1NC

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

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

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

What the United States means is a prerequisite to policy debates.

Family Guardian Fellowship 9 AN INVESTIGATION INTO THE MEANING OF THE TERM
"UNITED STATES", http://famguardian.org/subjects/Taxes/ChallJurisdiction/Definitions/freemaninvestigation.htm
I doubt if many Americans have ever given a second thought to the meaning of the term United States, or would
believe that it could be a perplexing question. It would have my vote, however, as being by far the most important
and controversial word (or term) of art, vocabula artis also referred to as a statute term, leading word (or term), or what the French call parol de ley,
technical word of law in all American legal writings as well as the most dangerous. For it is ambivalent, equivocal, and ambiguous.
Indeed, as you will see, its use in the law exemplifies patent ambiguity, which is defined as: An ambiguity apparent on face of instrument [sic] and arising by reason of
any inconsistency or inherent uncertainty of language used so that effect is either to convey no definite meaning or confused meaning. (Black's Law Dictionary, 6th
edition. Emphasis added.) Reading Hamlet in the park this afternoon, I chanced on to an intriguing way to put it. In the words of King Claudius: The harlot's cheek,
beautified with plast ring art, Is not more ugly to the thing that helps it Than is my deed to my most painted word. O heavy burden! (III, I, 51-54. Emphasis added.)
The editor, Harold Jenkins, in his notes on painted says: " fair but false in appearance, like the beauty of the painted cheek." What serendipity to find this, just as I am
on my final proofing of this paper. It is so appropriate, to describe how 'United States' usually is used by the government. And
it has indeed imposed on us all a heavy burden ! With dogged determination and perseverance, however, one can succeed in seeing through this meticulous and
painstakingly contrived duplicity. For, fortunately, Congress must define all terms that it uses in a particular and special way. For example, in the Internal Revenue
Code (IRC), chapter 79 Definitions, Section 7701 Definitions, it states: "(a) When used in this title, where not otherwise distinctly expressed or manifestly
incompatible with the intent thereof " It goes on, then, to define many terms of art. These definitions apply throughout the code, "where not otherwise distinctly
expressed" which will sometimes be done for a single chapter, section, subsection, or even sentence which, you will later see, can be very instructive. I fear that such
analysis can be tedious, and for this I apologize. I will try to be as pithy and compendious as possible, but I am not writing merely to express opinions; I am writing to
prove the points I discuss. And I will worry a question like a bull dog, until I am satisfied that I have presented enough hard data to conclusively establish my

particular contention, especially in the eyes of those of a different persuasion. For there are intelligent and respected researchers, for whom I have the greatest regard,

The history of the usage

of United States, from the time of the American colonies to the present, is remarkably complex. This is thoroughly investigated in an easy-reading
who do not agree, for example, with my interpretation of the meaning of 'United States' in Title 26, as well as in all the other titles.

yet scholarly book that I highly recommend, by Sebastian de Gracia, A Country With No Name, Pantheon, 1997. Herein, however, I will have occasion to avail myself
of virtually nothing from this wonderful tome. When I think of this, it astonishes even me. But my

focus is primarily on the relevance of this

term as it relates to the law, especially tax law, to which he simply doesn t allude at least in the way I do. Before getting started, let me give you just a
hint as to why it is so extremely important to have an absolutely correct interpretation of the term United States, but
also, in the two quotes below, nonresident alien, and gross income. This preview is an important section from the IRC, which is Title 26, also written in cites as 26
United States Code or 26 USC, Section (the symbol or, often, as in this paper, these are omitted) 872 Gross income: (a) General rule. In the case of a nonresident alien
individual gross income includes only (1) gross income which is derived from sources within the United States and which is not effectively connected with the
conduct of a trade or business within the United States, and (2) gross income which is effectively connected with the conduct of a trade or business within the United
States Add to this 26 USC 7701(b)(1)(B): An individual is a nonresident alien if such individual is neither a citizen of the United States nor a resident of the United
States and I think you will agree that the cardinal conundrum here indeed the very crux is the determination as to what is meant by the term "United States" and,
above, nonresident alien. For, under certain circumstances we see that the nonresident alien is not subject to any federal income tax if his relationship to the United
States is of a certain nature. The

United States is an abstraction given substantiality when delegated duties began to be

performed, and when 1:8:17 of the Constitution was implemented, which provided for land for the seat of government, as well as forts, magazines, arsenals,
dockyards, and other needful buildings.

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

2
Obamas position on treaties is a wait and see approach- the plan shatters treaty
cred
Bennett and Walsh 10/14 Wells C. Bennett is a Fellow in National Security Law at the Brookings
Institution and Managing Editor of Lawfare AND John Walsh is a Senior Associate at the Washington Office on
Latin America (WOLA), focused on drug policy reforms that protect human rights, public health and public safety.
His work has contributed to the recent opening of the hemispheric debate on drug policy Marijuana Legalization is
an Opportunity to Modernize International Drug Treaties October,
http://www.brookings.edu/~/media/research/files/reports/2014/10/15-marijuana-legalization-modernize-drugtreaties-bennett-walsh/cepmmjlegalizationv4.pdf

United States enforcement discretion under the drug treaties might be drawn precisely, we know that such discretion by definition cannot be an
federal tolerance of regulated, comprehensive marijuana markets established by state law. And
thats just it: if more states take a legalize-and-regulate approach, a federal-level decision not to prosecute similarly situated persons
could start to look like blanket non-enforcement of implementing legislationsomething that , in our view, the drug treaties
do not contemplate. The prospect of future marijuana regulation raises a second, more fundamental reason to rethink things: the nations experiment with legalizing and regulating marijuana might actually go well.
Wherever the limits of the

across-the-board, categorical affair, when the issue is

Suppose Colorado and Washington both operate their regulated marijuana markets smartly, without offending federal enforcement prerogatives, andmost importantly without compromising public health and safety. We dont think
this is a fanciful or improbable scenario. Our Brookings colleague John Hudak was the first to examine Colorados implementation effort up close. And he tentatively concluded that so far, the states initial rollout has been imperfect
but quite effective.39 If this path continues or even bends towards improvement, then other states may soon elect to follow Washington and Colorados lead. And that, in turn, stands to exacerbate an already visible tension between

if Colorado and Washington augur a real

trend , then the costs to the United States of treaty breach could be swiftly ratcheted upwards . The INCB could
raise the volume and severity of its criticisms; we wouldnt be surprised to hear protests from more prohibitionist
countries about the United States treaty compliance, or to see other nations start pushing the limits of other no less important treaties
to which the United States is party. When some or all of this happens, the United States wont get very far in emphasizing the CSAs theoretical application nationwide, subject to enforcement priorities
obligations imposed by the drug treaties, and the federal governments enforcement posture towards legalizing states. To put the point another way,

enunciated in the Cole Memo; or in appealing to larger objectives woven throughout the drug treaties, and their conferral of policy flexibility. What if twenty or thirty states successfully establish, and police, regulated markets for

The U nited S tates was aif

not the key protagonist in developing the 1961, 1971, and 1988 Conventions, as well as the 1972 protocol amending the 1961 Convention; the United
States has for decades been widely and correctly viewed as the treaties chief champion and defender .40 That fact feeds back
onto this one: The U nited S tates also occupies a singular place in international relations. It can summon powers no other nation
can summon, but it also confronts risks no other nation confronts.41 For that oft-cited reason, the United States has a profound interest
in ensuring that counterparties perform their treaty obligations. Reciprocity is always a big deal for any nation that
trades promises with other onesbut it is perhaps uniquely so for ours . These factors mean that caution is in order regarding international law and the
marijuana production and sale? Having that scenario in mind, we lastly emphasize the United States unique relationship both to the drug treaties and to the wider international community.

viability of the Cole Memo in the longer run. If the United States can flexibly interpret the drug treaties with regard to marijuana, then Mexico is entitled to no lessthough it might view the limits of its flexibility differently, or
apply it to another controlled substance within the treaties purview. Or imagine that a foreign nations controversial policy butts up against seemingly contrary language, in a treaty covering an extremely important global issue other
than drug control. Likely the United States will have a tougher time objecting when, rather than conceding the problem or changing course, that nations foreign ministry invokes the need to tolera[te] different national approaches;
or recasts the relevant treaty as a living document subject to periodic, unilateral reinterpretation. This is not to suggest that compliance challenges or complexity should always trigger a call to reshape the United States treaty
commitments. Practice and prudence both support a more nuanced, case-specific approach than that. Sometimes the United States has sought to make significant adjustments to multilateral frameworks or even quit them; other times,
the United States has weighed costs and benefits, and pressed on within the treaty despite consequential breachesin situations much more obvious (and less open to reasonable contention) than that regarding marijuana. But in those
instances, the United States compliance failures often have come despite some hard striving by the federal government. The State Department, to name one well known example, tries mightily to make state law enforcement officers
aware of the United States obligations under the Vienna Convention on Consular Relationsnotwithstanding some repeated and well-known violations of that treaty by the likes of Texas, Virginia, and Arizona.42 In this case, though,
no external factorsfederalism, say, or a contrary ruling from the U.S. Supreme Courthave frustrated a strong push by the executive branch to vindicate the drug treaties; the decision not to assert federal supremacy was in fact

The Cole Memo nevertheless establishes at least some friction

with a treaty obligation, by holding back on CSA enforcement, so as to accommodate state-level regulation of
marijuana. Again, the reasons why are entirely understandable: given the incipient nature of the changes to which the Cole Memo was reacting, the U nited S tates essentially opted to take
a wait-and-see approach as to how problematic the treaty questions might become. So far as we are aware, this strategy is
without precedent in U.S. treaty practice. The U nited S tates should approach it carefully and deliberatively, given the
countrys outsized interest in reciprocal performance of treaty obligations. That depends in part on being able to
credibly call out other nations for treaty failingssomething which in turn depends on strictly performing our
own obligations , or at least making a good show of trying hard to do so before coming up short. Again, we think the U nited S tates can sustain the status quo in
the short term. But todays model likely wont hold up year in and year out, for the reasons we describe above. The government therefore ought
taken unilaterally by the Obama administration. Given the circumstances, we believe it was the correct decision.

to start thinking about some of the fundamental treaty reforms that its public statements seemingly have downplayed. Better to have weighed such options early on,
should existing policys downsides start to overtake its upsidesas we predict they could.

Key to manage existential threats

Graeme P. Herd 10, Head of the International Security Programme, Co-Director of the International Training
Course in Security Policy, Geneva Centre for Security Policy, 2010, Great Powers: Towards a cooperative
competitive future world order paradigm?, in Great Powers and Strategic Stability in the 21st Century, p. 197-198

Given the absence of immediate hegemonic challengers to the US (or a global strategic catastrophe that could trigger US precipitous
decline), and the need to cooperate to address pressing strategic threats - the real question is what will be the nature of
relations between these Great Powers ? Will global order be characterized as a predictable interdependent oneworld system , in which shared strategic threats create interest-based incentives and functional benefits which drive
cooperation between Great Powers? This pathway would be evidenced by the emergence of a global security agenda based on nascent
similarity across national policy agendas . In addition. Great Powers would seek to cooperate by strengthening
multilateral partnerships in institutions (such as the UN, G20 and regional variants), regimes (e.g., arms control, climate and
trade), and shared global norms, including international law . Alternatively, Great Powers may rely less on institutions,
regimes and shared norms, and more on increasing their order-producing managerial role through geopolitical-bloc
formation within their near neighborhoods. Under such circumstances, a re-division of the world into a competing
mercantilist nineteenth-century regional order emerges 17 World order would be characterized more by hierarchy and
balance of power and zero-sum principles than by interdependence. Relative power shifts that allow a return to multipolarity - with three or
more evenly matched powers - occur gradually. The transition from a bipolar in the Cold War to a unipolar moment in the post-Cold War has been crowned,
according to Haass, by an era of non-polarity, where power is diffuse "a world dominated not by one or two or even several states but rather by dozens of actors

Multilateralism is on the rise , characterized by a combination of stales and

international organizations, both influential and talking shops, formal and informal ("multilateralism light"). A dual system of
possessing and exercising various kinds of power"18

global governance has evolved. An embryonic division of labor emerges, as groups with no formal rules or permanent structures coordinate policies and immediate
reactions to crises, while formal treaty-based institutions then legitimize the results.'9 As powerfully advocated by Wolfgang Schauble: Global

cooperation
is the only way to master the new, asymmetric global challenges of the twenty-first century. No nation can manage these tasks on its own,
nor can the entire international community do so without the help of non-state, civil society actors. We must work together to find appropriate security policy
responses to the realities of the twenty-first century.20 Highlighting the emergence of what he terms an "interpolar" world - defined as "multipolarity in an age of
interdependence" Grevi suggests that managing

existential interdependence in an unstable multipolar world is the key.21 Such

complex interdependence generates shared interest in cooperative solutions, meanwhile driving convergence,
consensus and accommodation between Great Powers.22 As a result, the multilateral system is being adjusted to reflect
the realities of a global age - the rise of emerging powers and relative decline of the West: "The new priority is to maintain a
complex balance between multiple states."23 The G20 meeting in London in April 2009 suggested that great and rising powers will reform global financial
architecture so that it regulates and supervises global markets in a more participative, transparent and responsive manner: all countries have contributed to the crisis;
all will be involved in the solution.24

3
PC is effectively preventing sanctions, but its close
Trita Parsi 2/4, Trita Parsi is the author of A Single Roll of the Dice: Obamas Diplomacy with Iran, and
president of the National Iranian American Council. The opinions expressed here are those of the author, "Tehran
shouldn't underestimate Obama's abilities," Japan Times,
http://www.japantimes.co.jp/opinion/2015/02/04/commentary/world-commentary/tehran-shouldnt-underestimateobamas-abilities/#.VNUcXfnF8Xg, DOA: 2-6-2015, y2k
changes to the political landscape
should prompt Iran to reevaluate
Obamas abilities
Historically, no piece of legislation passes as easily in Congress as an Iran sanctions bill
many Democratic lawmakers
would abandon the president
But Obama stood firm. Rather than seek a
compromise
he threatened a veto
The
threat worked only two
senators have co-sponsored the
bill Unless sanctions supporters manage to get
at least 14 Democrats
they cannot override Obamas veto
senators who
supported a similar measure
who have
been very close to A I P A C
have refrained from sponsoring the bill The president strongly believes it would harm
negotiations
Even more shocking
was Clintons backing of Obama
But the doubters in Tehran should take note. Some extraordinary

in the U.S. have occurred that

. A few weeks ago, new sanctions on Iran were on the fast track in the new Republican Senate. The measure would, at a minimum, undermine the nuclear talks, at most cause their collapse. On paper, Obama was heavily outgunned.

. The Republican-controlled Congress has no time or patience for either

Obama or his chats with Iranian nuclear negotiators, so sabotaging the talks and depriving the president of a much needed foreign policy success was a no-brainer. And mindful of Israeli pressure in favor of sanctions,
likely

and side with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu instead, it was predicted.

with the Senate,

and warned it about the consequences of sabotaging the talks. The American people expect us to only go to war as a last resort, and I intend to stay true to that wisdom, he said.

. So far

Democratic

new sanctions

to commit to the measure,

last year and

and will only embarrass themselves trying. Perhaps more importantly,

historically

Democrat) and Cory Booker (a New Jersey Democrat),

the

merican

srael

ublic

ffairs

ommittees position on Iran, such as Kirsten Gillibrand (a New York

gravely

, and therefore, I am willing to give him more time before supporting this bill, Gillibrand told CNN.

, perhaps,

Hillary

in this

contest. In the midst of preparations for her presumed 2016 presidential run, Clinton came out against both AIPAC and Netanyahu and called the sanctions bill a very serious strategic error. Undoubtedly, the issue took on an even greater partisan dimension when House Speaker John
Boehner secretly invited Netanyahu to address Congress on this matter, which in turn added pressure on Clinton to close ranks with Obama. But for Clinton to come out and so strongly back Obama at a time when she has sought to distance herself from his foreign policy cannot be

Obama has succeeded in changing the underlying politics of the matter The debate over
sanctions is
about war with Iran
Passing sanctions on Iran used to be the safest political move
But today imposing sanctions
carries a tremendous political cost
This is not to suggest that Obama has taken
control over the process
That authority remains in the hands of Congress But
Obama
can redefine what is politically feasible and unfeasible
explained solely by partisan solidarity. Rather,

no longer about Iran, but

Iran

. Diplomacy with Iran is the best way of avoiding both a nuclear Iran, and bombing Iran. Any measure that undermines diplomacy, such as new sanctions, automatically enhances the

risk of war.

in Congress.

move that

means supporting war, which is a

. So high that Clinton chose to come out against AIPAC and Netanyahu instead.

of lifting sanctions.

what the recent wrangling in Congress shows is that

. Two years ago, anyone who suggested that Congress would fail to impose new sanctions on Iran would be lucky not to be committed to a mental

institution. Those advocating diplomacy over sanctions were in the political margins. Today, diplomacy is the policy, while sanctions proponents are considered extremists. Tehran should be careful not to base its negotiation calculations on yesteryears political realities.

Plan wrecks PC with the dems---destroys democratic unity

John Hudak 14, Senior Fellow @ Brookings, Harry Reid Should Love Marijuana: How Legalization Could
Keep the Senate Blue, 8-20-14, http://www.brookings.edu/blogs/fixgov/posts/2014/08/20-harry-reid-marijuanakeep-the-senate-blue-hudak, DOA: 1-23-15, y2k
Nevertheless, marijuana legalization efforts are quite different than 2004 same sex marriage initiativeseven beyond the nature of the issues
themselves. Same sex marriage initiatives were pushed by the Republican Party in 2004. Efforts in the White House, Congress, and in statehouses
drove such initiatives and the political planning around them. On the other hand, the Democratic Party is not spearheading

legalization efforts. In fact, there are many factions of the Democratic Party still quite resistant to legalization. Instead,
legalization supporters are the ones pushing legalization initiatives. They compose an odd combination of liberal Democrats, libertarian and
conservative Republicans, and apathetic moderates. In many ways, Democratic Party institutions are still not ready or too timid to

spearhead legalization movements. And frankly, legalization supporters would likely resist such party control of the movementand for
good reason. Including legalization initiatives on midterm ballots would almost certainly change the composition of the electorate, but they do not
guarantee a win. In fact, the standard composition of midterm electorateswhich favors older, wealthier, and more conservative voterswill
likely discourage initiatives in many states because of the risk of failure. When a state rejects an initiative, it serves as a blow to the momentum of
that movement within the statesomething legalization supporters would prefer to avoid.

