1NC1

They read the resolution not the plan- must specify beyond legalize

Vote Nega. Makes the plan void for vagueness- undermines policy analysis Kleiman and Saiger 90 lecturer public policy Harvard, consultant drug policy Rand, 1990, A SYMPOSIUM ON DRUG DECRIMINALIZATION: DRUG LEGALIZATION: THE IMPORTANCE OF ASKING THE RIGHT QUESTION, 18 Hofstra L. Rev. 527

Defining Legalization Legalization, like prohibition, does not name a unique strategy. Perhaps the most prominent inadequacy of current legalization arguments is their failure to specify what is meant by "legalization." Current drug policy provides an illustration of this diversity. Heroin and marijuana are completely prohibited, 74 and cocaine can only be used in rigidly specified medical contexts, not including any where the drug's psychoactive properties are exercised. 75 On the other hand, a wide range of pain-killers, sleep-inducers, stimulants, tranquilizers and sedatives can be obtained with a doctor's prescription. 76 Alcohol is available for recreational use, but is subject to an array of controls including excise taxation, 77 limits on drinking ages, 78 limits on TV and radio advertising, 79 and retail licensing. 80 Nicotine is subject to age minimums, warning label requirements, 81 taxation, 82 and bans on smoking in some public places. 83 [*541] Drug legalization can therefore be thought of as moving drugs along a spectrum of regulated statuses in the direction of increased availability. However, while legalization advocates do not deny that some sort of controls will be required, their proposals rarely address the question of how far on the spectrum a given drug should be moved, or how to accomplish such a movement. Instead, such details are dismissed as easily determined, or postponed as a problem requiring future thought. 84 But the consequences of legalization depend almost entirely on the details of the remaining regulatory regime. The price and conditions of the availability of a newly legal drug will be more powerful in shaping its consumption than the fact that the drug is "legal." Rules about advertising, place and time of sale, and availability to minors help determine whether important aspects of the drug problem get better or worse. The amount of regulatory apparatus required and the way in which it is organized and enforced will determine how much budget reduction can be realized from dismantling current enforcement efforts. 85 Moreover, currently illicit drugs, because they are so varied pharmacologically, would not all pose the same range of the problems if they were to be made legally available for non-medical use. They would therefore require different control regimes. These regimes might need to be as diverse as the drugs themselves.

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

2

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

Marijuana Legalization Violates US Gov Obligation to International Treaties The US government, in conjunction with Department of Justice (DoJ) lawyers, are considering suing states that have passed marijuana legalization laws. For now, the federal government is observing how recreational laws will affect punitive measures and how the federal laws in place are applicable. Illegal drugs from Mexico will be directly impacted by the legalization of marijuana in the US. Attorney General Eric Holder explains: We have treaty obligations with nations outside of the US. There are a whole variety of things that have to go into the determination that we are in the process of making. The UN Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC) reports research on drug trafficking in the World Drug Report. The UN is monitoring the world heroin market and opium trade from the Lao Peoples Democratic Republic to Afghanistan and tracing the flow of drugs through markets in the Russian Federation along its way to Easter Europe. Opium and heroin markets are estimated at $33 billion annually. Global cocaine market that travels through the Near and Middle East, on to South-West Asia and Western and Central Europe is worth about $88 billion. This cocaine is shipped from areas in the European Union to Colombia, Mexico or Central America. The shipments then make their way into the US. In November of 2012, Raymond Yans, president of the International Narcotics Control Board (INCB) asserted that the US government has treaty obligations that preclude the legalization of marijuana in Colorado and Washington State. In fact, Yans points out that these developments are in violation of the international drug control treaties. Stated in the 1961 UN Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs (SCND), the new legalization of marijuana laws in Colorado and Washington must be overridden by the federal government because there was a limit of the use of cannabis to medical and scientific purposes, according to the SCND. Therefore narcotic drugs must be made available for medical purposes to all the States who signed the treaty. This fact would be reflected in national laws within each sovereign nations and be fully in-line with international mandates. Treaty obligations would also ensure that nations would comply with the SCND. The SCND is a combination of many international drug trade treaties which outlines the limitations of the production, manufacture, export, import, distribution of, trade in, use and possession of opiates, marijuana and cocaine to medicinal and scientific purposes. In Schedule 1, heroin, cocaine and cannibus are the most restricted narcotics. The INCB was established to monitor nations and maintain compliance with the SCND. The legalization of marijuana in Colorado and Washington State, according to Yans and the SCND, is a contradiction to the international law set forth in the treaty. Yans made it clear that his organization was seeking to have the US government come back into compliance with the SCND with regard to the legalization of marijuana which is a violation of international drug control treaties for the sake of protect[ing] the health and well-being of American citizens. The Global Initiative for Drug Policy Reform states that: Although the objectives of the 1961 Convention made it clear that its aims were the improvement of the health and welfare of mankind, the measures of success which have been used in the war on drugs approach have been the number of arrests, size of the seizures or severity of prison sentences . . . these indicators may tell us how tough we are being, but they dont tell us how successful we are in improving the health and welfare of mankind. In essence, the Obama administration is facing the choice of knowingly violating the SCND or finding a legal remedy against Colorado and Washington for allowing marijuana for recreational use within state limits. The propaganda of pro-marijuana and anti-marijuana claims all method of reasons for justification of their argument which serves to confuse the public while keeping the truth of the UN treaty out of the social meme while Obama figures out which side of the fence he wants to be on.

