extinction. These dramatic declines in freshwater animal species are due
primarily to the intensive human useand abuseof their habitats. Two centuries of dam construction, water withdrawals, land-use alterations, pollution, and introductions of non-native species have caused accelerated and, in
many cases, irreparable losses of freshwater species. Rivers are affected by, and reflect, the condition of the lands through which they travel. Since the Clean Water Act became law in 1972, the United States has made great strides
in improving water quality by controlling end of pipe pollution, but nonpoint source pollutionpolluted and sediment-laden runoff from urban and rural areasis still a major problem. Freshwater species and habitats provide a
wealth of goods and services to humanity. Nearly a billion people worldwide rely on fishes as their primary source of protein. In 1990, the total global harvest of freshwater fish was valued at $8.2 billion; the value of the U.S.
freshwater sport fishery in 1991 was nearly twice that, with direct expenditures totaling approximately $16 billion. And these figures do not reflect the immense worth of ecological services provided by freshwater systems, such as
flood control. Watersheds: A Practical Approach to Conservation Given the fluid nature of water, protecting aquatic biodiversity is no easy task. Human activities directly upslope, or even miles upstream, may affect streamlife in
another place. Many concerned citizens know that watershedsnatural drainage basinsare critical for addressing water-related issues, from protecting drinking
water to conserving freshwater species. But which watersheds should be priorities for conservation attention? Where should we allocate scarce conservation resources to protect freshwater
species and ecosystems? Although at-risk freshwater species can be assessed at the level of states or large regional watersheds, Rivers of Life: Critical Watersheds for Protecting Freshwater Biodiversity presents the first analysis to
define conservation priorities on a scale that is practical for action. Approximately 2,100 small watersheds cover the continental United States. These small watershed areas reflect a scale appropriate for planning and carrying out
conservation actions. Using information from natural heritage data centers and other sources, this report identifies the 15 percent of these small watershed areas that will conserve populations of all freshwater fish and mussel
species at risk in the United States. These watersheds form a blueprint for where targeted conservation actions could provide
the greatest benefit for the largest number of vulnerable freshwater fish and mussel species. Rivers of Life Protecting and restoring priority
watersheds will take creativity, commitment, and the involvement of local communities. The returns from such efforts will benefit not only the rich diversity of fishes and other aquatic life but the human communities themselves.
The art and science of aquatic conservation are exemplified by work under way in eight of these critical watersheds. Ranging from the meandering Altamaha in Georgia to the upper Verde River of Arizona, these watersheds, which
are profiled in the following pages, reflect the importance of local action and community-level partnerships in saving freshwater species and ecosystems. A Global Center of Freshwater Biodiversity: The United States The decline of
salmon populations in the Pacific Northwest and New England is the focus of great public attention, investment, and debate. Few people recognize, however, what an astonishing abundance of other life forms also inhabits our
nations streams, rivers, and lakes. Mostly hidden from view, these creatures go largely unnoticed and unappreciated. Colorful and whimsical names hint at the diversity and beauty living beneath these waters: Wabash pigtoe
mussel, dromedary pearly mussel, white catspaw pearly mussel, warpaint shiner, Devils Hole pupfish, and frecklebelly madtom. Worthy of these epithets, many freshwater species display complex and intriguing lifestyles that have
evolved as adaptations to their watery world. Consider the orangenacre mucket (Lampsilis perovalis). As adults, these mussels are unable to move a significant distance. How, then, can they colonize new habitat, especially
upstream areas? The orangenacre mucket employs a sophisticated ruse to get help from passing fishes in moving its young around. The female mussel creates a fishing lure, using her offspring as bait. 1 The larval offspring are
packaged at the end of a jelly-like tube, which can stretch up to eight feet. Dancing in the current of rocky riffles, the end of this tube bears a striking resemblance to a minnow. When a fish takes the bait, the tube shatters and
releases the larvaecalled glochidiainto the stream. A few are able to attach themselves to the gills of the duped fish, where they absorb nutrients from the host and continue their development. After a week or two the mussel
larvae drop off their mobile incubator, settling to a new home on the stream bottom. Found only in rivers and creeks in the Mobile River basin of Alabama, populations of the orangenacre mucket have declined precipitously, and
the mussel is now federally listed as endangered. The orangenacre muckets reproductive strategy illustrates the complex web of interactions and interdependencies within freshwater ecosystems. Mussel and fish are linked, and
both require suitable conditions for survival: the right water flow, clarity, temperature, oxygen levels, and substrate. Unfortunately, the odds are now against a young mussel settling into such suitable habitat. Despite these
intricate dependenciesor perhaps because of theman astounding array of mussels, fishes, and other organisms has evolved to
populate the fresh waters of our country. Indeed, the United States stands out as a global center of freshwater
biodiversity. Fresh Waters Run Rich Rivers and lakes cover less than 1 percent of the Earths surface; by volume these fresh waters amount to just 0.01 percent of the worlds total water. The remainder is marine
(97.5 percent), permanently frozen, or in aquifers beneath the ground surface. 2 Despite their slight significance in surface area and volume, rivers and lakes harbor at least 12 percent of the worlds known animal species, including
41 percent (8,400 species) of all known fishes. 3 Considering the rate at which scientists are discovering previously unknown species, freshwater fishes may actually constitute more than half of all vertebrate species on Earth. 2 This
diversity of freshwater life is not randomly distributed around the globe. The tropics, especially rainforests, are
widely recognized as centers of species diversity. Few people realize, however, that the United States is a world center of freshwater
species diversity (Table 1). Although most of the worlds freshwater fish species are tropical, the United States, with 801 species, ranks seventh among
countries in the world in recorded fish speciesafter Brazil, Venezuela, Indonesia, China, Zaire, and Peru. 4,5 In contrast, only 193 freshwater fish species are
known from all the countries of Europe and 188 species from the continent of Australia. 6 The United States harbors an impressive diversity
of freshwater species in comparison with most other countries. For several groups of organisms the United
States ranks first in the number of known species. Freshwater invertebrates are in general less well studied than fishes, a l though g roups such a s mol lusks , crayfishes, and
some aquatic insects are sufficiently well known to allow for meaningful global comparisons. These invertebrates also reveal the extraordinary diversity of Americas fresh waters. The United States is home to three-fifths of the
worlds known crayfishes, 96 percent of which occur no place else. 7,8 Almost one-third (approximately 300 species) of all known freshwater mussels occur in the United States. 7,9 By comparison, China has only 38 known mussel
species, India has 54, and the rivers of Europe and Africa have only 10 and 56 species, respectively. 10 The United States is also comparatively rich in freshwater snails and in an unusual assemblage of freshwater invertebrates
called stygobites, which are restricted to life underground. 11-15 Although freshwater insects are less well known worldwide, again the United States ranks first among countries in described species for three relatively well-studied
groups: stoneflies, mayflies, and caddisflies.