Interim deal solves prolif- sanctions wreck it

Rawan Alkhatib 12/8, WAND staff, Womens Action for New Directions, "New Sanctions on Iran Would
Undermine Diplomacy," 12-8-14, www.wand.org/2014/12/08/new-sanctions-on-iran-would-undermine-diplomacy/,
DOA: 1-23-15, y2k
New Sanctions on Iran Would Undermine Diplomacy On November 24, the deadline for the nuclear negotiations between Iran and
the P5+1 the permanent members of the UN Security Council plus Germany -- was extended for another seven months. Reacting to the
extension, a number of members of Congress are demanding harsher sanctions on Iran to, in their view, increase pressure on the
Iranians to make greater concessions. Imposing

new sanctions on Iran would violate the terms of the Joint Plan of Action -- the
interim agreement from November 2013 -- and undermine the United States role at the negotiating table. The Iranians
must believe the United States is negotiating in good faith. Otherwise, U.S. credibility will diminish and reaching a
nuclear deal with Iran that lessens the threat of nuclear prolif eration will be near impossible. Republican Senators John
McCain (AZ), Lindsey Graham (SC), and Kelly Ayotte (NH) are among those voicing the most significant opposition to the continuation of the
nuclear negotiations without additional demands on the Iranians. They argue that the failure to impose more sanctions will diminish Irans
incentive to maintain a nuclear program solely for energy rather than weapons and, in turn, set off an unbridled nuclear arms race in the Middle
East. It is hard to take their intentions at face value. Indeed, in an interview with ABC News Radio, Senator-elect Tom Cotton (R-AR) revealed
what he believes would result from this course of action: Cotton said the way to accomplish [an end to the negotiations] would be to reimpose
the economic sanctions that were relaxed as part of an interim deal with Iran so that negotiations could continue. (As part of the JPOA, the P5+1
provided modest sanctions relief to Iran in exchange for Iran freezing and rolling back aspects of its nuclear program.) One thing seems clear:
McCain, Graham, and Ayotte are not considering the political impact that renewed sanctions could have on Irans

citizens and how this might subsequently play into the negotiations. We cannot risk losing the support of ordinary Iranians who
will benefit from economic improvements once a deal is done and who would be most adversely impacted by new
sanctions. Conversely, renewing sanctions on Iran will empower Iranian hard-liners that find ways around the economic pain
while loudly calling for more aggression against the United States and for unchecked nuclear proliferation. While it was
disappointing that the sides could not come to an agreement on the self-imposed November 24 deadline, the extension to the nuclear
negotiations nonetheless represents progress. The obligations established by the JPOA are still in effect and as experts
note, nothing in the extension weakens the hands of the P5+1 to secure a final agreement. That is, Iran continues to
have curbs on its ability to produce materials for nuclear weapons and its facilities continue to be scrutinized by
international inspectors. In fact, the extension requires heightened scrutiny. Iran must expand IAEA access to
centrifuge production facilities to double the current frequency and allow for no-notice or "snap" inspections. If
Congress were to impose renewed sanctions on Iran, the progress made up to this point would likely unravel. As
Democratic Senator Dianne Feinstein (CA) argued, "A collapse of the talks is counter to U.S. interests and would further destabilize an
already volatile region." In this way, Congress needs to present a united front to crystallize the United States negotiating position.
Splintering causes the Iranians to doubt American intentions. In a highly volatile region, diplomacy with Iran is the only good
option. Moreover, engaging in meaningful dialogue with Iran is only possible when we demonstrate our own
commitment to the process by making good on our commitments under the JPOA and holding off on actions that would
undermine our position.

Iranian prolif causes regional nuclear conflict

Edelman et al 11 The Dangers of a Nuclear Iran, The Limits of Containment, Eric S. Edelman, Andrew F.
Krepinevich Jr, and Evan Braden Montgomery JANUARY/FEBRUARY 2011, ERIC S. EDELMAN is a
Distinguished Fellow at the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments; he was U.S. Undersecretary of
Defense for Policy in 2005-9. ANDREW F. KREPINEVICH is President of the Center for Strategic and Budgetary
Assessments. EVAN BRADEN MONTGOMERY is a Research Fellow at the Center for Strategic and Budgetary
Assessments, http://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/67162/eric-s-edelman-andrew-f-krepinevich-jr-and-evanbraden-montgomer/the-dangers-of-a-nuclear-iran

Yet this

view is far too sanguine. Above all, it rests on the questionable assumptions that possessing nuclear weapons induces
caution and restraint, that other nations in the Middle East would balance against Iran rather than bandwagon with it,
that a nuclear-armed Iran would respect new redlines even though a conventionally armed Iran has failed to comply

with similar warnings, and that further proliferation in the region could be avoided. It seems more likely that Iran would
become increasingly aggressive once it acquired a nuclear capability, that the United States' allies in the Middle East
would feel greatly threatened and so would increasingly accommodate Tehran, that the United States' ability to
promote and defend its interests in the region would be diminished, and that further nuclear proliferation, with all the dangers
that entails, would occur. The greatest concern in the near term would be that an unstable Iranian-Israeli nuclear
contest could emerge, with a significant risk that either side would launch a first strike on the other despite the
enormous risks and costs involved. Over the longer term, Saudi Arabia and other states in the Middle East might pursue
their own nuclear capabilities, raising the possibility of a highly unstable regional nuclear arms race.

4
Legalized marijuana tanks pharmaceutical industry
Fang 14 Lee Fang, Investigative journalist and contributor to The Nation and Salon and others and is a reporting
fellow with The Investigative Fund at The Nation Institute and has had his work result in multiple calls for hearings
in Congress and the Federal Election Commission, 9/7/14, Leading Anti-Marijuana Academics Are Paid By
Painkiller Drug Companies https://news.vice.com/article/leading-anti-marijuana-academics-are-paid-by-painkillerdrug-companies
VICE has found that many of the researchers who have advocated against legalizing pot have also been on the payroll of leading pharmaceutical

firms with

products that could be easily replaced by using marijuana. When these individuals have been quoted in the media, their drug-industry ties have
not been revealed. Take, for example, Dr. Herbert Kleber of Columbia University. Kleber has impeccable academic credentials, and has been quoted in the press and
in academic publicationswarning against the use of marijuana, which he stresses may cause wide-ranging addiction and public health issues. But when he's writing
anti-pot opinion pieces for CBS News, or being quoted by NPR and CNBC, what's left unsaid is that Kleber has served as a paid consultant to leading prescription
drug companies, including Purdue Pharma (the maker of OxyContin), Reckitt Benckiser (the producer of a painkiller called Nurofen), and Alkermes (the producer of a
powerful new opioid called Zohydro). Kleber, who did not respond to a request for comment, maintains important influence over the pot debate. For instance, his
writing has been cited by the New York State Association of Chiefs of Police in its opposition to marijuana legalization, and has been published by the American
Psychiatric Association in the organization's statement warning against marijuana for medicinal uses. Could Kleber's long-term financial relationship with drug firms

Studies have found that pot can be used for pain relief as a substitute for major
prescription painkillers. The opioid painkiller industry is a multibillion business that has faced rising criticism
from experts because painkillers now cause about 16,000 deaths a year, more than heroin and cocaine combined. Researchers view marijuana as a
safe alternative to opioid products like OxyContin, and there are no known overdose deaths from pot. Other leading academic opponents of pot
be viewed as a conflict of interest?

have ties to the painkiller industry. Dr. A. Eden Evins, an associate professor of psychiatry at Harvard Medical School, is a frequent critic of efforts to legalize
marijuana. She is on the board of an anti-marijuana advocacy group, Project SAM, and has been quoted by leading media outlets criticizing the wave of new potrelated reforms. "When people can go to a 'clinic' or 'cafe' and buy pot, that creates the perception that it's safe ," she told the
Times last year. These academic revelations add fodder to the argument that drug firms maintain quiet ties to the marijuana prohibition lobby. Notably, when Evins
participated in a commentary on marijuana legalization for the Journal of Clinical Psychiatry, the publication found that her financial relationships required a
disclosure statement, which noted that as of November 2012, she was a "consultant for Pfizer and DLA Piper and has received grant/research support from Envivo,
GlaxoSmithKline, and Pfizer." Pfizer has moved aggressively into the $7.3 billion painkiller market. In 2011, the company acquired King Pharmaceuticals (the makers
of several opioid products) and is currently working to introduce Remoxy, an OxyContin competitor. Dr. Mark L. Kraus, who runs a private practice and is a board
member to the American Society of Addiction Medicine, submitted testimony in 2012 in opposition to a medical marijuana law in Connecticut. According to financial
disclosures, Kraus served on the scientific advisory panel for painkiller companies such as Pfizer and Reckitt Benckiser in the year prior to his activism against the
medical pot bill. Neither Kraus or Evins responded to a request for comment. These academic revelations add fodder to the argument that drug firms maintain quiet
ties to the marijuana prohibition lobby. In July, I reported for the Nation that many of the largest anti-pot advocacy groups, including the Community Anti-Drug
Coalitions for America, which has organized opposition to reform through its network of activists and through handing out advocacy material (sample op-eds against
medical pot along with Reefer Madness-style videos, for example), has relied on significant funding from painkiller companies, including Purdue Pharma and
Alkermes. Pharmaceutical-funded anti-drug groups like the Partnership for Drug-Free Kids and CADCA use their budget to obsess over weed while paying lip-service
to the much bigger drug problem in America of over-prescribed opioids. As ProPublica reported, painkiller-funded researchers helped fuel America's deadly addiction
to opioids such as OxyContin and Vicodin. These academics, with quiet funding from major pain pill firms, encouraged doctors to

over-prescribe these
drugs for a range of pain relief issues, leading to where we stand today as the world's biggest consumer of painkillers
and the overdose capital of the planet. What does it say about medical academia today that many of that painkiller-funded researchers are now standing in the way
of a safer alternative : smoking a joint.

Revenue key to research and development

CBO, Congressional Budget Office, 2006,
("Research and Development in the Pharmaceutical Industry," CBO, October, Pg. 9-10, PAS)
www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/cbofiles/ftpdocs/76xx/doc7615/10-02-drugr-d.pdf 9-13-14
The pharmaceutical industry is one of the most research-intensive industries in the United States. Pharmaceutical

firms invest as much as five

times more in research and development, relative to their sales, than the average U.S. manufacturing firm.
Because increases in spending on drug R&D have been nearly matched by increases in revenue from drug sales,
the industrys R&D intensitythe ratio of research and development spending to total sales revenuehas not risen to the extent that
R&D expenditures have. Over the past 25 years, R&D intensity has grown by about 50 percent. Most of that growth occurred

in the 1980s; since then, the industrys R&D intensity has hovered around 19 percent, according to PhRMA (see Figure 2-2).10 A relatively

close
relationship exists between drug firms current R&D spending and current sales revenue for two reasons. First,
successful new drugs generate large cash flows that can be invested in R&D (their manufacturing costs are usually very low
relative to their price). Second, alternative sources of investment capitalfrom the bond and stock marketsare not perfect substitutes
for cash flow financing. Those alternative sources of capital are more expensive because lenders and prospective new shareholders require
compensation (in the form of higher returns) for the additional risk they bear compared with the firm, which has more information about the drug under
development, its current status, and its ultimate chance of success.11 The National Science Foundation also estimates that the R&D

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

Prevents disease outbreak

Lo, Progressive Media Reporter, 2014,
(Chris, "Drug prices: profits before patients?" Progressive Media, 6-9, PAS) Accessed on LexisNexis 9-10-14

A new UCL report questioning the use of off-label drugs to save money has been criticised for propping up an unfair status quo in the pharma industry. Pharma

companies charge high premiums for patented medications to recover costs, maximise profits and help fund new
R&D, but is there another way of funding high-risk research while avoiding budget-busting prices at the other end of the pipeline? The pharmaceutical
industry has been responsible for a host of medical miracles over the past century, from disease-eradicating
vaccines to revolutionary new treatments for a wide range of cancers and long-term chronic conditions like diabetes.
Research undertaken by private pharmaceutical companies and bio-tech firms, alongside public research institutions, has improved the
length and quality of millions of lives. In light of the industry's achievements, it's natural to think of it as something of a sacred cow, a special case
that should, to a certain extent, be given extra leeway to ensure it can continue bankrolling life-saving medical innovations. That status also makes it easy to forget the
price tag that comes with many of these innovations - a price tag that has been rising steadily over time. In the US, for example, annual cancer care costs are expected
to rise from $104bn in 2006 to $173bn in 2020, according to the American Society of Clinical Oncology. A major component of that increase is the rising number of
cancer diagnoses along with other factors, but with data from the Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center showing that 15 cancer treatments launched in the last five
years cost more than $10,000 a month, and many existing drugs getting pricier every year, the fact remains that the cost of innovative, patent-protected drugs is
becoming increasingly difficult for patients and cash-strapped health systems to cover.

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

Senate Majority Leader Frist describes the recent slew of emerging diseases in almost biblical terms: All of these [new diseases] were advance patrols of a great army
that is preparing way out of sight.3146 Scientists like Joshua Lederberg dont think this is mere rhetoric. He should know. Lederberg won the Nobel Prize in
medicine at age 33 for his discoveries in bacterial evolution. Lederberg went on to become president of Rockefeller University. Some people think I am being
hysterical, he said, referring to pandemic influenza, but there

are catastrophes ahead . We live in evolutionary competition with

microbes bacteria and viruses. There is no guarantee that we will be the survivors.3147 There is a concept in host-parasite evolutionary

dynamics called the Red Queen hypothesis, which attempts to describe the unremitting struggle between immune systems and the pathogens against which they fight,
each constantly evolving to try to outsmart the other.3148 The name is taken from Lewis Carrolls Through the Looking Glass in which the Red Queen instructs Alice,
Now, here, you see, it takes all the running you can do to keep in the same place.3149 Because

the pathogens keep evolving , our immune

systems have to keep adapting as well just to keep up. According to the theory, animals who stop running go extinct. So far our
immune systems have largely retained the upper hand, but the fear is that given the current rate of disease emergence,
the human race is losing the race .3150 In a Scientific American article titled, Will We Survive?, one of the worlds leading immunologists writes:
Has the immune system, then, reached its apogee after the few hundred million years it had taken to develop? Can it respond in time to the new evolutionary
challenges? These perfectly proper questions lack sure answers because we are in an utterly unprecedented situation [given the number of newly emerging

infections].3151 The research team who wrote Beasts of the Earth conclude, Considering

that bacteria, viruses, and protozoa had a more

than two-billion-year head start in this war, a victory by recently arrived Homo sapiens would be remarkable.3152
Lederberg ardently believes that emerging viruses may imperil human society itself . Says NIH medical epidemiologist David Morens,
When you look at the relationship between bugs and humans, the more important thing to look at is the bug. When an enterovirus like polio goes through
the human gastrointestinal tract in three days, its genome mutates about two percent. That level of mutationtwo percent of the
genomehas taken the human species eight million years to accomplish. So whos going to adapt to whom? Pitted against that
kind of competition, Lederberg concludes that the human evolutionary capacity to keep up may be dismissed as
almost totally inconsequential. 3153 To help prevent the evolution of viruses as threatening as H5N1, the least we can do is take away a few billion
feathered test tubes in which viruses can experiment, a few billion fewer spins at pandemic roulette.

5
The United States should legalize industrial hemp production and the importation
of hemp seeds and should cease all enforcement activities against industrial hemp.
The United States should shift drug interdiction resources toward financial
institutions and bank officials.
Solves hemp without legalizing marihuana
Caulkins et al 12 Jonathan P Stever professor of operation research and public policy @ Carnegie Mellon,
Angela Hawken Associate prof of public policy @ Pepperdine, Beau Kilmer, co-director of the RAND Drug
Research Center, and Mark AR Kleiman Prof of public policy @ UCLA; Marijuana Legalization; Oxford University
Press; p. 227-9
Could the United States allow industrial hemp without legalizing marijuana? Certainly . Many nations legalized industrial hemp
production in the 1990s while continuing prohibition of marijuana as a psychoactive drug. Different strains of cannabis-and different parts of any given plant-produce
very different levels of the plant's psychoactive agents. Typically, laws

allowing industrial hemp require the use of very-low -THC

strains (less than 1 percent or even 0.3 percent THC, compared to the 4-18 percent characteristic of cannabis produced and sold as a drug). So there's a reasonably
bold line between industrial hemp and intoxicating marijuana. But it's hard to imagine that the passionate advocacy of industrial hemp is unrelated to its link to drug
policy. Groups such as the National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws (NORML) have picked up the hemp crusade in order to claim the benefits of
industrial hemp as an advantage of marijuana legalization. Politics makes strange bedfellows, and the politics of marijuana are no exception. Oddly, the Drug
Enforcement Administration (DEA) and other advocates of

continued prohibition agree with hemp advocates in linking the

industrial hemp and drug-legalization questions. But they do so from the opposite perspective, arguing that industrial hemp should not be
legalized because it would complicate efforts to enforce prohibition against use as an intoxicant. One DEA concern is that farmers could line the outside of their fields
with low-THC (industrial) cannabis while growing high-THC (intoxicating) cannabis in the middle. Since relatively few acres would be needed to supply the
intoxicant market, allowing free cultivation of industrial hemp could indeed pose an enforcement challenge. (Even the upper estimate of s,ooo metric tons of
intoxicating cannabis consumed in the United States could be supplied by less than a third of the acreage Canada cultivates for industrial hemp.) However,
unregulated, laissez-faire production is not the only alternative to complete prohibition. Authorities

in other countries use stringent protocols

for the licensure, seed selection, and inspection of hemp operations to monitor the hemp production process.
Prospective growers have to submit substantial paperwork, complete a background check, and join a professional hemp association to become sanctioned producers.
Governments also require farmers to grow specific approved hemp varieties that fall under the THC threshold. Farms are subject to annual visits by inspectors and
sometimes to aerial surveillance. Farms are valuable assets that would be vulnerable to seizure and forfeiture if farmers were found to be producing illegal
(intoxicating) forms of cannabis. There are also purely technical barriers to hiding pot plants in fields of industrial hemp. For
example, fiber hemp plants are planted close together to encourage tall vertical stalks with few leaves. Moreover, hemp fiber is harvested early, before the intoxicantbearing flowers are ready. Marijuana grown amid industrial hemp would probably have to be the low-value, relatively lowTHe commercial grade rather than highervalue sinsemilla, because the pollen produced by the hemp plants would pollinate the drug plants. (Sinsemilla comes from unfertilized female cannabis plants.)
Indeed, some medical marijuana growers in California oppose a proposed law permitting an industrial hemp pilot project because they fear hemp pollen might ruin
their harvest. Canadian industrial hemp farmers try to ensure that their crops are at least three miles from any wild or cultivated cannabis to ensure pedigreed
hempseed production; studies show cannabis pollen can travel three to twelve miles. The really convincing evidence is negative. Like Sherlock Holmes's dog that did
not bark in the night, the absence of any reports from Europe of diversion from industrial hemp farms into the drug market argues for the success of these regulations.
In sum, while legal industrial hemp production could create a Trojan horse for the production of intoxicating marijuana, there is no real problem in creating regulations
to limit diversion.