That spills over collapses the treaty regimeCounts, J.D. Candidate at Harvard Law School, '14Nathaniel, INITIATIVE 502 AND CONFLICTING STATE AND FEDERAL LAW, Gonzaga Law Review, 4-7-14, http://www.law.gonzaga.edu/law-review/files/2014/04/1-Counts-Pgs-187-212.pdf, accessed 9-14-14) PM

In dealing with the conflicting state and federal law, enforcement decisions will affect the United States role as an actor in international law and the direction of international cooperation in combatting illegal drug trade. First, if the United States breaches its treaty obligations under the Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs and the Convention Against Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drags and Psychotropic Substances, it would undermine the international rule of law. A strong international rule of law is desirable "to establish and maintain order and enhance reliable expectations" in international affairs.142 As there are no enforcement mechanisms for international legal obligations equivalent to that which exists with domestic law the weight of obligations relies to some extent on comity among the states involved.143 As long as states agree to limit their sovereignty and comply with international law states will be more likely to respect one anothers reasonable expectations and fulfill then obligations.144 Both conventions have provisions that read. "If there should arise between two or more Parties a dispute relating to the interpretation or application of this Convention, the Parties shall consult together with a view to the settlement of the dispute by...peaceful means of then own choice." and should this fail, they agree to jurisdiction before the International Court of Justice (ICJ).145Despite this possibility of justifiability of breach, it is highly unlikely that any state party would bring a case before the ICJ over domestic non-enforcement of the treaty obligations, as diplomatic channels are more predictable and possible noncompliance with ICJ judgments weakens the international rule of law.146 If the United States fails to enforce the CSA and allows the Washington legalization system to succeed, it may signal to other states that the United States is willing to allow its domestic law overcome its international law obligations and may not be reliable in international transnational enforcement efforts in the future. It also signals to other states that they may allow their domestic law to inhibit effective enforcement of international treaty obligations, which may undermine the United States goals in the future.ExtinctionDyer, University of London Military History PhD, 2004(Gwynne, 12/30/4, "The end of war," Toronto Star, l/n [accessed 8/15/10])