Targeting banks solves cartel revenue

Morris 13 Evelyn Krache, Research Fellow, International Security Program, Belfer Center for Science and
International Affairs @ JFK School of Govt, Harvard, Think Again: Mexican Drug Cartels; Dec
3;www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2013/12/03/think_again_mexican_drug_cartels

"We Need to Hit Them Where It Hurts: the Wallet." Exactly. Despite

the ongoing arguments about drug legalization and border security,

the most effective way to combat the scourge of the DTOs would be to interdict not drugs or people but money. As in any
business, money is the fuel that keeps the cartels running. Even if Sinaloa, to give only one example, were to disappear tomorrow, other
organizations would quickly rise to take its slice of the lucrative pie. One of the most basic tenets of business is that highly profitable
markets attract lots of new entrants. This is true for legal and illegal enterprises alike. The staggering profits of illegal trade would be
much less attractive if the DTOs could not launder , deposit, and ultimately spend their money. But shutting down the
cartels' financial operations will be a formidable task, given the help they have had from multinational financial
institutions, which have profited from the cartels' large-dollar deposits. In 2010, Wachovia bank (which was acquired by Wells Fargo in 2008)
admitted that it had processed $378 billion of currency exchanges in Mexico -- an amount equal to about one-third of the country's
GDP -- to which it had failed to apply anti-laundering restrictions. In 2012, British bank HSBC settled with the U.S. government for
$1.9 billion to escape prosecution for, among other things, laundering hundreds of millions of dollars for the Sinaloa cartel . U.S. law
enforcement has also implicated Bank of America and Western Union in DTO money laundering. Although illegal money transfers can happen without banks'
knowledge, the volume and widespread occurrence of these transactions indicate just how easy it is for the cartels to clean their dirty money. Paying a fine to avoid
prosecution is almost no punishment at all. The fines Wachovia paid amounted to less than 2 percent of its 2009 profit. Even the record fine assessed on HSBC
amounted to only 12 percent of the bank's profits. Furthermore, banks can simply accrue funds to offset any possible fines, either by increasing what they charge
cartels or by setting aside some of the earnings from laundering, even as they continue to do business with the DTOs. Prosecuting

bank employees
involved in money laundering, up through the highest levels of an institution, would be a better tack . Pictures of a chief
compliance officer as he entered a courtroom for sentencing would have a far greater deterrent effect than any financial penalty. To that end, investigative
techniques and legal precedents for going after global criminal networks are increasingly robust , and the political
payoffs could be substantial. One of the more successful campaigns in the war on terrorism has been the financial
one; experience gained in tracking the funds of al Qaeda could make it easier to similarly unravel Los Zetas'
financing. Malfeasance in the financial industry is nothing new, but public sensitivity to banks' wrongdoing is arguably higher than it has been in decades. An
enterprising prosecutor could make quite a reputation for herself by tracking DTO money through the financial system. The cartels, along with the violence and

The
way to make progress in combating the DTOs is to ignore issues like gun control and illegal immigration and
follow the money . Stanching the cartels' profits will do more to end the bloodshed than any new fence or law.
corruption they perpetrate, are threats to both Mexico and the United States. The problem is a complicated one and taps areas of profound policy disagreement.

6
The Supreme Court of the United States should that prohibitions on and federal
Controlled Substances Act scheduling of marijuana unconstitutional.
No congress key warrant sufficient to solve
Politics is a net benefit
Intoccia, practicing attorney specializing in telecommunications, 01
[Gregory Intoccia, practicing attorney specializing in telecommunications, 2001, Reassessing Judicial Capacity to
Resolve Complex Questions of Social Policy, 11 USAFA J. Leg. Stud. 127, pg. np]
Elected politicians appear to "pass the buck" to the judiciary when an issue divides the electorate in a manner that
is not in keeping with conventional party divisions. As the judiciary is a non-partisan institution that has
traditionally resolved specific controversies, the courts offer politicians the opportunity to deflect issues potentially
disruptive to partisan debate. For example, judicial policy on abortion suggests that this principle is valid. For at
least a decade prior to the Supreme Court's abortion decision in Roe v. Wade, many mainstream politicians generally sought to
avoid the abortion issue. In the mid-1960s, the two major parties remained divided over New Deal economic issues, but voters were increasingly
interested in other issues such as law and order, race, gender equity and social lifestyles. At that time, the majority Democratic Party was divided
between liberals who were attracted to new views of social lifestyles and traditionalists who condemned them.
The Republican Party was also divided internally over these issues, but to a lesser degree. While the two parties primarily debated
economic issues, many mainstream politicians sought to avoid debate on a number of non-economic social issues. As the debate over such issues as
abortion intensified, elected officials increasingly deferred to the judiciary for resolution. In the months prior to the
Roe v. Wade decision, many politicians sought to remove themselves from the potential fall-out of a legislative
solution to the abortion question, preferring instead that the judiciary decide whether to eliminate abortion
restrictions.

Cartels

*Cartels can sell their products cheaper to compete

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

Mexican drug cartels

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

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

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

of legalization, predict it will reduce the need to rely

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

US not keyDTOs have access to global emerging markets

Carpenter 11 Ted Galen Carpenter, senior fellow for defense and foreign policy studies at the Cato Institute,
Policy Analysis, November 15, 2011, Undermining Mexicos Dangerous Drug Cartels, No. 688,
http://object.cato.org/sites/cato.org/files/pubs/pdf/PA688.pdf

U.S. demand is only one part of the equation. Even a dedicated drug warrior like Robert Bonner concedes that
point, noting that the major markets for the Mexican cartels are not just in the United States but also in Mexico itself and as
far away as Europe.29 Bonner actually understates the breadth of the problem. The Mexican organizations are taking
control of trafficking routes and gaining access to potential markets in portions of Sub-Saharan Africa and the Middle East, as
well as in Europe. Although the United States is the largest single retail market in the world, it is actually relatively mature, with
overall consumption not substantially different from what it was a decade or two decades ago. The main areas of demand
growth are in Eastern Europe, the successor states of the former Soviet Union, and some portions of the Middle East and Latin
America. According to the United Nations, there has been a noticeable increase in the consumption of opiates throughout Eastern
Europe and Central Asia, especially the former Soviet states. In Western Europe, the principal increase has been in the use of
cocaine.30 In the Middle East, even such a politically authoritarian and religiously conservative society as Iran is witnessing a surge in both drug
trafficking and drug use, especially of heroin. Several years ago, that problem had already reached the point that the Supreme Leaders representative in one province labeled drug
Yet

abuse and trafficking as Iranian societys thorniest problem.31

Legalization wont collapse cartels- institutional problems

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

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

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

we can estimate that the full elimination of the illegal marijuana

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

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

Whatever the legal

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

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

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

*Current North America oil boom sufficient

Weissman, Slate Senior Business and Econ Correspondent, 14
(Mark, Iraqs Crisis Should Make Us Thankful for Americas Oil Boom, accessed 9-6-14,
http://www.slate.com/blogs/moneybox/2014/06/21/iraq_and_oil_the_country_s_crisis_should_make_us_thankful_f
or_america_s.html, hec)

oil markets have mostly shrugged off the turmoil in Iraq. The worlds seventh largest crude producer is tearing apart at the seams thanks to sectarian
a bump, sure, but not a crisis. Why the mere blip? The most important reason prices havent surged is
straightforward enough: As of now, Iraqs oil production isnt in serious danger. Fighting has been contained to the countrys
north, while drilling is concentrated in its south. Not a single barrel of crude exports has been lost since the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (known as Isis)
routed Iraqi security forces, notes the Financial Times. But the quiet response is also a sign of something bigger. Its a subtle demonstration of how North Americas frackingfueled oil boom is paying dividends by making the world market more resilient . Energy traders always add a fear
premium onto oil. When instability (a raging civil war, for instance) hits a major petro-producer, prices race up, as buyers start to fret about
potential nightmare scenarios that would cut off their supply. In the case of Iraq, that might mean attacks on pipelines or export facilities , since
few expect Baghdad to actually fall.* Those sorts of worries are why prices have risen at all. But theyve been balanced out by the fact that, at the moment,
the world has a decent cushion of oil . There are cargoes of Angolan and Nigerian crude that nobody wants, Edward Morse, head of commodities research at
Citigroup, told CNBC. Iraqs conflict hasnt dealt a blow to the worlds oil supply yet, but we have a bit of protection if it
does.
So far,

violence, yet the cost of a barrel is up just 5 percent this month

Violence is decreasing
McVey 14 KKR Head of Global Macro & Asset Allocation, 2014, Henry, Mexico: Different Investment Lens
Required, May, http://www.kkr.com/company/insights/global-macro-trends-24

While the presidency of Pea Nietos predecessor, Felipe Calderon became defined by its bloody and ultimately indecisive struggle with the cartels, Pea Nieto entered office inclined to

The government believes that its new low-key

approach has yielded dividends as evidenced by an apparent nationwide reduction in intentional homicides in 2013.
In addition, since January 2014, Mexican security forces have moved forcefully to restore security in Michoacan, where
conditions badly deteriorated last year, and successfully carried out a succession of operations that have resulted in
the killing or capture of high-level cartel leaders . Despite some high profile successes, however, we are less bullish. While security has improved significantly
deemphasize an overt security agenda, focusing instead on the governance and economic reforms described above.

in some parts of the country (e.g., Ciudad Juarez and Monterrey)it has remained constant or deteriorated elsewhere, including not only Michoacan and neighboring Guerrero on the Pacific
coast, but also Tamaulipas and Mexico State. What we appear to be seeing is, to some extent, a redistribution of violencefrom urban to rural areas, and from the north to the center and the
south. In addition, we fear the calm in some places may be more illusory than real. Several Mexican geopolitical analysts with whom we spoke suspect the reduction in violence in some areas
does not signify the defeat of the cartels there, but rather the domination of the area by a single criminal network and its tacit agreement not to wage open war. Perhaps most worrisome for
investors should be the significant growth of kidnappingwhich has quadrupled since 200732 and of extortion, even as the number of murders may be decreasing. Ultimately, Mexicos
criminality and security problems are inseparable from its under-resourced rule of law institutionscourts, police and prisons. There is no quick or easy solution for this. While there have been
pockets of improvement, what is ultimately required is massive, long-term investment in these perennially under-resourced bodies. Although there are signs that some in the government grasp the
scope of the problem and are pushing in the right direction, including passage of the long-delayed penal code this spring, we do not yet see a comprehensive national strategy commensurate with

Although inherently difficult to quantify, Mexicos violence carries a heavy economic cost. INEGI, the
countrys national statistics office, estimates that direct material losses from violence are $16.6 billion per year,
approximately 1.3% of GDP33. But indirect costsin lost productivity, investment and misdirected resourcesare clearly far higher; last year, for instance, Mexicos health
minister estimated violent crime cost between 8-15% in annual economic output34. Does this mean that high hopes for Mexico are misplaced?
Ultimately we dont think so . Although violence and weak rule of law in Mexico will remain a significant
the challenge.

drag on growth and could cast a cloud over Pea Nietos reform accomplishments, we think the risk of the
country being overwhelmed by these problems is exaggerated .

Plan causes a short term increase in violence

Kilmer et al. 10 RAND senior policy researcher, 2010, Beau, Reducing Drug Trafficking Revenues and
Violence in Mexico, www.rand.org/content/dam/rand/pubs/occasional_papers/2010/RAND_OP325.pdf
General Principles We consider here the consequences of a decline in the demand for Mexican drug exports from the perspective of economic and organizational principles. There is nothing

This analysis simply assesses the effects of a loss of revenue from one of the
existing streams of the DTOs resulting from some event over which they have no control, be it a change in law or in U.S. customer
about the analysis that is specific to marijuana or to its legalization.

tastes. Our principal focus is on violence.8 The DTOs can be defined as consisting of the following: (1) a set of hierarchical relationships that allow higher-level members to command their
subordinates to commit violent and risky actions, (2) a reputation for providing above-market earning opportunities to low-skilled workers willing to take particular kinds of risks, (3) a network

the DTO
demand for labor will decline , at least at the aggregate level. Given the lack of specialization, one would think almost all the
individual DTOs will suffer some decline. One question is whether those reductions in force can be achieved through natural attrition or whether they will require
layoffs, to use familiar industrial jargon. Large-scale dismissals might carry a peculiar risk, both for the organization and for
society in general. Those who are fired may try to create their own organizations , so DTO managers may have to think strategically
about whom to dismiss. Also, those leaving have probably become accustomed to earning levels they cannot attain in legal
trade. Since the whole industry would be affected by the downturn, other DTOs will not be hiring. Thus, the fired agents might attempt to compete with
their former employers. Hence, in the short run , there could be additional violence resulting from at least three
sources: conflict between the current leaders and the dismissed labor within DTOs. Even after the firing of
excess labor, the earnings of the leadership most likely will decline. One way the individual manager might compensate for this is to eliminate his or
her superior, generating systemic internal violence from senior managers who become more suspicious in the face of the overall decline in earnings. between DTOs. The
leadership of an individual DTO may try to maintain their earnings by eliminating close competitors.
of relationships with corrupt law enforcement officials, (4) a network of suppliers and customers for various drugs, and (5) ready access to capital for illegal ventures. Presumably,

Collapses PEMEX reforms- thats key to energy security Turns oil shocks
Jeremy Martin and Longmire 11, Director of the Energy Program at the Institute of the Americas, and
Sylvia Longmire, Mexico Security Expert & President, Longmire Consulting, The Perilous Intersection of
Mexicos Drug War & Pemex, 15 MARCH 11, http://www.ensec.org/index.php?
option=com_content&view=article&id=283:the-perilous-intersection-of-mexicos-drug-war-aamppemex&catid=114:content0211&Itemid=374
The drug war in Mexico is being fought on two fronts. First, roughly seven major drug trafficking organizations, or DTOs, are fighting
against each other for control of lucrative drug smuggling corridors, or plazas, into the United States. Second, they are also fighting a
massive military and law enforcement offensive under the direction of Mexican President Felipe Caldern, who decided upon entering office in 2006
that existing levels of drug trafficking and associated violence would not be tolerated. The DTOs took exception to Calderns new mandate, and fought
back with a vengeance. Their attacks against each other and against government forces have included beheadings and dismemberments, targeted assassinations, mass murders, grenade attacks,

The result has been the death of more than 34,000

people, including an increasing number of innocent bystanders who have nothing to do with the drug trade . Last year, with
over 15,000 deaths associated with the battle, was the deadliest yet. Despite the seemingly unending violence and impenetrability of DTO defenses ,
their drug trafficking activities and subsequently their drug-related profitshave been taking a hit from the combination of
Mexican and US law enforcement actions. The escalating violence is partly a result of increased competition for more tightly guarded
plazas and an increase in drug seizures on both sides of the border. For these reasons, DTOs have expanded their business to include kidnap-and-ransom
operations, extortion, human smuggling, and oil theft . As will be discussed below, this has brought an increasing overlap between DTO activity and Mexicos oil industry. From politics to
public daylight shootings with high-powered assault rifles, and even the occasional use of car bombs.

finance - oils continued hold on Mexicos national psyche The interconnection of oil and nationalism in Mexico is historic and constitutional. Indeed, the Mexican Constitution sets forth the
basic facts that President Lzaro Crdenas emphasized during the nationalization period of the 1930s: The nation is the only owner of the all the hydrocarbons reserves and production; that
licensing and concessions are prohibited; and that Pemex is the nations operator and controls the first-hand sales and must not share revenues, production or reserves. This fundamental
political reality continues to affect development of the nations huge oil resource potential by restricting privateparticularly foreigninvestment. It has been said that in Mexico, oil is not
merely a chemical compound but rather a fundamental element of sovereigntya part of the national DNA. The story is well known but worth repeating: Oil is an essential part of the national
treasury. Though diminished in relative terms for Mexicos economy, oil still generates over 15 percent of current export earnings. Moreover, Pemex, due to its onerous fiscal and tax regime,

accounts for about 40 percent of the governments budget. Oil long ago emerged as a significant form of hard currency and provided what amounted to an economic lifeline for a series of
Institutional Revolutionary Party, or PRI, governments. In some cases, oil earnings provided a last gasp to stave off financial crisis in the country, such as the 1994 peso crisis. In late 1994, as
Mexico neared default, the United States orchestrated an international bailout of roughly $50 billion. Mexican oil sales were usedquite successfullyas collateral for the roughly $20 billion in
US loans to Mexico. Leaders for years have depended upon and pointed to the windfall of the nations oil patch for its economic well-being and, during the good times, growth. Without broad tax
and fiscal reform in the nation, Pemex will remain a financial linchpin, albeit an increasingly tenuous one. From Cardenas to Cantarells golden age The Cardenas legacy is celebrated in
textbooks and with a national holiday on March 18 to celebrate the expropriation, but it was a fishermans discovery that really gave it legs. Aided by a prolific field in the shallow waters of the
Bay of Campeche, Mexico entered what might be termed a Golden Age of Oil in the 1970s with the discovery of the supergiant Cantarell field. Cantarell catapulted Mexico and Pemex into
position as one of the worlds most important oil exporting nations, particularly in the Western Hemisphere. Nowhere was this more evident than in the oil commerce between Mexico and its
northern neighbor, the United States. Thanks to Cantarell, Mexico became, after Canada, the United States most trusted supplier of foreign oil. The timing of the relationships maturation was
perfect as our increasing dependency on oil took inescapable hold in the 1970s. Beyond Cantarell? In hindsight, what seemed like a golden age for oil production and government coffers in
Mexico instead foisted upon the nation a more ominous trend toward the first effects of Cantarell disease and easy oil affliction. The myopic policies of the time, coupled with the seemingly
infinite spoils of Cantarell, placed Pemex and the nation on a bumpy path toward the unkind decade of 2000-2010 that saw Cantarells production crash. True, Cantarell is not the only significant
field in Mexico. But the steady production increase of Ku Maloob Zaap (KMZ) has barely offset Pemexs overall plummeting production. Worse, in 2010 Pemex indicated that KMZ production
reached its peak and has about a three year horizon for the current optimum production of roughly 850,000 barrels per day (bpd). And then theres the Chicontopec field. A geologically
challenging play, it has proved a major disappointment for Pemex, which long offered it as the key to offsetting both Cantarell and KMZ decline. Chicontopec has only recently hit 40,000 bpd,
far below earlier estimates of hundreds of thousands of barrels per day of production. The facts are unfortunate but fairly plain to see: Mexicos oil production is in serious decline. In 2004,
Pemex oil production peaked just below 3.5 million barrels per day (mbd); in 2009, it dipped to roughly 2.7 mbd. And though some success at stabilization has been made, production in 2010
still ended at just under 2.6 mbd. Figure 2 offers a stark picture of the issue at hand for Mexico, Pemex and the regional energy matrix. Simply put, the recent decade was not kind to Pemex. To
further answer the question of what happens in Mexico beyond Cantarell, the current predicament and context must be acknowledged. Indeed, estimates have pointed to oil production average
decline rates of about 5 percent per year, beginning in 2010. In the last few years, talk has emerged that Mexico will likely cease to be an oil exporter by the end of the current decade. The Energy
Information Administration, however, indicates that may be an optimistic premise: In its International Energy Outlook 2010, it estimated that Mexico could become a net importer by 2015, with
imports surpassing 1 mbd by 2035. It is also worth noting that Mexicos stated plan to deal with the foregoing scenarios and its hope to reverse these ominous trends lie in the deep waters on
Mexicos side of the Gulf. The touted treasure at the bottom of the sea bandied about during the 2008 energy reform debate remains the true X factor for any legitimate answers to what

oil theft from Pemex

pipelines, money laundering by way of service stations, and, worst of all, provocative kidnappings of the companys executives and those of service
companies working with the state firm, are all on the rise. Unofficial figures place thefts from the Pemex network at roughly
$2 billion annually. And security experts point to this as an important source of revenue for drug cartelsespecially
as the Mexican government continues to crack down on them. Thefts from the Pemex network are not new, but
the increase and the strain it is placing on the already-taxed company is important. And the illegal tapping has
grown significantly in the areas where the drug war is the most pervasive . The spike in fuel thefts and illegal trading, as well as kidnappings,
happens beyond Cantarell, and whether or not the EIA forecast for imports in 25 years holds true. Pemex exposed and impacted As discussed previously,

has led some to question whether Pemex is fully in charge of all its facilities across the nation. For some experts following the situation, the answer is a resounding no. Indeed, many analysts
indicate that the physical security and monitoring of pipelines belonging to Pemex are severely lacking. According to Mexican daily El Universal, oil looting has occurred in almost every state in
Mexico, while the Wall Street Journal, citing Pemex statistics, indicated that between January and November 2010, Pemex discovered 614 illegal siphons368 in liquid fuels pipelines, 196 in oil
pipelines, and 50 in liquefied petroleum gas ducts. Pemex has begun installing systems to detect declines in pressure in some oil product pipelines but the project is expected to take years to

Kidnappings of Pemex executives and subcontractors, including workers from international firms, have taken
place across the country but most notably in Tabasco, Tamaulipas and Nuevo Leon, sending shudders throughout the company and Mexico. The kidnappings have
terrorized a community where, according to a Los Angeles Times story, jobs on the oil rigs and at the gas wells are handed down,
father to son, for generations. How is it, asked a relative of a kidnapped worker, that Pemex, supposedly the backbone of the
nation, can be made to bow down like this? One analysis, published by Grupo Reforma highlighted the oil town of Reforma, Chiapas, where at least 30 Pemex
employeesranging from executives to laborershave been kidnapped over the past year. Mexico Weekly has also reported on other forms of violence that
have flared in prime Pemex production zones, such as the Burgos Basin, site of Mexico's biggest natural gas field in Tamaulipas.
Last spring, gunmen seized the Gigante Uno gas plant and kidnapped five Pemex workers. Increasingly unsafe conditions are severely hindering
Pemexs ability to produce natural gas in the Burgos Basin. The Burgos Basin stretches across the northern border state
of Tamaulipas, where the Gigante Uno plant is located, and spills into the states of Nuevo Len and Coahuila. All three states are
experiencing extremely high levels of drug-related violence, especially along these states border with Texas. The stretch from Nuevo Laredo to
complete. Kidnappings send shudders

Matamoros is in the midst of a bloody conflict between the Gulf cartel and Los Zetas, former paramilitaries and enforcers for the Gulf cartel who are now one of the more vicious DTOs in their

Once Pemex comes under regular attack from

the cartels, rather than just random, disorganized thugs, then you have far more serious national security problems much
own right. Los Zetas are viewed as largely responsible for the kidnapping of Pemex employees in that region.

worse in the government's eyes than a bunch of homicides in the slums of Ciudad Jurez," said Malcolm Beith, author of The Last Narco, a book about the hunt for Joaquin El Chapo Guzmn

Burgos is becoming synonymous with the perilous intersection of Mexicos raging drug war with Pemexs
efforts to produce the critical energy supplies the nation and region demand. The Murphy Energy case One case of fuel theft from Pemex thats
Loera. Regrettably,

winding its way through the justice system provides a unique insight into that part of the problem the company is confronting. According to MarketWatch, federal documents released in August
2010 revealed a Texas chemical plant, owned by German chemical company BASF Corp., bought $2 million worth of petroleum products that had been stolen from Pemex and smuggled across
the US border. The documents also showed the stolen condensate passed through several companies' hands before arriving on a barge at the BASF facility in Port Arthur, Texas. The actual
transport of stolen oil from Mexican pipelines into US corporate hands is complicated at best. Donald Schroeder, former president of Trammo Corp., testified that in January 2009, two
companies, Murphy Energy Corp. and Continental Fuels, contacted him. Both wanted to sell him stolen condensate. Apparently he agreed to buy it, and the transfers began. Unnamed import
companies would sell the condensate to intermediary companies like Continental (which has since shuttered its headquarters in Houston). Those import companies would smuggle the
condensate across the border and store it in Continental facilities. No details were available on how those trucks managed to successfully cross the US Mexico border. These piecemeal transfers
would continue until there was enough oil in the storage facility to fill a barge and ship to BASF. Jim McAlister, an Assistant US Attorney, said he has no reason to believe that BASF has any
involvement in the alleged wrongdoing. The President and founder of Murphy Energy Corp., Matt Murphy, said the company did not know that the condensate was stolen. Josh Crescenzi, the
vice president of Continental Fuels, has not been indicted in the case, nor has anyone else from Continental. This particular case has been a success, resulting in the handover of $2.4 million by
US customs authorities to the Mexican government. But the extent of corruption in Mexicowithin Pemex, in particularand the ease with which oil can be stolen from pipelines makes the
mitigation of oil looting an almost insurmountable challenge. Adding to the problem is the fact that Mexican cartels are involved. According to Reuters, the Mexican government believes the
cartels use stolen jet fuel in their aircraft to cover up any evidence of illicit flights. In August 2009, Mexicos federal police commissioner Rodrigo Esparza said Los Zetas used false import
documents to smuggle at least $46 million worth of oil in tankers to unnamed US refineries. President Felipe Caldern has said that DTOs in northern Mexico are responsible for most oil theft.
On some levels Pemex is not just a victim of oil-thieving DTOs; sometimes, its directly involved. In February 2010, Mexican military units seized more than four tons of marijuana at Pemex
installations in Reynosa, Tamaulipas. The discovery was made after Pemex security alerted officials that armed men were removing Pemex employees from a fuel supply station. In response, a
Mexican Naval helicopter was dispatched to the scene but retreated after receiving heavy weapons fire from the ground. When military units arrived on the ground, they found the marijuana
loaded on trucks abandoned at the site. These alarming facts have led to perhaps the most ominous question of all: Is the company being infiltrated by the perpetrators of the nations drug
business? In light of the increasing number of incidents President Caldern has acknowledged, there may well be internal operatives at Pemex aiding and abetting the DTOs. For its part,

Pemex is soliciting the help of the Mexican people to try to put a stop to oil looting. Last August, the Mexican government

posted a Pemex press release, in which exhorts that oil looting is not just an unpatriotic crime against the company
and the government, but against the Mexican people. It also offers the number of a hotline where individuals can
anonymously report pipeline breaches. Why the perilous intersection matters The relevance of what is happening in Mexico matters on a variety of levels, but in
particular, there are three broad reasons that bear discussion. First, and as best portrayed in Figure 2, Pemex has seen its oil production drop precipitously
since 2004. The firm has been struggling for the better part of the last decade to deal with a burdensome tax
straitjacket, poor planning at its largest field, a lack of new discoveries of oil and production, and an inability to implement
serious reform. Moreover, by the nature of being dragged intoand becoming part ofMexicos massive drug war, Pemex is clearly
suffering from the additional strain and havoc wrought by the myriad elements of the conflict on its business. From huge financial losses to the increasing inability
to control its network and prevent theft to the more serious kidnapping threats, the evidence is only becoming clearer. The second reason concerns Mexicos fiscal dependency on oil and Pemex.

As assorted struggles impact the company's and the nations fiscal well-being, broader and longer term economic
growth and employment discussions become ever more complicated for policy makers . These issues are particularly
critical as the nation appears far from passage of the necessary and far-reaching national tax and fiscal reforms that
could ameliorate some of the burden on Pemex and the nations oil dependency. Third, all of the above leads to the real
potential for further erosion of Mexicos critical role as a secure and constant energy supplier for the U nited S tates
and the Western Hemisphere. As oil prices steadily rise in early 2011, it is quite rational to revisit the significant energy security
aspects of Mexicos persistent energy woes, which are now clearly exacerbated by the overflow of drug war violence and corruption. On the heels of yet
another State of the Union address in the United States that included elegant rhetoric about the countrys energy
imbalance and energy security risks, a comprehensive, all of the above approach and solution remains far from reach.
Conclusion Clearly oil, and energy more broadly, is not a sector of the economy where Mexico needs any further
impediments. Pemexs huge hurdles derive largely from its inability to replace declining oil production and navigate a
burdensome nationalistic legacy. What is now added to the combustible mix is an increasing drain on the companys finances and, worse, a sense of trepidation among executives in
the field. Threats against its executives and loss of its resources are surely not a useful element as the company makes efforts
to reform itself . All of the above analysis is of extreme relevance to Mexico for its financial and overall wellbeingand especially for Pemex. It is also critical for North American energy security as the United States, in the wake of the Deepwater
Horizon incident, deals with offshore drilling restrictions and slow downs in the formerly prolific Gulf of Mexico. Moreover, there are
thorny issues surrounding increased production from Canadas oil sands for the US market. This was made abundantly clear during an
early February visit by Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper to the White House. More than 80 environmental groups used the occasion to
send a letter of protest to President Obama. These concerns do not appear to have any immediate or simple resolutions
and make the United States' need to count on Mexico greater than ever before.

*No South China Sea conflict

Rosenberg 9 David, Professor of Political Science Middlebury College and Research Fellow at the Research
School of Pacific and Asian Studies Australian National University, Dire Straits: Competing Security Priorities in
the South China Sea, The Asia-Pacific Journal, 3-20, http://japanfocus.org/-David-Rosenberg/1773

From the Taiwan Strait to the Strait of Malacca, security concerns are growing around the South China Sea. While the Bush Administration sees a resurgent Chinese
military threat across the Taiwan Strait and a terrorist threat in the Strait of Malacca, many countries between the Straits are more concerned about security for their
maritime resources from the threats of competitors, traffickers, poachers, and pirates. Security Concerns in the South China Sea Several recent statements and
appointments highlight the current Bush administration view of China's threat to Taiwan. Porter Goss, director of the U.S. Central Intelligence Agency, warned that
improved Chinese capabilities not only threaten Taiwan but also U.S. forces in the (western Pacific) region. U.S. Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld worried that the
Chinese navy was building some amphibious landing ships for possible use across the Taiwan Strait. The appointment of combative neoconservative John Bolton as
U.S. ambassador to the United Nations sends a clear and ominous signal: formerly a paid consultant to the Taiwanese government, Bolton has advocated Taiwan's
independence and its full U.N. membership. Then, in February 2005, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and their Japanese
counterparts announced a significant alteration in the U.S.-Japan Security Alliance by identifying security in the Taiwan Strait as a "common strategic objective." Has
there been any big shift in the balance of power around the Taiwan Strait that warrants this U.S. response? The Chinese defense budget has grown by doubledigit increases for the past fourteen years. This year it's up by 12 percent. But that is not significantly faster than the Chinese economy as a whole is growing. China is
modernizing its defenses -- adding anti-ship missiles to aircraft, acquiring AWACS-airborne early warning and control systems, guided missile destroyers and frigates.
However, its

power projection capabilities are limited . It lacks any long-range amphibious capability or support

infrastructure to supply forces over long distances for a protracted period. It also lacks heavy cargo-carrying aircraft,
comprehensive air defenses, seaworthy ships, and aircraft carriers . Given the current state of Chinese equipment and
training, the Chinese have no capability to pursue an expansionist maritime policy in the Taiwan Strait or the South China
Sea. [1] By contrast, the U.S. has overwhelming military superiority and an expansive network of military bases
across the Asia-Pacific. The U.S. Pacific Fleet is the world's largest naval command, including approximately 190 ships, about 1,400 Navy
and Marine Corps aircraft and 35 shore installations. Over 300,000 Navy, Army, Air Force, Marine Corps, Special Operations, and Intelligence military personnel are
integrated under the unified command of PACOM, the U.S. Pacific Command. What are China's strategic goals between the Straits? China's

Defense White
Paper of 2002 emphasizes the importance of pursuing peaceful external relations initiatives through multilateral, cooperative
approaches to promote domestic development. The most recent Defense White Paper, published in December of 2004, reiterates this priority. More important than
statements of good intentions, however, China has taken significant steps to implement this goal. It was evident in the Framework Agreement
on ASEAN-China Comprehensive Economic Cooperation, negotiated in November 2002. That led to the agreement signed in November 2004 to implement an
ASEAN-China Free Trade Area (FTA) by 2010. Following the 10th Summit Meeting of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN), in Vientiane, Laos in
November 2004, Beijing held its own summit with ASEAN leaders (ASEAN Plus One) and then joined Japan and the Republic of Korea in discussions with ASEAN
leaders (ASEAN Plus Three, or APT). Beijing had earlier in November hosted the first Security Policy Conference of the ASEAN Regional Forum. It featured an antipiracy drill and a workshop on countering terrorism. Regional Economic and Financial Agreements Regional economic agreements were the main achievements of
these meetings. However, the ASEAN Plus Three sessions identified other areas for cooperation, including deeper cooperation in investment and finance, expanded
security dialogue and cooperation, expanded cultural exchanges, and periodic progress reviews. Perhaps the most dramatic developments have occurred in regional
financial cooperation. Finance ministers of the ASEAN+3 countries have launched an Asian Bond Markets Initiative and the regional central bankers group set up two
Asian Bond Funds in early 2005. These are key steps in addressing one of the major weaknesses in the region's development as indicated by the currency and financial
crisis that struck large parts of the region in 1997: the heavy reliance by firms on short-term bank loans for financing. As Jennifer Amyx notes, many countries in East
Asia maintain high savings rates but, because of the absence of stable long-term debt markets, the savings deposited into local banks tended to be funneled out to
international financial centers and then back into the region as short-term foreign currency loans. This situation creates a problem referred to as a "double mismatch" -that is, a mismatch between debt maturities (short-term borrowing for long-term investments) and the denomination of this debt (in foreign rather than local
currencies). [2] The ASEAN+3 finance ministers had earlier set up a network of bilateral currency swaps to permit a country beset by a speculative attack to draw on
reserves of other nations. The program -- the Chiang Mai Initiative (CMI) -- went into effect at the end of 2003. Japan, with the largest reserves in the region, led
negotiations over swap arrangements and will play the role of arbitrator for currency loans. China, another potential lender with substantial reserves in excess of
potential needs, also lent its support to the CMI. Widespread participation by ASEAN Plus Three members in these initiatives encourages smooth financial
liberalization processes and thereby bolsters regional stability. It also reinforces the efforts of various working groups to improve transparency and information
dissemination and to strengthen settlement systems and regulatory reforms. China's

shift to a more proactive position on regional financial

cooperation has greatly facilitated these recent financial developments. As a result, interdependence between the Chinese
economy and other economies in the region has deepened significantly in recent years. Today, trade by ASEAN member nations with
China far exceeds trade conducted within the ASEAN grouping, while China is predicted to soon overtake the United States as Japan's top trading partner. Levels of
investment in China by countries in the region are also extremely high. The worst

case scenario is not Chinese domination but a Chinese

meltdown , as many regional monetary authorities are quick to note.

Economic problems and corruption ensure Latin American instability

Gavasa, Web Content Editor at Panamerican World, 14
(Juan, 20 years of experience in communications, and director of Communication for 2007 European Youth Olympic
Festival, RISKS LATIN AMERICA WILL FACE IN 2014, accessed 7-13-14,
http://www.panamericanworld.com/en/article/risks-latin-america-will-face-2014, hec)

Latin

America is facing more challenging conditions in 2014, due to a reduction in global liquidity and a rise in
market volatility . However, the risk of forced landing is smaller than it was in the past thanks to commerce diversification and to government policy changes

that have happened over the past few years. This is one of the main conclusions of the 2014 Risk Map reports chapter about Latin America. A report annually written
by the independent consultancy Control Risks. According to Nicholas Watson, the person in charge of the report for Latin America, this year a

division
between those countries with big financial needs and risk of economic recession, such as Brazil, and those others that offer a more solid and
pragmatic economy, safe from market volatility such as Chile, will be established.

Now, regarding the macroeconomic, social and political scenery for 2014 in Latin America, several experts such as Jonny

Gray, Vicepresident and General Director of Control Risks; Simon Whistler, Senior Manager at Control Risks, and Paul Klein, expert in corporate responsibility, gathered in the Canadian Council For The Americas. There, they identified the weaker zones, where the risks of economic
recession or democratic involution are higher. Simon Whistler started by stating that in the last seven years, the continent has changed greatly, and its general situation has evolved in a favourable manner The area has changed a lot in this time. Democracy is, in general, more solid, and that
benefits investments, political stability and legal security, which is not how it has been in the past. All of the experts agree on the fact that the growth and consolidation of a wide middle class has helped to stabilize the economy of the main countries by increasing internal consumption. The
middle class as a symptom of change, is expressed in a significant manner in Brazil, where social protests of 2013 came from this new social class. Going into detail, the report written by Control Risk shows four categories that describe the political stability and general business climate of
each country. Mexico, Peru, Colombia, Paraguay, Guatemala, El Salvador, Honduras, and Panama are the group of countries with more stable governments and with the most stable politics regarding the promotion of foreign investment. Brazil, Chile and Cuba are ranked in second place,
while Bolivia, Ecuador, Argentina and Venezuela have the lowest indicators. Looking at the map of Latin America, only some zones of Mexico, Honduras, Haiti, Jamaica, Venezuela, Colombia and Peru are covered in red, colour that identifies the points of higher risk in security of the planet

when it comes to political risks that negatively affect the business climate,
Argentina, Bolivia, Venezuela, Nicaragua and Haiti have been labeled as countries with the highest risk level . To
Simon Whistler corruption is still one of the most endemic evils of Latin America along with security and lack of
development in key sectors such as infrastructure. Once again, there are strong contrasts along the area; between the
in Control Risks map. In general, the region is levelled between medium and low. However,

systemic stability in Chile and Uruguay and the chaos in countries like Venezuela, all political contrast are shown in the Report of
Corruption Perception and Transparency of 2013, a report specially harsh on Maduros government. Moving on to the middle of this contrast is Mexico, a country that
is facing an important economic growth according to international analysts, but that has gaps in education, energy, telecommunications and that lacks certain reforms
that need to be implemented. According to Whistle, the situation is complex but stable.