War is deeply embedded in our history and our culture, probably since before we were even fully human, but weaning ourselves away from it should not be a bigger mountain to climb than some of the other changes we have already made in the way `we live, given the right incentives. And we have certainly been given the right incentives: The holiday from history that we have enjoyed since the early '90s may be drawing to an end, and another great-power war, fought next time with nuclear weapons, may be lurking in our future.. The "firebreak" against nuclear weapons use that we began building after Hiroshima and Nagasaki has held for well over half a century now. But the proliferation of nuclear weapons to new powers is a major challenge to the stability of the system. So are the coming crises, mostly environmental in origin, which will hit some countries much harder than others, and may drive some to desperation. Add in the huge impending shifts in the great-power system as China and India grow to rival the United States in GDP over the next 30 or 40 years and it will be hard to keep things from spinning out of control. With good luck and good management, we may be able to ride out the next half-century without the first-magnitude catastrophe of a global nuclear war, but the potential certainly exists for a major die-back of human population. We cannot command the good luck, but good management is something we can choose to provide. It depends, above all, on preserving and extending the multilateral system that we have been building since the end of World War II. The rising powers must be absorbed into a system that emphasizes co-operation and makes room for them, rather than one that deals in confrontation and raw military power. If they are obliged to play the traditional great-power game of winners and losers, then history will repeat itself and everybody loses. Our hopes for mitigating the severity of the coming environmental crises also depend on early and concerted global action of a sort that can only happen in a basically co-operative international system. When the great powers are locked into a military confrontation, there is simply not enough spare attention, let alone enough trust, to make deals on those issues, so the highest priority at the moment is to keep the multilateral approach alive and avoid a drift back into alliance systems and arms races. And there is no point in dreaming that we can leap straight into some never-land of universal brotherhood; we will have to confront these challenges and solve the problem of war within the context of the existing state system.

3

Legalization tanks the pharmaceutical industry Johnson, Oregon Cannabis Industry Association Executive Director, 2014, (Anthony, "Cannabis Reform Opponents Are Largely Funded By Pharmaceutical Companies," The Weed Blog, 7-19, PAS) www.theweedblog.com/cannabis-opponents-largely-funded-pharmaceutical-companies/ 7-21-14

If you have followed the fight to end cannabis prohibition, than you have no doubt heard of the organizations Community Anti-Drug Coalition of America (CADCA) and the Partnership for Drug-Free Kids (formerly the Partnership for a Drug-Free America). These two groups are at the forefront of the fight to maintain cannabis prohibition in America. They claim that they fight cannabis reform because they want to keep America drug free. The Community Anti-Drug Coalition of America holds an annual event near Washington D.C.. This years event included numerous guest speakers who talked about the harms of dangerous drugs, drug abuse, and the need to fight cannabis reform at all costs. The sad irony is that the event was sponsored by Purdue Pharma, the manufacturer of OxyContin, which is a highly addictive drug that kills numerous people every year. To say that there is hypocrisy involved is an understatement. The fact of the matter is that the people leading the fight against cannabis reform have a direct financial incentive to keep cannabis prohibition in place. Pharmaceutical companies have long funded cannabis opponents in an attempt to keep Americans from replacing harmful pharmaceuticals with helpful cannabis. Per The Nation: The Nation obtained a confidential financial disclosure from the Partnership for Drug-Free Kids showing that the groups largest donors include Purdue Pharma, the manufacturer of OxyContin, and Abbott Laboratories, maker of the opioid Vicodin. CADCA also counts Purdue Pharma as a major supporter, as well as Alkermes, the maker of a powerful and extremely controversial new painkiller called Zohydrol. The drug, which was released to the public in March, has sparked a nationwide protest, since Zohydrol is reportedly ten times stronger than OxyContin. Janssen Pharmaceutical, a Johnson & Johnson subsidiary that produces the painkiller Nucynta, and Pfizer, which manufactures several opioid products, are also CADCA sponsors. For corporate donors, CADCA offers a raft of partnership opportunities, including authorized use of the CADCA logo for your companys marketing, website, and advertising materials, etc.