*No risk of bioterror

Keller 13 Rebecca, 7 March 2013, Analyst at Stratfor, Bioterrorism and the Pandemic Potential, Stratfor,
http://www.stratfor.com/weekly/bioterrorism-and-pandemic-potential

The risk

of an accidental release of H5N1 is similar to that of other infectious pathogens currently being studied. Proper
safety standards are key, of course, and experts in the field have had a year to determine the best way to proceed,
balancing safety and research benefits. Previous work with the virus was conducted at biosafety level three out of four, which requires researchers
wearing respirators and disposable gowns to work in pairs in a negative pressure environment. While many of these labs are part of universities, access is controlled
either through keyed entry or even palm scanners. There are roughly 40 labs that submitted to the voluntary ban. Those wishing to resume work after the ban was
lifted must comply with guidelines requiring strict national oversight and close communication and collaboration with national authorities. The

risk of release
accident or theft cannot be completely eliminated, but given the established parameters the risk is
minimal . The use of the pathogen as a biological weapon requires an assessment of whether a non-state actor would
have the capabilities to isolate the virulent strain, then weaponize and distribute it. Stratfor has long held the position that while
terrorist organizations may have rudimentary capabilities regarding biological weapons, the likelihood of a
successful attack is very low . Given that the laboratory version of H5N1 -- or any influenza virus, for that matter -- is
a contagious pathogen, there would be two possible modes that a non-state actor would have to instigate an attack.
The virus could be refined and then aerosolized and released into a populated area, or an individual could be
infected with the virus and sent to freely circulate within a population. There are severe constraints that make success
using either of these methods unlikely . The technology needed to refine and aerosolize a pathogen for a biological attack is
beyond the capability of most non-state actors. Even if they were able to develop a weapon, other factors such as
wind patterns and humidity can render an attack ineffective. Using a human carrier is a less expensive method, but it
requires that the biological agent be a contagion. Additionally, in order to infect the large number of people necessary to
start an outbreak, the infected carrier must be mobile while contagious, something that is doubtful with a serious
disease like small pox. The carrier also cannot be visibly ill because that would limit the necessary human contact .
either through

Hemp
*Farm bill allowed for hemp production
McPherson, Rolling Stone Politics Writer, 14
(Coco, The Other Cannabis War: The Battle Over Hemp, accessed 6-9-14,
http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/the-other-cannabis-war-20140603, hec)

In the annals of strange bedfellow politics, the story of how, in 2014, industrial hemp emerged from Drug War purgatory is an epic one. But even for long-time hemp
advocates, the sight of Rep. Thomas Massie, a conservative Republican from northern Kentucky, biting jubilantly into a hemp bar on live TV last month was startling.
The Great Marijuana Experiment: A Tale of Two Drug Wars Buried

in Februarys $956 billion farm bill is an amendment, co-sponsored by

hemp as an agricultural crop rather
than a drug and effectively frees American farmers to grow it for the first time in almost 60 years. Widespread
Rep. Massie, that legally distinguishes industrial hemp from marijuana after decades of conflation. It defines

cultivation won't happen overnight - for one thing, the U.S. has no hemp seeds or hemp-processing facilities. But the sudden change in hemp's fortunes shocks its
supporters. "If you'd asked me five years ago if I thought we could get Mitch McConnell to introduce a hemp bill, I'd have told you it was impossible," says Eric
Steenstra, president of Vote Hemp, the advocacy group formed in 2000 to educate and lobby for hemp legalization in state legislatures and on the Hill. "This is huge."
Its also been a long time coming. For 20 years, legislators, farmers, hippies, activists, agency heads and agronomists have worked to recast hemp as a game-changer,
an American cash crop that could jump-start the country's next economic revival. Kentucky took the legislative lead with outright advocacy by its agriculture
department. Unlike a high-profile 2007 lawsuit in which two North Dakota hemp farmers took on the DEA without support from their elected officials in Washington,
Kentucky brought its entire federal (and much of its state) delegation to the party. Among

hemps biggest advocates are Kentuckys

Republican senator, Rand Paul, the avowed champion of limited government who tweets about the tragedy of the drug war, and James Comer, the
states young Republican agriculture commissioner who successfully sued the DEA last month for seizing Kentuckys imported hemp seeds and for
interfering with the implementation of pilot programs made legal by the farm bill. And Massie, a fiscal hawk active in last years
government shutdown who once studied robotics at MIT. Colorado, Vermont and Kentucky wasted no time launching their industrial hemp research and the pilot
programs provided for in the farm bill. In an obscure notice dated April 16th, the

USDA alerted state and county officials that farmers

in states that okd hemp production (15 so far) could now include hemp acreage in their crop reports. The floodgates
have opened.

No demand for a large hemp market

Mitchell, Modern Farmer Writer, 13
(Dan, Why Legalized Hemp Will Not Be a Miracle Crop, accessed 6-9-14,
http://modernfarmer.com/2013/10/legal-industrial-hemp-wont-matter/, hec)

With states like Colorado and Washington making marijuana legal for recreational use, and many others legalizing medical marijuana, the nations laws and attitudes regarding the cannabis plant

It seems likely that a thriving hemp market will finally develop here. But thriving doesnt mean
huge not by a longshot . Worldwide, only about 200,000 acres of land were devoted to hemp cultivation in 2011, according to the Food and Agriculture Organization,

are quickly changing.

with that number being flat to decreasing in recent years in the 30 countries where hemp is cultivated. Meanwhile, in North Dakota alone, flax was harvested from more than 315,000 acres (95
percent of the U.S. crop) in 2012, according to the Agricultural Marketing Resource Association. For further perspective, consider that corn is planted on about 85 million acres in the U.S. alone

Demand for hemp isnt as high as hemps loudest

proponents would have it . There are good reasons for this. Chief among them is demand , which isnt as high as hemps loudest
proponents would have it. In Europe, demand fell through the 20th century as industrial buyers increasingly chose cheaper or
better alternatives for many applications often artificial fibers. That phenomenon has been replicated elsewhere. And as more uses for hemp
have been found, demand has grown, but not at levels that would indicate a coming hemp revolution . The crops
illegality in the United States hasnt helped either, of course, though imports of hemp-based products many of them from China have been legal since
every year (though that might say more about our reliance on corn than it says about hemp.)

The total retail market for hemp in the United States is only about $500 million. That will no doubt grow with domestic cultivation
hemp is unlikely to ever be a world-changer. Best known
historically for its use to make paper and rope (neither of which are often made with hemp these days , because there are better
1998.

and perhaps with innovations in manufacturing technologies that could increase demand. But

materials), the crops versatility is its major selling point. Its used in the manufacture of fabrics, household products, fuels, plastics, construction materials, and all kinds of other stuff. It has
gained some popularity as a food ingredient in recent years. The U.S. Department of Agriculture has said that the market potential for hemp seed as a food ingredient is unknown. However,

it

probably will remain a small market , like those for sesame and poppy seeds. The one big benefit of hemp? Its environmental footprint is
relatively small. It requires few pesticides and no herbicides. Its an excellent rotation crop, often used to suppress weeds and loosen soil before the planting of winter cereals. On the other hand,

hemp cultivation is highly la bor

intensive . Loflin, the Colorado farmer, took to social media to recruit 45 people to help him harvest his crop by hand over a weekend. Use of a mechanical combine,
the Denver Post reported, would have harmed the plants stalks. Thats one reason prices are so high about six times the cost of wood
it requires a relatively large amount of water, and its need for deep, humus-rich, nutrient-dense soil limits growing locales. And

pulp. Hemp is an annual crop, which means it must be stored in order to be processed throughout the year, further adding to the cost of using it and to the incentive for using something else.

No infrastructure for hemp production

Wishnia, Salon Writer, 13
(Steven, Can hemp save the economy? accessed 6-9-14,
http://www.salon.com/2013/02/16/politicians_are_pushing_to_bring_back_the_hemp_partner/, hec)
One problem for the industry is that hemps decades of illegality have left almost no infrastructure for growing,
processing and selling it. As no hemp has been grown legally in the U.S. since 1957, says Murphy, many parts of the industry would
have to be re-established virtually from scratch. To begin with, all the seed stock is gone, except for feral ditchweed. Youd have to breed again
for varieties that work well here, he says. Kentucky was once a major hemp producer, and it also provided seeds for strains better suited to different latitudes, such as
Wisconsin. There were also strains bred for fiber or for larger seeds that yielded more oil. Currently, Murphy says, Canada uses mostly Russian and European stock.
Those seeds could also be cross-bred with local feral strains. This

lack of infrastructure has been a major barrier to producing

hemp clothing and paper. Building a new decorticator mill for hemp paper would cost more than $100 million, says Murphy.
Several small companies are using hemp for specialized products such as archival-quality, filter, or cigarette papers, but its most likely general use will be when mixed
with recycled paper, says Steenstra. Blend in 10 to 15 percent hemp, and its great for making better-quality recycled paper, he says. When paper gets recycled, he
explains, its fibers get shorter, and the long fibers of hemp strengthen it. There

are similar issues with clothing. Though Calvin Klein, Ralph

whole textile industry is built on short-fiber
cotton and synthetics, says Steenstra. Theres no infrastructure for processing hemp fiber into textiles. Hemp oil
for biofuel, another use dreamed of in the 90s, is unlikely to be practical. At 50 gallons per acre, even if every acre of U.S. cropland were used for
hemp, it would supply current U.S. demand for oil for less than three weeks.
Lauren, Giorgio Armani, and several lesser-known manufacturers are using hemp in clothes, the

*China, Canada, Ukraine expanding hemp industries now

David Bienenstock, Apr 7 2014
THE GREAT HEMP EXPERIMENT BEGINS, http://www.vice.com/read/the-great-hemp-experiment-begins
In Manitoba, anti-drug units of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police now inspect massive hemp fields for legal
compliance, instead of raiding themall part of a $1 billion homegrown industry that's experiencing rapid growth. In
China, the central government is currently expanding domestic hemp planting significantly , after scientists at Bejing's Hemp
Research Center produced studies showing the plant can serve as a superior alternative to cotton, and may one day displace concrete, fossil fuels, and a wide-range of
petroleum products. And

in the United States, this year's Farm Bill included an amendment allowing universities and
state agriculture departments to experiment with hemp in any state with a law approving such production,
opening the door for America's first fully legal crop since the Second World War inspired the federal government's famous Hemp
for Victory campaign. Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack has even been investigating ways to import industrial hemp seeds from
the Ukraine, as a way to bolster the embattled nation's economy amid Russia's annexation of Crimea.

Vertical farming now Overcomes unsustainable ag

The Economist 10, Dec 9th 2010
Does it really stack up? http://www.economist.com/node/17647627
The necessary technology already exists . The glasshouse industry has more than a century's experience of
growing crops indoors in large quantities , says Gene Giacomelli, director of the Controlled Environment Agriculture Centre at the University of
Arizona in Tucson. It is now possible to tailor the temperature, humidity, lighting, airflow and nutrient conditions to get
the best productivity out of plants year round, anywhere in the world, he says. The technology of hydroponics
allows almost any kind of plant to be grown in nutrient-rich water, from root crops like radishes and potatoes to fruit such as melons and
even cereals like maize.

*Alt cause to warming - Deforestation

Howden 7 Daniel, 5/14/2007, The Independent, Deforestation: The hidden cause of global warming,
http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/climate-change/deforestation-the-hidden-cause-of-global-warming448734.html
destruction of the rainforests that form a precious cooling band around the Earth's equator, is now being
recognised as one of the main causes of climate change. Carbon emissions from deforestation far outstrip damage
caused by planes and automobiles and factories. The rampant slashing and burning of tropical forests is second only to the energy sector as a source of
The accelerating

greenhouses gases according to report published today by the Oxford-based Global Canopy Programme, an alliance of leading rainforest scientists. Figures from the GCP, summarising the latest

deforestation accounts for up to 25 per cent of global

emissions of heat-trapping gases, while transport and industry account for 14 per cent each; and aviation makes up
only 3 per cent of the total. " Tropical forests are the elephant in the living room of climate change ," said Andrew Mitchell,
the head of the GCP. Scientists say one days' deforestation is equivalent to the carbon footprint of eight million people flying to
New York. Reducing those catastrophic emissions can be achieved most quickly and most cheaply by halting the destruction in Brazil, Indonesia, the Congo and elsewhere. No new
findings from the United Nations, and building on estimates contained in the Stern Report, show

technology is needed, says the GCP, just the political will and a system of enforcement and incentives that makes the trees worth more to governments and individuals standing than felled. "The
focus on technological fixes for the emissions of rich nations while giving no incentive to poorer nations to stop burning the standing forest means we are putting the cart before the horse," said

The rainforests of the Amazon, the Congo basin and Indonesia are
thought of as the lungs of the planet. But the destruction of those forests will in the next four years alone, in the
words of Sir Nicholas Stern, pump more CO2 into the atmosphere than every flight in the history of aviation to at
least 2025. Indonesia became the third-largest emitter of greenhouse gases in the world last week. Following close behind is Brazil. Neither nation has heavy industry on a comparable
Mr Mitchell. Most people think of forests only in terms of the CO2 they absorb.

scale with the EU, India or Russia and yet they comfortably outstrip all other countries, except the United States and China. What both countries do have in common is tropical forest that is
being cut and burned with staggering swiftness. Smoke stacks visible from space climb into the sky above both countries, while satellite images capture similar destruction from the Congo basin,

two billion tons of CO2

enters the atmosphere every year from deforestation. That destruction amounts to 50 million acres - or an area the size of England, Wales and Scotland felled
across the Democratic Republic of Congo, the Central African Republic and the Republic of Congo. According to the latest audited figures from 2003,

annually. The remaining standing forest is calculated to contain 1,000 billion tons of carbon, or double what is already in the atmosphere. As the GCP's report concludes: "If we lose forests, we
lose the fight against climate change." Standing forest was not included in the original Kyoto protocols and stands outside the carbon markets that the report from the International Panel on
Climate Change (IPCC) pointed to this month as the best hope for halting catastrophic warming. The landmark Stern Report last year, and the influential McKinsey Report in January agreed that

forests offer the "single largest opportunity for cost-effective and immediate reductions of carbon emissions ".
International demand has driven intensive agriculture, logging and ranching that has proved an inexorable force for
deforestation; conservation has been no match for commerce. The leading rainforest scientists are now calling for the immediate inclusion of standing
forests in internationally regulated carbon markets that could provide cash incentives to halt this disastrous process. Forestry experts and policy makers have been meeting in Bonn, Germany,
this week to try to put deforestation on top of the agenda for the UN climate summit in Bali, Indonesia, this year. Papua New Guinea, among the world's poorest nations, last year declared it
would have no choice but to continue deforestation unless it was given financial incentives to do otherwise. Richer nations already recognise the value of uncultivated land. The EU offers 200
(135) per hectare subsidies for "environmental services" to its farmers to leave their land unused. And yet there is no agreement on placing a value on the vastly more valuable land in
developing countries. More than 50 per cent of the life on Earth is in tropical forests, which cover less than 7 per cent of the planet's surface. They generate the bulk of rainfall worldwide and act

governments continue
to pursue science fiction solutions to the coming climate catastrophe, preferring bio-fuel subsidies, carbon capture
schemes and next-generation power stations. Putting a price on the carbon these vital forests contain is the only way
to slow their destruction. Hylton Philipson, a trustee of Rainforest Concern, explained: "In a world where we are witnessing a mounting clash
between food security, energy security and environmental security - while there's money to be made from food and
energy and no income to be derived from the standing forest, it's obvious that the forest will take the hit."
as a thermostat for the Earth. Forests are also home to 1.6 billion of the world's poorest people who rely on them for subsistence. However, forest experts say

*No impactmitigation and adaptation will solve

Robert O. Mendelsohn 9, Edwin Weyerhaeuser Davis Professor, Yale School of Forestry and Environmental
Studies, June 2009, Climate Change and Economic Growth,
http://www.growthcommission.org/storage/cgdev/documents/gcwp060web.pdf
The heart of the debate about climate change comes from a number of warnings from scientists and others that give the impression that humaninduced climate change is an immediate threat to society (IPCC 2007a,b; Stern 2006). Millions of people might be vulnerable to health effects (IPCC
2007b), crop production might fall in the low latitudes (IPCC 2007b), water supplies might dwindle (IPCC 2007b), precipitation might fall in arid regions (IPCC 2007b), extreme events will
grow exponentially (Stern 2006), and between 2030 percent of species will risk extinction (IPCC 2007b). Even worse, there may be catastrophic events such as the melting of Greenland or
Antarctic ice sheets causing severe sea level rise, which would inundate hundreds of millions of people (Dasgupta et al. 2009). Proponents argue there is no time to waste. Unless greenhouse

These statements are largely alarmist and misleading. Although

societys immediate behavior has an extremely low probability of leading to
catastrophic consequences. The science and economics of climate change is quite clear that emissions over the next few
decades will lead to only mild consequences. The severe impacts predicted by alarmists require a century (or two in the case of Stern
2006) of no mitigation. Many of the predicted impacts assume there will be no or little adaptation. The net economic impacts from climate
change over the next 50 years will be small regardless. Most of the more severe impacts will take more than a century or even a millennium to
unfold and many of these potential impacts will never occur because people will adapt. It is not at all apparent
that immediate and dramatic policies need to be developed to thwart longrange climate risks. What is needed are longrun balanced
gases are cut dramatically today, economic growth and wellbeing may be at risk (Stern 2006).
climate change is a serious problem that deserves attention,

responses.

No extinction scientists have shifted from their impact claims

Bojanowski 14
Axel Bojanowski, staff writer, Citing the IPCC and Ragnar Kinzelbach, a zoologist at the University of Rostock, Der
Spiegel, March 26, 2014, UN Backtracks: Will Global Warming Really Trigger Mass Extinctions?,
http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/new-un-climate-report-casts-doubt-on-earlier-extinction-predictions-a960569.html#
Humans have shrunk the habitats of many life forms, through unsustainable agriculture, fishing or hunting. And it is going to get even worse.

Global warming

is said to be threatening thousands of animal and plant species with extinction. That, at least, is what the Intergovernmental Panel on
Climate Change (IPCC) has been predicting for years. But the UN climate body now says it is no longer so certain. The second part of the
IPCC's new assessment report is due to be presented next Monday in Yokohama, Japan. On the one hand, a classified draft of the report notes that a further "increased
extinction risk for a substantial number of species during and beyond the 21st century" is to be expected. On the other hand, the

IPCC admits that there is

no evidence climate change has led to even a single species becoming extinct thus far. 'Crocodile Tears' At most, the draft
report says, climate change may have played a role in the disappearance of a few amphibians, fresh water fish and mollusks. Yet even the icons of catastrophic
global warming, the polar bears, are doing surprisingly well. Their population has remained stable despite the shrinking of the Arctic ice cap.
Ragnar Kinzelbach, a zoologist at the University of Rostock, says essential data is missing for most other life forms, making it virtually impossible to forecast the
potential effects of climate change. Given

the myriad other human encroachments in the natural environment, Kinzelbach says,
tears over an animal kingdom threatened by climate change are less than convincing." The draft report
includes a surprising admission by the IPCC -- that it doubts its own computer simulations for species extinctions. "There is very
little confidence that models currently predict extinction risk accurately," the report notes. Very low extinction rates despite considerable
climate variability during past hundreds of thousands of years have led to concern that "forecasts for very high
extinction rates due entirely to climate change may be overestimated." In the last assessment report, Climate Change 2007, the IPCC
"crocodile

predicted that 20 to 30 percent of all animal and plant species faced a high risk for extinction should average global temperatures rise by 2 to 3 degrees Celsius (3.6 to
5 degrees Fahrenheit). The current draft report says that scientific

uncertainties have "become more apparent" since 2007. It notes that

key environmental processes and life form characteristics were given scant consideration in the models -- the
ability of plants and animals to adapt to new climatic conditions, for example. Consequently, the new assessment report will not
include any concrete figures regarding the percentage of species that could become extinct as a result of global warming.

2NC

Courts

A2: Add on
Drug policy is insufficient to solve relations
CFR, 8
(U.S.-Latin America Relations: A New Direction for a New Reality, accessed 7-13-14, council on foreign relations
pdf, hec)

Recent strains in the U.S.-Latin America relationship, although real, are less a result of alleged U.S. policy failings than a product of
deeper changes : while the basic tenets of U.S. policy have not changed, Latin America has. Opening economies, strengthening
democracies, and fighting drug production and trafficking remain important priorities. But continuing to build U.S.
policy on these pillars alone reflects a mistaken sense of what U.S. policy can realistically achieve and a failure
to recognize where Washington can meaningfully bolster Latin Americans efforts to improve their own quality of life, providing a New foundation for
U.S.-LatinAmerica relations in the process. Achieving U.S. objectives and protecting U.S. interests in the Western Hemisphere requires an
unsentimental and reality-based assessment of the complex and dynamic changes under way in Latin America and in U.S.-Latin America relationsand of the ways in
which the United States can influence those changes for the better. The

Task Force has identified four emerging and urgent priorities that should
and inequality; 2) citizen security; 3) migration; and 4) energy
security and integration. These four priorities bear directly on U.S. interests, as their fate will have repercussions on regional
stability , democratic consolidation, economic growth and development, and counternarcotics efforts. As important,
provide the basis of U.S. policy toward Latin America: 1) poverty

these four priorities also represent important opportunities for the region and for U.S. policy, opening avenues of dialogue on issues of mutual interest to Latin
America and the United States.

Coop is resilient
Frank O. Mora 13, PhD in international affairs, Director of the Latin American and Caribbean Center and
Professor of international relations at FSU AND Patrick Duddy, an American diplomat, formerly United States
Ambassador to Venezuela, 5/1/13, "Latin America: Is U.S. influence waning?,"
http://www.miamiherald.com/2013/05/01/3375160/latin-america-is-us-influence.html#storylink=cpy

Is U.S. influence in Latin America on the wane? It depends how you look at it. As President Obama

travels to Mexico and Costa

Rica, its likely the pundits will once again underscore what some perceive to be the eroding influence of the United States
in the Western Hemisphere. Some will point to the decline in foreign aid or the absence of an overarching policy with an inspiring moniker like
Alliance for Progress or Enterprise Area of the Americas as evidence that the United States is failing to embrace the opportunities of a region
that is more important to this country than ever. The reality is a lot more complicated. Forty-two percent of all U.S. exports

flow to the Western Hemisphere. In many ways, U.S. engagement in the Americas is more pervasive than ever, even if
more diffused. That is in part because the peoples of the Western Hemisphere are not waiting for governments to choreograph their interactions.

A more-nuanced assessment inevitably will highlight the complex, multidimensional ties between the United States
and the rest of the hemisphere. In fact, it may be that we need to change the way we think and talk about the countries of Latin America
and the Caribbean. We also need to resist the temptation to embrace overly reductive yardsticks for judging our standing in
the hemisphere. As Moises Naim notes in his recent book, The End of Power, there has been an important change in power distribution in the
world away from states toward an expanding and increasingly mobile set of actors that are dramatically shaping the nature and scope of global
relationships. In Latin America, many of the most substantive and dynamic forms of engagement are occurring in a web of cross-national
relationships involving small and large companies, people-to-people contact through student exchanges and social media, travel and migration.
Trade and investment remain the most enduring and measurable dimensions of U.S. relations with the region. It is
certainly the case that our economic interests alone would justify more U.S. attention to the region. Many observers who worry about declining
U.S. influence in this area point to the rise of trade with China and the presence of European companies and investors. While it is true that

other countries are important to the economies of Latin America and the Caribbean, it is also still true that the United States is

by far the largest and most important economic partner of the region and trade is growing even with those countries with which
we do not have free trade agreements. An area of immense importance to regional economies that we often overlook is the exponential growth in
travel, tourism and migration. It is commonplace to note the enormous presence of foreign students in the United States but in 2011, according to
the Institute of International Education, after Europe, Latin America was the second most popular destination for U.S.

university students. Hundreds of thousands of U.S. tourists travel every year to Latin America and the Caribbean
helping to support thousands of jobs. From 2006-2011 U.S. non-government organizations, such as churches, think
tanks and universities increased the number of partnerships with their regional cohorts by a factor of four. Remittances
to Latin America and the Caribbean from the United States totaled $64 billion in 2012. Particularly for the smaller economies of Central America
and the Caribbean these flows can sometimes constitute more than 10 percent of gross domestic product. Finally, one should not

underestimate the resiliency of U.S. soft power in the region. The power of national reputation, popular culture,
values and institutions continues to contribute to U.S. influence in ways that are difficult to measure and impossible
to quantify.

A2: L2 Tix
Court decisions avoid congressional political battles
Ward 9 Artemus, Professor of Poli Sci @ NIU Political Foundations of Judicial Supremacy: The Presidency, the
Supreme Court, Congress & the Presidency, Jan-Apr, (36)1; p. 119

After the old order has collapse the once- united, new-regime coalition begins to fracture as original commitments are extended to new issues. In chapter 3
Whittington combines Skowronek's articulation and disjunctive categories into the overarching "affiliated" presidencies as both seek to elaborate the regime begun
under reconstructive leaders. By this point in the ascendant regime, Bourts are staffed by justices from the dominant ruling coalition via the appointment process - and
Whittington spends time on appointment politics here and more fully in chapter 4. Perhaps counter-intuitively, affiliated

political actors - including

presidents - encourage Courts to

exercise vetoes and operate in issue areas of relatively low political salience. Of course, this "activism" is
never used against the affiliated president per se. Instead, affiliated Courts correct for the overreaching of those who operate outside the preferred constitutional vision,

why it is
easier for affilitated judges, rather than affiliated presidents, to rein in outliers and conduct constitutional
maintenance. The latter are saddled with controlling opposition political figures, satisfying short-term political
demands, and navigating intraregime gridlock and political thickets. Furthermore, because of their electoral accountability,
politicians engage in position-taking, credit-claiming, and blame-avoidance behavior. By contrast, their judicial counterparts are
relatively sheltered from political pressures and have more straightforward decisional processes. Activist Courts can
take the blame for advancing and legitimizing constitutional commitments that might have electoral costs. In short, a
which are often state and local governments who need to be brought into line with nationally dominant constitutional commitments. Whittington explains

division of labor exists between politicians and judges affiliated with the dominant regime.

A2: Do Both
Perm nullifies court rulings
Baker 94 Thomas E. Baker, Alvin R. Allison Professor, Texas Tech University School of Law, 1994, FEATURE
ARTICLE: THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT'S FIRST DECADE CONTRIBUTION TO THE LAW OF THE NATION,
1981-1991, 19 Nova L. Rev. 323

[*337]

The mootness doctrine focuses judicial attention on "the sequence of litigation events out of a traditional and
constitutional concern for the very existence of a 'case or controversy' itself." n74 If a matter earlier in controversy is
somehow resolved, the judgment of the federal court has nothing to accomplish . The lack of a judicial task ends
the Article III power. Justiciability must be actual and present, not merely speculative or historical. Legislation can
overtake the litigation and render it moot . For example, in Lewis v. Continental Bank Corp., n75 the Supreme
Court declared the case moot due to amendments to a federal statute that were enacted while the case was pending.
Thus, the Eleventh Circuit's judicial handiwork, analyzing rather arcane issues of federal banking law, was rendered
a nullity. n76

Violates separation of powers

Watson 91 Corey C. Watson, Professor at Northwestern, 1991 (86 Nw. U.L. Rev. 143, lexis
the risk to
separation of powers is greatest where the temptation exists to ignore the requirements of justiciability and resolve
a moot issue. n224 Perhaps the danger is difficult to understand because such cases put the system at risk , rather than any
particular person. n225 If the personal stake and live issue requirements are not satisfied throughout a judicial proceeding,
then the claim is within the legislative province according to the argument set out in this Section. Therefore, a court that decides the
issue and administers a "remedy" when neither an actual harm nor a real plaintiff exists performs a legislative
function. To inflate the judicial power through prudential considerations (such as preserving judicial resources) tips
the balance of powers through these cases. n226 The constitutional constant becomes variable when prudential
factors become overreaching. This undermines our system of separated powers.
The danger of permitting Smith to pursue his claim without requiring that he have a personal stake in the outcome may seem innocuous. Yet,

Risks tyranny and should be rejected

Redish 91 Martin Redish, professor of law and public policy at Northwestern, 1991, Duke L.J. 449, lexis
In summary, no defender of separation of powers can prove with certitude that,

but for the existence of separation of powers,

tyranny would be the inevitable outcome. But the question is whether we wish to take that risk, given the obvious
severity of the harm that might result. Given both the relatively limited cost imposed by use of separation of powers
and the great severity of the harm sought to be avoided, one should not demand a great showing of the likelihood
that the feared harm would result. For just as in the case of the threat of nuclear war, no one wants to be forced into
the position of saying, I told you so.

A2: Shielding
The courts have to act before congress to get shielding
Simmons 95 Courtney, Law clerk to the Honorable J. Michael Luttig, Circuit Judge on the United States Court
of Appeals for the fourth Circuit, Emory Law Journal, Winter, 44 Emory L.J. 117

Sometimes a legislative compromise entails a decision not to make a decision. Congress

standing at a stalemate may choose not to

prescribe one side or the other, or an intermediate point. Rather, the legislature may allow the courts to make the ultimate
determination. Judge Posner, in The Federal Courts, described this phenomenon: Often when there are political pressures to do
something about a problem but the legislature cannot agree exactly what to do about it, it will pass a statute the effect (as well as the
undisclosed purpose) of which is to dump the problem in the lap of the courts, taking advantage of the fact that the
courts are a kind of political lightning rod .

A2: Do CP
Resolved means firm decision
AHD 6 American Heritage Dictionary, http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/resolved
Resolve TRANSITIVE VERB:1. To
express by formal vote.

make a firm decision about. 2. To cause (a person) to reach a decision. See

synonyms at decide. 3. To decide or

Should means must

Words & Phrases 6 Permanent Edition 39, p. 369
C.D.Cal. 2005.

Should, as used in the Social Security Administrations ruling stating that an ALJ should call on the services of a medical advisor when onset
must.Herrera v. Barnhart, 379 F.Supp.2d 1103.Social S 142.5.

must be inferred, means

Severs certainty- we'll win compliance but its not something we fiat
Pacelle 2 Associate Professor of Political Science at the University of Missouri-St. Louis, 2002 (Richard, The
role of the Supreme Court in American politics: the least dangerous branch? pg 102

Judicial decisions are not self-fulfilling directives. Because of institutional limitations, courts cannot implement their
own decisions. Thus, the Court must rely on other individuals and institutions to carry out its directives . Because of
these potential problems, many argue that the Court should not be active in policy-making. Ultimately, it is an
empirical question, like broader notions of capacity. If the justices make decisions that lower courts do not apply or
implementers ignore there is a loss of institutional legitimacy for the Court.

Pharma

Sales
Pharma industry is thriving- leading source proves
Thomson Reuters 14 9/8/14, Thomson Reuters Annual Pharmaceutical Factbook Projects Industrys Sales
Will Reach $1 Trillion in 2014 http://thomsonreuters.com/press-releases/092014/pharmaceutical-factbook-2014

The Intellectual Property and Science business of Thomson Reuters, the world's leading source of intelligent
information for businesses and professionals, today released its annual synopsis of pharmaceutical industry trends in
its 2014 Pharmaceutical R&D Factbook, compiled by CMR International, a Thomson Reuters business and world leader in global pharmaceutical R&D performance metrics. The report
found a number of positive trends across the biopharmaceutical landscapeincluding an all-time high in
pharmaceutical sales and an increase in New Molecular Entities (NMEs) and in drugs successfully completing late
stage clinical trialsthat contradict industry perceptions of a decline in R&D productivity. The CMR Factbook
a leading publication of pharmaceutical facts containing 11 chapters of essential data on R&D pipeline volume,
success rates, cycle times, regional comparisons, therapeutic areas, generics and other areasprovides valuable
strategic insight to pharmaceutical industry leaders. This years report underscores a promising industry outlook, as
evidenced by: Global pharmaceutical sales highest ever : Global pharmaceutical sales reached an all-time high of approximately $980 billion in 2013 and are
expected to rise to $1 trillion this year. However, the rate of growth declined in 2013 compared to previous years due to the expiration of patent protection on a number of blockbuster drugs in

The number of NMEs launched in 2013 was the

third-highest in the last decade. Regulators and payers are demanding safer, more effective and differentiated drugs to try to contain the rising costs of healthcare. The
markets dominated by lower-cost generic equivalents. Third-most NMEs or novel drugs launched in last decade:

industry continues to respond to these challenges by diversifying into areas of unmet need and rare indications. Approximately half of all drugs were specialty indicated for the treatment of

Cancer treatment benefits from

advances in precision medicine: Anti-cancer development continues to attract the highest amount of investment
across all therapeutic areas, with the majority of recent approvals receiving orphan drug status from the FDA. Pharma increases rate of successful
drugs by improving ability to fail fast and cheaply: There has been a decline in pipeline volumes and success rates in early clinical development phases, yet
there is a trend in stable success rates across the later phases. This indicates that the industry is improving its ability to fail fast, fail
cheaply, which is increasing the success rate of more advanced drug candidates. Pharmaceutical R&D is a difficult and expensive
process in an industry with high expectations, said Jon Brett-Harris, managing director of Thomson Reuters Life Sciences. With much of the recent conversation
focused on the hurdles in the pharma space, it is reassuring to see positive developments and an encouraging
future landscape.
cancer, pulmonary arterial hypertension and HIV. All oncology NME first-world launches in 2013 received orphan drug status.

L
Legalizing marijuana trades off with its most dependable source of revenue
Lee Jackson 12, staffwriter for Daily Finance News and 24/7 Wall St. News, 12/11/12, Will National
Legalized Marijuana Help or Hurt Big Pharma, Tobacco and Alcohol?
http://www.dailyfinance.com/2012/12/11/will-national-legalized-marijuana-help-or-hurt-big-pharma-tobacco-andalcohol/
One other big and powerful industry might have something to lose: Big Pharma. It is estimated that the global
pharmaceutical market will be worth more than $1 trillion by 2014. Industry giants Merck & Co. (NYSE: MRK), Johnson & Johnson
(NYSE: JNJ), Pfizer Inc. (NYSE: PFE) and Abbott Laboratories (NYSE: ABT) have warded off patent cliffs for years using their large cash
reserves to acquire smaller companies with robust product pipelines. The last thing these companies want see is
current product lines that are producing dependable revenue flow to be dented by legal marijuana . The big pharmaceutical
firms have a lot of money to spread around, so when it comes to lobbying efforts, very few have this groups clout. One thing it wants is for marijuana to remain illegal. There are
countless maladies where the ingestion of marijuana has been believed to help alleviate or control the symptoms . These
include glaucoma, multiple sclerosis, AIDS-related complications, Crohns disease, fibromyalgia, chemotherapy complications and others. Big pharma has tried to come up
with their own pot pill. There are more than 400 chemicals in marijuana, 80 of which are called cannabinoids. Drug
companies have tried reducing it to one chemical and results have been poor. Researchers find that when you reduce cannabis to just tetrahydrocannabinol (THC), you lose efficacy and gain side
effects. In a book critical of the pharmaceutical industry called Our Daily Meds, author Melody Petersen offers a statistic showing more than 100,000 people die each year from prescription

Many physicians may currently be reluctant to

prescribe legalized marijuana. A national mandate would provide many physicians with the moral and ethical cover
they need to be more aggressive if they feel medical marijuana may help their patients. Then it is very possible that
medical marijuana prescriptions will put a dent in many currently prescribed drugs. This is not an outcome that big
pharma is likely to tolerate well , unless they get in on the action themselves.
drugs. This includes death from abuse and overdose, side effects, misdiagnosis and interaction error.

Cartels

Cheaper
Black market prices are lower
Sullum, Forbes Contributor, 14
(Jacob, Yes, Legal Pot Does Cost More Than Black-Market Pot (For Now At Least), accessed 6-9-14,
http://www.forbes.com/sites/jacobsullum/2014/01/06/yes-legal-pot-does-cost-more-than-black-market-pot-for-nowat-least/, hec)

The problem, as I explained last month, is that the

short-term supply of legal marijuana is fixed. All thats available is repurposed medical
will continue to exceed supply at least until marijuana from
the first plants officially grown for the recreational market is harvested this spring. The high prices are
exacerbated by new taxes: a 15 percent excise tax, plus a special 10 percent sales tax. Denver, which is where three-quarters of the marijuana stores are
located, is imposing its own special sales tax of 3.5 percent. All of that is in addition to standard sales taxes, which in Denver total 8 percent. Black-market
dealers do not collect any of those taxes, of course. Nor are they burdened by Colorados regulations or cultivation
limits. The upshot is that prices for legal marijuana are, counterintuitively, higher than prices for black-market marijuanaa
marijuana, which was grown under a six-plant-per-patient quota. Demand

situation that critics of the hefty taxes imposed by Colorado and Washington have been predicting for months. One black-market dealer tells The Pueblo Chieftan he
sells high-quality marijuana for $225 to $300 an ounce, compared to $400 or more charged by state-licensed stores. People

will get real tired of

paying the taxes real fast , he says. When you can buy an ounce from me for $225 to $300, the state adds as much as $90 just for the tax. Prices in
the legal market should go down this spring as marijuana grown especially for recreational sales becomes available. But the extra cost
imposed by regulation and taxes will remain a problem , especially since voters authorized the state legislature and the Denver City Council
to raise their special sales taxes as high as 15 percent each. Politicians say the taxes are necessary to pay for the strict regulatory enforcement that will
keep the feds at bay. But if a robust black market persists after legalization, that regulatory regime will be largely
irrelevant .

SCS

LA Instab

Escalation empirically denied

Hartzell 2000 (Caroline A., 4/1/2000, Middle Atlantic Council of Latin American Studies Latin American Essays,
Latin America's civil wars: conflict resolution and institutional change.
http://www.accessmylibrary.com/coms2/summary_0286-28765765_ITM)

Latin America has been the site of fourteen civil wars during the post-World War II era, thirteen of which now have ended.
Although not as civil war-prone as some other areas of the world, Latin America has endured some extremely violent and
destabilizing intrastate conflicts. (2) The region's experiences with civil wars and their resolution thus may prove instructive for
other parts of the world in which such conflicts continue to rage. By examining Latin America's civil wars in some depth not only
might we better understand the circumstances under which such conflicts are ended but also the institutional outcomes to which they give rise.
More specifically, this paper focuses on the following central questions regarding Latin America's civil wars: Has the resolution of these conflicts
produced significant institutional change in the countries in which they were fought? What is the nature of the institutional change that has taken
place in the wake of these civil wars? What are the factors that are responsible for shaping post-war institutional change?