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

The pharmaceutical industry is one of the most research-intensive industries in the United States. Pharmaceutical firms invest as much as five times more in research and development, relative to their sales, than the average U.S. manufacturing firm. Because increases in spending on drug R&D have been nearly matched by increases in revenue from drug sales, the industrys R&D intensitythe ratio of research and development spending to total sales revenuehas not risen to the extent that R&D expenditures have. Over the past 25 years, R&D intensity has grown by about 50 percent. Most of that growth occurred in the 1980s; since then, the industrys R&D intensity has hovered around 19 percent, according to PhRMA (see Figure 2-2).10 A relatively close relationship exists between drug firms current R&D spending and current sales revenue for two reasons. First, successful new drugs generate large cash flows that can be invested in R&D (their manufacturing costs are usually very low relative to their price). Second, alternative sources of investment capitalfrom the bond and stock marketsare not perfect substitutes for cash flow financing. Those alternative sources of capital are more expensive because lenders and prospective new shareholders require compensation (in the form of higher returns) for the additional risk they bear compared with the firm, which has more information about the drug under development, its current status, and its ultimate chance of success.11 The National Science Foundation also estimates that the R&D intensity of the pharmaceutical industry has been fairly stable in recent years, ranging between about 8 percent and 10 percent since 1985. That estimate is less than half of PhRMA's, in part because NSF includes less-R&D-intensive products not related prescription pharmaceuticals (such as vitamins, over-the-counter drugs, reference chemicals sold to researchers for experiments, and consumer and animal care products). Even at that lower estimate, pharmaceuticals ranked as the most R&D-intensive industry in the U.S. manufacturing sector for most of the 1990s, according to NSF (until it was overtaken by communications equipment, whose R&D-intensity was 12.7 percent in 2003).

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

4

The Attorney General of the United States should remove marihuana from the Controlled Substances Act. The fifty states and all relevant territories should legalize marihuana.The CP solves the whole case AND triggers the link the politics it would be a MAJOR flip flop and would cause Congressional backlashWalker, author of a book on weed and he writes articles and stuff, 14(Jon, the aforementioned book is After Legalization: Understanding the future of marijuana policy, Holder Continues to Dodge Obama Admins Responsibility to Reschedule Marijuana, 4-4-14, http://justsaynow.firedoglake.com/2014/04/04/holder-continues-to-dodge-obama-admins-responsibility-to-reschedule-marijuana/, accessed 10-23-14) PMAttorney General Eric Holder continues the Obama administration bizarre and dishonest behavior of pretending that rescheduling is not within the power or duties of the executive branch. During a Congressional hearing Friday Holder was pressed for why the administration chose to selectively enforce the Controlled Substance Act when it comes to marijuana in certain states but not push to change the law. Holder responded, With regard to the whole question of the scheduling marijuana, we would be more than glad to work with Congress if there is a desire to look and re-examine how the drug is scheduled. As I said there is a great deal of expertize that exists in Congress, that is something Congress would ultimately have to change and the administration would be glad to work with Congress if such a proposal is made. He later added that he, thinks the responsibility for [rescheduling] resides with Congress. While Congress can pass a law rescheduling marijuana, its input is not needed or normally sought. The Controlled Substance Act explicitly gives the Attorney General the power to change the schedule of drugs without congressional involvement. The vast majority of drug scheduling changes are done using this executive system. Its actually the duty of the Attorney General to reschedule any drug, including marijuana, based on the latest science. Holder knows this is the case. And Im very skeptical if he would be glad to work on such a proposal because his department has actively fought in court against rescheduling. Sadly, it is not the first time the Obama administration feigned powerlessness on this issue. Obamas been purposely deceptive in several media interviews about this issue. Ultimately, the real reason marijuana is Schedule I is because Holders department fought to keep it there and he is the one who has the responsibility to move it from this category. Saying this is something Congress would have to change is completely dishonest.

5

Obamas waiting until the lame duck to announce a new attorney general nowPhelps, LAT, 10-14-14(Timothy, Kathleen Hennessey, Obama to delay attorney general nomination until after election, 10-14-14, http://www.latimes.com/nation/politics/politicsnow/la-na-nn-obama-attorney-general-election-20141014-story.html, accessed 10-16-14) PMPresident Obama will wait until after the November election to name a nominee for attorney general, setting the stage for an intense battle in the postelection Senate that could last until Christmas, a White House official said Tuesday. The delay, which White House officials said came at the request of Senate Democrats, reflected concern about the effect Obamas pick might have on the midterm election, when Republicans appear to be on the verge of taking control of the Senate. Some Democrats worry that a controversial nominee, such as Labor Secretary Thomas E. Perez, could put vulnerable Democratic senators, such as Mary L. Landrieu of Louisiana and Mark Pryor of Arkansas, in a tougher spot. Senate leaders are concerned the nomination will become a campaign issue in an already tight election, according to a White House official who was not authorized to speak publicly on the matter. The White House similarly postponed moving forward with its immigration plan, partly out of concern it might hurt Democratic candidates in November. White House officials said Tuesday that Obama may still attempt to win Senate confirmation for his nominee during the lame-duck session after the election, but they acknowledged the delay could push the vote back until after a new Senate takes office in January. The confirmation process for such an important post normally takes about two months or more. A formal nomination is now likely to come in early to mid-November. Obama has been deliberating over who should replace Atty. Gen. Eric H. Holder Jr., who last month announced his plans to step down. White House officials said the president had narrowed the field but had not yet made his choice, despite the fact that Holders departure had long been anticipated.

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

Even the most prominent organization opposing recreational marijuana proposals, Smart Approaches to Marijuana, explicitly endorses greater research on medical marijuana for cannabis-based medicines. (although it opposes smoked marijuana and moving the drug from Schedule I.) And so medical marijuana has emerged as the moderate stance for politicians who feel pressured for the first time to take a position. The Obama administration has taken a number of positions. The Department of Justice recently pledged once again to avert prosecution of those individuals complying with state marijuana law. President Obama conceded that alcohol is more dangerous than marijuana, but the administration has declined to take independent action to reschedule the drug under the Controlled Substances Act. And after years of withholding a legal supply of marijuana for clinical research, a federal panel last month made a potentially momentous shift in allowing access to marijuana for a double-blind study on marijuana and post-traumatic stress disorder. Making A Hash Of The Law Longtime marijuana advocates are heartened by what they perceive as a tangible shift. Theres a lot of stuff on the table now that wouldve been unthinkable two years ago, Angell said. But while public and political opinion are embracing medical marijuana, the law hasnt. In fact, there are still people serving five- and ten-year minimum prison sentences for distributing medical marijuana in states where it is legal. There still exists a very significant gap between the overwhelming public support and the willingness of politicians to take action on it, Angell said. Even if you just look at the issue of just simply letting states set their own policy.

That causes an early nomination for AG controversy is key to flip ObamaLewis, The Week, 10-16-14(Matt, What Obama's nakedly political moves say about our screwed-up polity, 10-16-14, http://theweek.com/article/index/269955/what-obamas-nakedly-political-moves-say-about-our-screwed-up-polity, accessed 10-22-14) PMAnd that brings us to President Obama, who seems to show little shame when it comes to shielding us from some of his political calculations. And I don't mean hot mic moments like Obama's comments to then-Russian President Medvedev in 2012: "This is my last election. After my election I have more flexibility." More and more, the president seems uninterested in even trying to hide the fact that he is making policy moves based on political considerations in confessing he has to act one way until after the next election, at which point he can act another way. The most obvious example was the administration's decision to delay immigration action until after the 2014 election for admittedly political purposes. As Politico reported, "President Barack Obama will delay plans to issue an executive order on immigration until the end of the year, heeding the warnings of Democratic senators who feared a voter backlash ahead of the November elections." Obama isn't even pretending that he's decided not to pursue a politically unpopular move, only to coincidentally have a change of heart after the election. He's explicitly postponing something for political purposes. The ObamaCare website is also getting in on the action. "Enrollment on the Healthcare.gov website begins Nov. 15, or 11 days after the midterm vote, and critics who worry about rising premium hikes in 2015 say that's no coincidence. Last year's inaugural enrollment period on the health-care exchange began Oct. 1," reports the Washington Times. Might politics play a role in the timing regarding the naming of a new attorney general? The LA Times notes that "a White House official confirmed Monday that the president would delay the decision. Senate Democrats, who are struggling to hold control of the chamber, had expressed concern that the decision, depending on the nominee, could become a campaign issue." It seems that the closer we get to an election, the more the Obama administration tamps down on any negative news. As The Washington Post recently reported, the lead investigator in the Secret Service prostitution scandal claims he was told to "delay the report of the investigation until after the 2012 election." Ann Coulter mocked this sort of posture in a Wednesday column under the headline "We'll tell you how dangerous Ebola is after the election."