Hemp

Other Countries
Global production increasing
BOHECO 9 (BoheCo is a company that focuses on research and and promote hemp production.GLOBAL
PERSPECTIVE ON INDUSTRIAL HEMP http://boheco.org/global/) 10/1/14 RK

The Trillion Dollar Super Crop Industrial hemp (Cannabis Sativa) thrives in temperate climates and can be found in Europe,
China, Australia, Japan, Chile, Canada, the Balkan countries including Turkey and Romania and some Commonwealth of
Independent States (CIS). According to the agricultural data provided by the Food and Agricultural Organization (FAO) of the United Nations (UN), world hemp fiber and seed was 76,000 ha in

the total U.S. retail value of hemp products in 2012 was nearly
$500 million, which includes food and body products, clothing, auto parts, building materials and other products. There are over 47 countries in the
world that sustain domestic hemp production. Most Eastern European and CIS countries as well as China did not prohibit hemp
cultivation; therefore, they have indigenous varieties from these regions are fairly well adapted to the local environments. However most of these countries use traditional labour
intensive retting techniques and hence they are not very cost competitive. The countries that currently report hemp cultivation include Hungary,
the Russian Federation, China, Republic and Democratic Peoples Republic (DPR) of Korea, Poland, Serbia and
Montenegro, Romania and the Ukraine (FAOSTAT data, 2005). In addition, most of this hemp is used for the production of high quality textiles for export. According to
the Food and Agriculture Organization statistic in 2005 the DPR of Korea has been steadily increasing hemp production since 1980 . In terms of hemp research and
breeding, much work has taken place in Hungary, Canada and Australia and some popular varieties have hailed from there. Hemp fiber
cultivation has been legal in some Australian states in the last 10 -15 years; the Australian states of Tasmania, Victoria, Queensland and New
South Wales allow the cultivation of hemp. The state governments have issued licences to grow hemp for industrial use and it is a strictly monitored process. Hemp cultivation is
allowed in New Zealand, but it has similar policies to Australia in regards to licensing and monitoring. Hemp is not legal to grow in the U.S. under
Federal law because of its relation to marijuana, and it is considered a controlled substance under the Controlled Substances Act. Currently, all of the hemp
production in North America comes from Canada because Mexico and the US still remain under hemp prohibition. Health Canada, the responsible
2004 (FAOSTAT data, 2005). The Hemp Industries Association (HIA) estimates that

regulating body, announced that the commercial cultivation of industrial hemp cultivars would be permitted as of the 1998 growing season. The Controlled Drug and Substances Act (CDSA)
govern Canadas hemp regulations. The government defines hemp is as any variety of Cannabis sativa L. which contains less than 0.3 % by weight of THC in the flowering heads, leaves, and
viable seeds of the plant under question. All stakeholders (farmers, importers, exporters, processors, manufacturers, retailers and distributors) involved in the newly found Canadian hemp
industry are required to obtain permits from Health Canada in order to ensure the legitimacy of the industry. Hemp requires a temperate climate, which is why growing hemp is particularly well
adapted to being grown in France. Hemp is grown in the North-West and North-East for fibres and in the South-West for seeds. In 2002, the cultivated surface in Europe was about 15000 Ha
(Fdration Nationale des Producteurs de Chanvre, 2002), 7700 of them being grown in France. The UK is a producer of fibre, as the climate is not conducive to seed production due to excess
rain and unstable weather conditions. This also has an implication for harvesting and retting, both of which are highly dependant on favourable conditions. Chile is one of the major hemp
producers that has been producing a stable supply of hemp since the 1960s with 4,550 ha harvested in 2004 (FAOSTAT data, 2005). The Chinese government is now actively promoting hemp
cultivation as a tool for lifting rural Chinese out of poverty. Officials in southwest Chinas Yunnan Province are promoting the cultivation of hemp for industrial use to increase the income of
local residents. A hemp fiber processing factory with an annual capacity of 2,000 tonnes began production in 2009 Menghai County in Dai Autonomous Prefecture of Xishuangbanna, a
mountainous region in Yunnan.

1NR

OV
US deal builds a new security architecture---solves turns their conflict impacts--Case cant turn the DA
Shireen T. Hunter 13, Visiting Professor, Center for Muslim-Christian Understanding at Georgetown University,
"The US-Iran Deal Could Lead to a More Stable Middle East and South-West Asia," 12-3-2013, Huffington
Post, http://www.huffingtonpost.com/shireen-t-hunter/the-us-iran-deal-could-le_b_4379098.html, DOA: 122-2015, y2k
Their

path could have positive outcomes not only for the U.S. and Iran but also for the entire region of the
Mid East and South-West Asia
it might lead to a change of paradigm in international
relations and eventually to the establishment of a new security structure

both continuing on this

dle

. Under proper conditions,

even

and regional

in these regions. The Peace of Westphalia (1648), which ended the Thirty Years' War in

Europe, is called by many historians the "peace of exhaustion." The Westphalia treaty resulted from the fact that, despite decades of war, none of the competing forces succeeded in achieving its maximalist goals, while leaving them all depleted and exhausted. It also led
to the realization that,

to avoid a repetition of ruinous wars a new structure for inter-state relations need to be put in
such

ed

place

. This led to the development of principles which laid the foundation of the modern international system which, in its essential elements, still exists. There is now such a possibility in the Middle East and South-West Asia. The experience of the last three

decades, and especially the last ten years, shows that no single regional country or creed can dominate the entire region. Iran's revolutionary ideology has lost whatever broader appeal it ever had in the region and has even begun to play itself out at home. Meanwhile,
Saudi Arabia has failed to roll back the Shia revival in Iraq or to establish its over-lordship with other Sunni Arab countries. Turkey's dreams of a new version of the Ottoman Empire have also proved highly unrealistic. And despite efforts to use Iran as the sacrificial

At the international level the U.S. has failed

to establish Pax Americana in a democratized Middle East and South-West Asia other powers
have tried to challenge global hegemony
This stalemate
offers the best opportunity to try reordering
the region according to a new paradigm of avoiding maximalist goals and recognizing the principal
security concerns
lamb in an Israeli-Sunni Arab bargain, Arab-Israeli peace remains as elusive as ever. But Iran has also been thwarted in its effort to "liberate" Palestine.

; and

its

, both old and new,

. The fundamental changes within the international system are revealed by the unfolding of the Syrian crisis and the stalemate in this conflict at both regional and

international levels, especially Russian and Chinese resistance to US policies there.

in the region and internationally

of all countries in the region, of course including Israel. This would include Iran's ending its excessive hostility toward Israel and trying to help the Palestinians' aspirations through dialogue as well as recognizing the limits

of its influence in the Sunni Arab World. Meanwhile, this reordering would mean that Saudi Arabia and the Persian Gulf Arab states must accept the legitimacy of a role for Iran in the Persian Gulf and the rest of the Middle East and South-West Asia, and for both Iran
and Saudi Arabia to recognize that each has natural constituencies in these regions which both should respect. Such a Saudi-Iranian understanding would go a long way toward easing sectarian tensions and fostering broader regional understandings which would
contribute to regional stability. Nor is such a Saudi-Iranian reconciliation a far-fetched idea. This happened in the past during the Rafsanjani and Khatami presidencies and it can happen again. Already, Ayatullah Hashemi Rafsanjani, who is widely respected and trusted
by the Saudi leadership, especially by King Abdullah, has indicated that he is willing to undertake a process of reconciliation with the Kingdom and, for this purpose, to travel to Riyadh. But even were this reconciliation to take place, it would not mean the establishment
of a Saudi-Iranian condominium in the Middle East; such a scheme would be bound to fail. But it would eliminate a major cause of tension in the Middle East and South-West Asia and make it much easier to resolve conflicts from Lebanon to Afghanistan and enhance

if such developments take place, they could prepare the ground for development of a region-wide
security system. In all of this, the role of the U.S. would be vital and pivotal None of the other powers has
the resources and the acceptance and
willingness
By making the deal with Iran the U.S.
has taken what could be the first step in this direction.
America should
convince them that a more reconciliatory and less maximalist approach,
is in the interest
of
global peace
stability. Eventually,

, more important, the

to play such a role.

Therefore, instead of being deterred by the doubts and resistance of its recalcitrant allies,

as reflected in the Iranian nuclear deal,

all regional countries and that of

Turns oil shocks

Bryan R Gibson 14 recently completed a PhDin International History at the London School of Economics and is
the author of Covert Relationship: American Foreign Policy, Intelligence and the Iran-Iraq War, 1980-1988
(Praeger, 2010), "Implications of an Iran nuclear deal," 11-22-2014, Middle East Eye,
http://www.middleeasteye.net/columns/implications-iran-nuclear-deal-1541754, DOA: 1-22-2015, y2k
As the Iran nuclear talks in Vienna approach another deadline, it is worth considering the implications of a potential deal
for the United States, Iran, and Israel. Each has a different set of outcomes it would like to see achieved in the talks. On balance,
the US and Iran have the most to gain, but as we will see, Israel also has much to gain. The problem is that the Israeli government has
painted itself into a corner and seems determined to spoil a potential deal. Since late 2011, the US has shown an interest in

rebalancing its foreign policy through a strategic pivot toward Asia. To achieve this, the Obama
administration has tried to disengage itself from the region and return the US to its traditional place of acting as an
offshore balancer. This strategy has been evident in President Obamas reluctance to involve America in the Syrian civil war, the
limited US involvement in the Libyan Civil War, and Secretary of State John Kerrys intensive and unsuccessful efforts to secure an
agreement between Israel and the Palestinians in 2013-14. The reality is that if the US could somehow extricate itself from
these intractable conflicts, it could then refocus its energies in Asia. Trita Parsi, president of the National IranianAmerican Council and author of Treacherous Alliance: The Secret Dealings of Israel, Iran, and the United States, said in an interview
that to achieve a strategic pivot toward Asia, the Obama administration first needs to develop a functioning

relationship with Iran: Many of the problems in the region have become all the more difficult to resolve as

a result of the US and Iran not being able to talk to each other. Resolving the Iranian nuclear question
aligns perfectly with Americas strategic objectives for the region, which include preventing the dominance of a single
state, keeping oil flowing through the Strait of Hormuz and on to global markets, and limiting its military presence in the
region while ensuring the safety of its allies in the region, particularly Israel. According to a forthcoming strategic
report from LSE IDEAS at the London School of Economics, a nuclear deal will reduce the likelihood of an Israeli
military strike against Iran; bring Iranian oil back into the global oil supply; and stave off a potential
nuclear arms race between Iran and Saudi Arabia. More importantly, it could lead to cooperation on
important regional issues, such as containing the rise of the Islamic State, stabilizing the civil war in Syria,
reigning in terrorism in Pakistan, preventing a Taliban victory in Afghanistan, and countering the regions
heroin trade. There is already evidence of the US showing interest in cooperating with Iran on dealing with the IS threat in Iraq,
so it is not unreasonable to believe that a nuclear deal could lead to cooperation on other areas of common
interest.

And environment
Madani & Soroush 14, Kaveh Madani is a lecturer in Environmental Management at the Centre for
Environmental Policy, Imperial College LondonandNazanin Soroush is a Middle East political analyst,
"Every breath you take: the environmental consequences of Iran sanctions," 12-5-2012, Guardian,
http://www.theguardian.com/world/iran-blog/2014/nov/21/iran-environmental-consequences-of-sanctions,
DOA: 1-22-2015, y2k
In the case of Iran, sanctions

have increased a thirst for accelerated development to expand water-resource infrastructure,

Iranians. With aggressive, home-grown policies Iran has managed to
evade the sanctions to an extent, while overlooking the environmental consequences. Turning petrochemical
generate power, and secure food and energy for

factories into oil refineries is one example. In 2010, Iran imported 40% of its consumer fuel. When President Barack Obama
introduced penalties for selling petrol to Iran and imports fell by 75%, Iran responded by developing its own refining and producing
what is today the major cause of its deadly air pollution. Reports suggest that Irans petrol contains ten times the level of contaminants
of imported petrol and its diesel 800 times the international standard for sulphur. Aggressive development of water

infrastructure and handing substantial subsidies to farmers are other examples of strategies developed under
pressures caused by the 1980-88 Iraq-Iran war, international sanctions and the resulting threats to national food
security. Iran is currently the third biggest dam builder in the world, with consequent overuse of fossil
groundwater sources, drying of its major rivers, and destruction of wetlands, ironically in the country where the
1971 Ramsar Convention on the conservation of wetlands was signed. Similarly, the other sectors of Irans environment have been
seriously affected by policies that have overlooked the anthropogenic effects of aggressive development in an era when environmental
preservation has seemed a distant priority under the limitations caused by sanctions. Moreover, the United States has managed

to restrict and even block environmental financial aid from major international institutions such as the
United National Development Programme and the Global Environment Facility, which in theory should help
developing countries build a better life with no restrictions. This has had further negative effects on Irans
environment. Despite international pressure, Iran has managed to continue exporting oil and gas, build refineries and become a
major dam builder. The environmental dimensions of such independent, accelerated development include dramatically increased
pollution, diminished water resources, accelerated deforestation and desertification, and increasing biodiversity losses. Whether these
consequences have been intended by those devising sanctions, as argued by some Iranian officials, the environmental effects go
beyond Irans borders and last for generations. The recent US-China deal over reduction of greenhouse emissions, which may be a
turning point in international climate change negotiations, shows a new maturity of political leaders in recognising that environmental
issues are trans-boundary and that tackling them requires an international effort. Irans environmental problems have not gone
unnoticed by the international community. The World Health Organisation has rated four of Irans cities in the top ten most polluted
cities in the world. Ahwaz, the oil and industrial city in Khuzestan, a province bordering Iraq, is the worlds most polluted city, with
three times the concentration of pollutants as Beijing. Yasouj, another industrial city, has a large coal-burning power plant and is soon
to be the site of a refinery. In contrast, the other two Iranian cities in the top ten, Sanandaj and Kermanshah, are not home to large
petrochemical or power plants. Their high air pollution has been attributed to substandard petrol. Surprisingly, Tehran does not make
the list, although air pollution is directly responsible for 25% of deaths in the city and is so dire that parliamentarians have discussed
relocating the capital. In general, Iranians inhale a cocktail of rubber particles, asbestos, sulphur dioxide, nitrogen oxide, carbon
monoxide, and partially burnt remnants of hydrocarbons. Not surprisingly, cancer and respiratory illnesses - the second and third
highest causes of death in Iran - are on the rise. Nearly 70,000 people are diagnosed with cancer each year, a number that is likely to
increase by 90% by 2020, according to the Cancer Research Centre of Iran. Irans critical water crisis is another mark of
environmental degradation. Lake and rivers are drying out. Lake Urmia, once the largest salt lake in the Middle East, is nearly gone.

Zayandeh Rud, literally the river that gives birth in central Iran, once the centre of Persian civilisation, is dry most of the year.
Wetlands are drying one after another and water quality is degrading in some populous areas. As a result of diminished surface water,
Iran is experiencing more frequent dust storms. These are extremely unpleasant, hurt agriculture and livestock, decrease the quality of
life of inhabitants, and eventually force out-migration. The shrinking of surface water sources has encouraged aggressive extraction of
non-renewable groundwater resources, making Iran one of the worlds top groundwater miners, with declining groundwater levels
causing major subsidence in some areas. Some estimates suggest 70% of Irans groundwater resources have been used and that
groundwater shortage and quality may be the next national environmental tragedy that Iranians will face. Rapid urbanisation,

industrial pollution, waste disposal, overgrazing, deforestation, land degradation, and soil erosion are all
affecting Irans remarkable biodiversity at the crossroads of Africa, Asia, and Europe. Flora and fauna have
been damaged at an alarming rate due to the destruction of natural habitats. The Asiatic cheetahs, Asiatic black bear, goitered gazelle,
and Persian wild ass are among the species pushed to extinction through irreversible man-made processes. Whether or not a

resolution of the nuclear standoff is reached and sanctions eased, Irans environmental problems cannot be tackled without
serious determination and substantial investment. While sanctions are not the main cause of Irans environmental problems, they
have exacerbated the situation and will affect the quality of life and health of many future generations of Iranians who have
had no involvement in the nuclear policies and might not yet even have been born. There is another dimension: environmental
problems do not recognise political boundaries. Iran has not been immune from the effects of instability in neighbours Afghanistan
and Iraq. Chaos in Afghanistan and the boundary conflict over the Hirmand (Helmand) River have contributed to the drying of Lake
Hamun in eastern Iran, making farming no longer possible and precipitating dust storms that are forcing people to migrate. The west
of Iran has been suffering dust storms caused by the degrading land management and drying marshlands of Iraq. These storms are one
of the major causes of air pollution in Tehran, although it is 550km from the border. Similarly, Irans major environmental

problems - increased air pollution, biodiversity losses, desertification, deforestation, and drying water resources
- will cross boundaries with major regional and even global implications, even though sanctions were supposed
to hurt only Iran.

UQ
No veto-proof majority now---Dems are on board for now
Dmitriy Shapiro 1/30, Coming Up Short, http://jewishtimes.com/34009/coming-short/, DOA: 2-4-15, y2k
For the second year running a
bill intensifying sanctions
appears to be foundering on threat of a
presidential veto.
Boehner
responded by inviting
Netanyahu and to address Congress on the subject
The turbulence
surrounding the sanctions legislation
with the strong backing of the A I P A C
has left the bill in limbo
-WASHINGTON

bid to pass a

against Iran

In his State of the Union address Jan. 20, President Obama vowed to veto further sanctions legislation, saying it would all but guarantee his efforts to achieved a deal on Irans nuclear program would collapse. House Speaker John

(R-Ohio)

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin

March, is expected to express full support for new sanctions legislation.

. Netanyahu, who will address Congress in

this week

merican

srael

ublic

ffairs

, authored by Sens. Mark Kirk (R-Ill.) and Robert Menendez (D-N.J.)

ommittee,

. Netanyahus scheduled March 3 address to Congress coincides with AIPACs annual policy

conference, which he will also address. Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.), the House minority leader whose position on the bill would be critical to whipping the two-thirds majority to override a veto in the House, said the timing of Netanyahus speech was inappropriate, both because of the
proximity of the March 17 Israeli elections and because Boehner has cast it as a rebuttal to Obamas veto threat. We cannot have [Iran talks] fail when Congress wants to flex its muscle unnecessarily, she told reporters Jan. 22 echoing Obamas argument that new sanctions could scuttle
talks with Iran on keeping it from obtaining nuclear weapons. If that is the purpose of Prime Minister Netanyahus visit two weeks before his own election right in the midst of negotiations, I just dont think its appropriate and helpful. Irking Pelosi especially was that Boehner issued the
invitation on behalf of the bipartisan leadership of the U.S. House of Representatives and the U.S. Senate before consulting with her or Sen. Harry Reid (D-Nev.), the Senate minority leader. It is out of the ordinary that the speaker would decide that he would be inviting people to a joint

Senate Democrats who would be key to building a

veto-proof majority of 67 votes in the chamber were sounding notes of reluctance
its a matter of timing
The administration has pretty strong views about
bringing it up for a vote at this particular moment.
session without any bipartisan consultation, she said. Boehners office did not respond to a query about consulting with Democrats over the invitation.

. Sen. Ben Cardin (D-Md.), who backed a similar Kirk-Menendez bill a year

ago, seemed to backtrack in an interview Jan. 22. Ive always supported additional sanctions, [but]

, he said.

Sen. Sherrod Brown (D-Ohio), the top Democrat on the Senates Banking Committee, which must approve the sanctions before they advance to the Senate floor,

said he was not ready to endorse them just yet. I dont know how Im going to vote yet, but I think that we need to slow it down a little bit, he said. I talked to a number of our allies. I want to make sure we do this in a way that Iran does not walk away from the negotiations. Reid,

For Menendez
it was deja vu all over again
his hallmark legislation foundered under identical circumstances
Solid support for the legislation dissipated among Democrats
after Obama issued a veto threat
speaking for the first time to the press after recovering from a serious exercise injury, was noncommittal. Hes going to come give a speech to a joint session of Congress, and were going to listen what he has to say, he said.
Irans isolation,

, and he was furious. A year ago

, a longtime champion of

almost

in both chambers

in his State of the Union. This

time around, though, the calculus was supposed to be different. Reid, as majority leader, used parliamentary maneuvers to scuttle the bill in 2014, but Republicans are in the majority now. At a hearing Jan. 21 of the Foreign Relations Committee, on which he is the lead Democrat, Menendez
accused Obama administration officials of bad faith. I have to be honest with you, the more I hear from the administration and its quotes, the more it sounds like talking points that come straight out of Tehran, Menendez said. And it heeds to the Iranian narrative of victimhood, when they
are the ones with original sin: an illicit nuclear weapons program over the course of 20 years that they are unwilling to come clean on.

Backers of the bill had at first seemed confident

of its swift passage, shepherded by

the new majority leader, Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.). The Banking Committee was due to consider the bill on Jan. 22, and AIPAC sent Senate offices a bill summary on Jan. 12 unusual for a bill that had yet to be formally launched. The agreement clearly complies with the
commitment President Obama made that the United States would impose no new sanctions during the course of negotiations with Iran, AIPAC said. The Banking Committee subsequently postponed its consideration of the bill until Jan. 29, and a number of alternatives are now under
consideration that stop short of introducing new sanctions, including a proposal by Sen. Bob Corker (R-Tenn.), the chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee, that would subject any deal with Iran to an up or down congressional vote.
said they

saw sanctions as off the table for now.

Leading Democrats

I do not support raising sanctions now, said Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.). If the process fails, thats another subject, but theres no question that if we did it now, in my mind,

it would bring on failure right away. Sen. Chris Murphy (D-Conn.), said he opposed new sanctions as well as Corkers proposal. I think this Congress has a pretty miserable record of fairly judging international agreements presented to Congress by this president, he said. I think that we

Menendez would align with his

caucus
Sen. Menendez has a pretty good understanding of the pros and cons here, so were all trying to keep the
unity and, to me, the more we can work together with the president,
should be in the business of approving treaties, [but] Im not sure if we need to be adding to our workload when we have an agreement that is not technically a treaty under the Constitution. Cardin suggested that
. I think

the better off we are, he said.

Dems broadly are siding with Obama---BUT GOP could push ahead---key question
of 67 votes.
Deb Riechmann 1/27, "US Democrats put brakes on Iran sanctions bill," 1-27-2015, Yahoo News,
http://news.yahoo.com/top-democrat-tries-slow-iran-sanctions-bill-153127154.html, DOA: 1-29-2015, y2k
Democrats
put the brakes on
sanctions legislation ending a looming showdown between
the U.S. Congress and
Obama
Menendez
remains skeptical
but he and nine other Democrats won't push the bill
Menendez'
concession
is good news for Obama who has threatened to veto
Republicans could still move
ahead on the bill but without Democratic support Congress would not have the votes needed to override
veto.
The White House
have been lobbying U.S. lawmakers
WASHINGTON (AP) Senate

on Tuesday

new Iran

President Barack

a deal will materialize,

to the White House

for now

over negotiations to prevent Tehran from having the capability to make a nuclear weapon. Sen. Bob

says

now

, a Democrat and a leading proponent of the legislation, says he

at least until the end of March.

any new sanctions legislation.

, British Prime Minister David Cameron and other international leaders

an Obama

hard, arguing that if new sanctions legislation were passed, Iran could walk

away from the talks and say the U.S. was negotiating in bad faith and scuttle the discussions. Obama said the willingness of America's international partners to enforce existing sanctions against Iran also would wane. Last week, House Speaker John Boehner fueled the rising friction with the
White House by announcing that he had invited Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, a staunch opponent of Iran, to stand before Congress March 3 and push for new sanctions. The announcement caught the administration off-guard and Obama says he will not be meeting with
Netanyahu when he visits Washington. Boehner defended his decision again on Tuesday, saying the House is an equal branch of government and had the right to invite the Israeli leader to "talk to the members of Congress about the serious threat that Iran poses and the serious threat of radical
Islam." Time could be running out to reach a deal with Iran, which says its nuclear program is peaceful and exists only to produce energy for civilian use. Talks have been extended until July, with the goal of reaching a framework for a deal by the end of March. Menendez, who drafted
bipartisan legislation with Sen. Mark Kirk, a Republican, said at a Senate Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs Committee hearing that he and many of his Democratic colleagues had sent a letter to Obama saying they won't support passage of the bill until after March 24 the date when a
framework for a final deal is to be done. "The legislation that Sen. Kirk and I have drafted would signal to the Iranian regime that there will be more consequences if they choose not to reach a final deal," Menendez said. "This morning, however, many of my Democratic colleagues and I sent
a letter to the president, telling him that we will not support passage of the Kirk-Menendez bill on the Senate floor until after March 24 and only if there is no political framework agreement because, as the letter states, we remain hopeful that diplomacy will succeed in reversing Iran's ability

A senior Senate staffer said there was broad consensus among Democrats that the administration
be afforded a bit more time to come to a deal
to develop a nuclear weapon capability."

before approving more sanctions even though they would take effect only if no agreement is reached. The staffer spoke on condition of anonymity because he was not authorized

to publicly discuss the issue.

D

Thumpers
AND---He isnt doing anything controversial with Dems
Michael Cohen 12/27, Century Foundation Fellow, "The Honey Badger Presidency," Boston Globe, 12-27-14,
www.bostonglobe.com/opinion/2014/12/26/obama-honey-badgerpresidency/RQC0zWwE7g6bQKLC8LBk4L/story.html?p1=Article_InThisSection_Bottom, DOA: 1-6-15, y2k
Yet, last week when

Obama gave his end-of-the-year press conference, he very much appeared to be a man without a care in
confident, and seemingly liberated. With two years left in his presidency, Obama should be a lame duck.
Instead, he looks more like the honey badger. In a popular and hilarious YouTube clip, the honey badger has been immortalized as a
the world energetic,

bold, fearless, and undaunted creature who doesnt care. Thats pretty much been Obamas modus operandi since the midterm elections. First
there was Obamas trip to China, in which the two nations reached a historic agreement to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, paving the way for a
possible climate deal in 2015. Next came Obamas executive order on immigration that will provide temporary legal status and forestall
deportation for millions of illegal immigrants. Then there was the move earlier this month to restore diplomatic ties with Cuba, ending a failed
five-decade policy of political and economic isolation. In between, Obama endorsed tougher rules for companies that provide broadband access,
to the benefit of consumers; issued an executive order protecting the Bristol Bay salmon fishery in Alaska; and upended a tax bill in Congress
supported by prominent Democrats, including Senator Harry Reid that he said wouldnt do enough to help working families. Hes even used
the symbolic elements of the bully pulpit. In last weeks press conference, he purposely called only on female journalists; and at a Toys for Tots
event this week he made a point to put traditional toys for boys like sports equipment and Legos in the bin for girls. When questioned about
the move, the president asked derisively, Girls dont like toys? In the past, one could imagine the often hyper-cautious Obama unwilling to risk
the wrath of Republicans or taking positions that easily typecast him as not just a Democrat, but heaven forbid, a liberal. But just like the honey
badger, Obama doesnt care. So whats going on here? First and foremost, the current 113th Congress is the second least productive in history.
What was the least productive Congress? That would be the 112th Congress. With the GOP now in control of the Senate, the chances of anything
getting done in Washington over the next two years has gone from about highly unlikely to youre joking, right? So if Obama wants to
accomplish anything in his last two years as president hes going to have to do it himself. Second, with no more elections to wage, Obama can
afford to throw political caution to the wind and push forward with his agenda, secure in the knowledge that he wont be facing the voters again.

The irony , however, is that Obama really isnt taking huge political risks. Everything that hes done in the past six
weeks from immigration and the environment to opening relations with Cuba is not only popular, but stands to
help his party in 2016 and in the years beyond. For example, Democrats already had a stranglehold on the nations Hispanic vote
Obamas immigration order will only strengthen it. Theres another understated political benefit: Its making Republicans crazy. The one thing
that truly unites the GOP these days is an emotional and irrational dislike of the president. So every time Obama does something the Republicans
dont like, it not only makes them mad but gets them talking about impeachment and other loopy political ideas. In other words, it encourages
Republicans to act even more extreme than they have for the past six years. That might not necessarily be great for the country, but in heightening
the contrast between the two parties, its a pretty good deal for Democrats. To be sure, Obamas boldness is a fairly constricted one.

He is pushing the envelope within the well-established boundaries of American politics and certainly not as
far as some of his liberal critics would prefer. Still, by sharpening the broad differences between Democrats and Republicans, he is
providing Americans with a much clearer sense of the stark choices they face from the two parties. The candidate who ran as a post-partisan
uniter in 2008 has pretty much given up the dream of bipartisanship. To quote Phyllis Schlafly, Americans will be given a choice, not an echo.
So while Obama might be a lame duck, his
and inflame Republicans are helping
welcome to the honey badger presidency.

willingness to act unilaterally and take steps that bolster his partys political base
ensure that he remains the most relevant figure in American politics. In short,

2. Sanctions is top of the docket

Niels Lesniewski 12/27, "Graham Says Iran Sanctions Vote Will Come in January," 1-24-2015, World's
Greatest Deliberative Body, http://blogs.rollcall.com/wgdb/graham-says-iran-sanctions-vote-will-come-in-januaryvideo/?dcz=, DOA: 1-23-2015, y2k
Sen. Lindsey Graham said Saturday that a

vote on legislation providing for more stringent conditional sanctions against Iran would be
among the first items of business for the 114th Congress.

3. Issues dont cost capital until the finish line

Drum, Mother Jones Political Blogger, 2010,
(Kevin, "Immigration Coming Off the Back Burner?", Mother Jones, 3-30, PAS) motherjones.com/kevindrum/2010/03/immigration-coming-back-burner 9-29-11
Not to pick on Ezra or anything, but this attitude betrays a surprisingly common misconception about political issues in general. The

fact is
dogs never bark until an issue becomes an active one. Opposition to Social Security privatization was
pretty mild until 2005, when George Bush turned it into an active issue. Opposition to healthcare reform was mild
until 2009, when Barack Obama turned it into an active issue. Etc. I only bring this up because we often take a look at
polls and think they tell us what the public thinks about something. But for the most part, they don't .1 That is,
that political

they don't until the issue in question is squarely on the table and both sides have spent a couple of months filling the airwaves with their best
agitprop. Polling data about gays in the military, for example, hasn't changed a lot over the past year or two, but

once Congress takes up the issue in earnest and the Focus on the Family newsletters go out, the push polling starts, Rush Limbaugh
picks it up, and Fox News creates an incendiary graphic to go with its saturation coverage well, that's when the polling will tell you
something. And it will probably tell you something different from what it tells you now. Immigration was bubbling along as sort
of a background issue during the Bush administration too until 2007, when he tried to move an actual bill. Then all
hell broke loose. The same thing will happen this time, and without even a John McCain to act as a conservative point man for a moderate
solution. The political environment is worse now than it was in 2007, and I'll be very surprised if it's possible to make any serious progress on
immigration reform. "Love 'em or hate 'em," says Ezra, illegal immigrants "aren't at the forefront of people's minds." Maybe not. But they will be
soon.

AT Keystone
Dems are ALL united on the issues they outline
Sean Sullivan 2/3, "Republicans learn a majority on the Hill is no guarantee," 2-3-15, Washington Post,
http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/gop-majority-faces-problems-as-democrats-block-bill-to-fund-dhs-inimmigration-fight/2015/02/03/1ef4e9ac-abd3-11e4-ad71-7b9eba0f87d6_story.html, DOA: 2-6-2015, y2k
Republicans
continued assault on
Obamas signature accomplishments and
budget proposal
they faced stiff resistance from Democrats
The
Senate
failed to move ahead on a bill that would
strip money for
executive actions on
immigration The
House voted to repeal
health-care reform
Congressional

on Tuesday

their

President

his ambitious

. The developments illustrated how a GOP majority in both chambers is no guarantee that Republicans will get what they want.

and

fund the Department of Homeland Security but

Republicancontrolled

again

Obamas sweeping

it of

. But

Republican-led

tried

Obamas

law, a symbolic move that stands no chance of taking effect. And in both chambers, Republicans

sought to shoot down Obamas $4 trillion budget in advance of releasing their own plans. Senate Democrats blocked a $40 billion DHS funding bill that passed the House and would cover the department through September. They oppose the bill because of the GOPs effort to stop Obamas
executive actions on immigration, including his decision to stem the deportations of millions of undocumented immigrants. The move leaves unresolved whether DHS will receive a new funding bill before current spending runs out Feb. 27. The agency is bracing itself. A shutdown of the
DHS in these times is frankly too bitter to contemplate, but we have to contemplate it, said DHS Secretary Jeh Johnson.

party lines with all Democrats uniting

,

46

The vote to proceed to debate on the bill fell

almost

entirely along

to leave Republicans short of the 60 votes needed to advance the measure. Sen. Dean Heller (Nev.), whose state is home to many Hispanic residents, was the sole Republican to join with

Democrats. Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) voted no, but only as a procedural tactic that allowed him to bring the bill up again. Minority Leader Harry M. Reid (D-Nev.) told reporters that a clean DHS spending bill meaning one without provisions regarding Obamas
immigration actions would be the only measure Senate Democrats could support. Ahead of the vote, Democrats claimed Republicans were risking shutting down a key government agency amid heightened concerns about terror threats. Republicans countered that Democrats were acting
unreasonably by preventing even an initial step forward on the measure. Its time for Congress to be resolute in its determination to defend America, said Sen. Richard J. Durbin (Ill.), the second-ranking Democrat, after leaving a caucus lunch with Johnson. Sen. Roy Blunt (R-Mo.) said:
This is just a vote to debate the bill. Democracy doesnt work if you dont debate. On the other side of the Capitol, the House took aim at Obamas health-care law by passing legislation to repeal it. It was the 56th time it has voted to repeal all or part of the bill. But the president will not
sign any bill that seeks to undo the law known as Obamacare. Democrats criticized the GOPs push to shred the law. The clock is ticking on the bill for Homeland Security. Thats our responsibility to support and protect. Lets get about the business that we take an oath to do, instead of,
for the 56th time, bay at the moon, said Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) in a House floor speech. Republicans, meanwhile, declared Obamas budget plan to be a legislative non-starter as they criticized the new taxes it would require to pay for a slate of new programs. Its dead on
arrival, said Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.). Sen. Tim Scott (R-S.C.) called it unrealistic completely. Obamas plan, which includes proposals for new early education programs and free community college tuition, would require new tax revenue from wealthy Americans and large
corporations to fund the initiatives. Theres no greater contrast than showing what this new American Congress is for and what the president supports. His new budget will give the federal government an 11 percent raise by taking more out of the economy in taxes, House Majority Leader
Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.) told reporters. Republicans are expected to unveil a more austere budget proposal in the coming weeks. That will launch a protracted process that will put the GOP under intense pressure to craft a budget plan that can win the presidents signature by the start of the

Keystone
Democratic leaders
will uphold his veto

next fiscal year in October. One bill that congressional Republicans are poised to move ahead with even without much support from their Democratic colleagues would approve construction of the
on the Senate-passed bill next week. But

even that measure has limits

its

. Obama has vowed to veto it, and

XL oil pipeline. McCarthy said Tuesday that the House plans to vote

have said they

AT PC Fails
PC solves Dems now
Manu Raju 1/15, Politico Staff, "Obama to Senate Dems: Im going to play offense," 1-15-2015, POLITICO,
http://www.politico.com/story/2015/01/obama-to-senate-dems-im-going-to-play-offense-114307.html, DOA: 1-212015, y2k
President Barack Obama

made clear Thursday in a closed-door session with Senate Democrats that hes prepared to veto
hostile legislation from the GOP-controlled Congress, including an Iran sanctions package on the front burner of Capitol
Hill. According to several sources at the Thursday summit in Baltimore, Obama vowed to defend his agenda against
Republicans in Congress, promised to stand firm against GOP efforts to dismantle his agenda and called on his Democratic colleagues
to help sustain his expected vetoes. The president also was explicit about his opposition to an Iran sanctions bill,
promising to veto legislation as his administration is in the midst of multilateral nuclear negotiations with the Middle Eastern regime. Even
though Obamas position on Iran sanctions differs from that of a number of powerful Democrats, the session, several
sources said, was more pep rally than confrontation. Despite his lame-duck status, the president promised that he would
not sit on the sidelines in the next two years. He vowed more executive actions to implement his agenda, something bound to provoke
anger from Republicans who have called the presidents unilateral moves, particularly on immigration, unconstitutional power grabs. Im not
going to spend the next two years on defense; Im going to play offense, Obama said, according to two attendees. The presidents remarks
during the Senate Democrats retreat at the Hilton hotel near Camden Yards Stadium were

warmly received, sources said. The

energetic atmosphere was a sharp departure from the tension felt between Senate Democrats and the White House
in the aftermath of Novembers GOP midterm election rout, attendees said. Obama spent most of the time answering questions, even promoting
his trade agenda to many Democrats who oppose his administrations push on the issue. At the meeting, Obama, who has rarely used his veto pen
in his six years in office, signaled he would henceforth use it repeatedly, including on GOP-sponsored legislation to build the Keystone XL
pipeline. Once that measure passes, Republicans have indicated they would soon move to a bill being drafted by Sens. Mark Kirk (R-Ill.) and
Robert Menendez (D-N.J.) that would impose tough sanctions on the Iranian economy. The White House worries such a provocative move
could prompt Iran to back out of a sweeping nuclear deal with the U.S. and other world powers before a June 30 deadline. White House officials
confirmed the veto threat over the Iran bill but declined to comment further. His administration has raised concerns over the Iran measure, but the
president appeared to take his opposition a step further in Thursdays meeting. In January 2014, Obama threatened a veto over a similar Iran
sanctions bill, but in the new Congress, the administration has stopped just short of such a threat.