Obama waiting now means no nominee this year just a question of timeSink, The Hill, 10-24-14(Justin, Ex-White House counsel withdraws from AG race, 10-24-14, http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/221841-ex-white-house-counsel-withdraws-from-ag-race, accessed 10-25-14) PMRepublican congressional aides have also questioned the feasibility of a lame-duck confirmation. The Senate does not reconvene until Nov. 12, and if lawmakers took the same seven work weeks they did for Mukasey, the soonest they could vote would be New Year's Eve, assuming a highly unlikely schedule in which they took no break for Thanksgiving or Christmas.

Announcing early is key to Obamas choice for AG any alternative has to be too GOP friendlyDovere and Gerstein, Politico, 14(Edward-Isaac, Josh, White House vexed on how to replace Holder, 10-9-14, http://www.politico.com/story/2014/10/eric-holder-replacement-111745.html, accessed 10-21-14) PMBut time is running short for Obama to act if he wants a nominee confirmed this year. Even accelerated, the confirmation process typically requires weeks of ramp-up for internal vetting and preparations by the Senate Judiciary Committee. That window begins to get tight by next week, well ahead of Nov. 4. And if the White House and Democrats are waiting for the majority to be settled, theyll also have to game out the Louisiana and Georgia Senate races both of which have the potential to decide the majority and are expected to go into runoffs. Georgias would be on Jan. 6, three days after the new Congress is sworn in. By then, Obama could be stuck with having to settle for either a nominee that energized Republicans would be willing to accept, or with an attorney general serving in an acting capacity for the remainder of his two years in office. Holder has said hell stay around until a successor is confirmed, but that was not expected to be a very long window. If the Republicans have a clear majority, I dont see how it makes sense to wait even if you cant get it done in the lame duck, its better to do it in the lame duck, Trippi said. Democratic aides say that without Republican cooperation, the confirmation process would likely take at least seven weeks. That allows about a month to prepare for a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing, including by filing answers to an official questionnaire. After the hearing, theres typically a one-week period for senators to send a nominee written questions and another week for the nominee to respond. Any senator on the panel can also request a committee vote be put off for a week. If the president doesnt act until after the election, that would leave Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid with little room for error in getting the nomination to the floor before Christmas.

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

Including an ISIS attack on the USHosenball, Reuters, 14(Mark, Matt Spetalnik, Next U.S. attorney general faces daunting national security challenges, 9-26-14, http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/09/27/us-usa-holder-security-idUSKCN0HM00Z20140927, accessed 10-22-14) PMAt a time when heightened fears of government surveillance coincide with growing anxiety about global terrorism, the next top U.S. law-enforcement officer will face daunting challenges to balance protection of Americans' security and the right to privacy. President Barack Obama says he has not yet chosen a successor to U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder, who announced his resignation on Thursday, but whoever takes on the job for the last two years of the tenure will have no easy task. War against Islamic State militants in Iraq and Syria has raised fears that American Islamist fighters returning from the Middle East could plot attacks on U.S. soil, U.S. officials say. At the same time, the Justice Department and other agencies must keep a watchful eye on the threat of home-grown U.S. extremists, an increasing source of concern to law-enforcement officials across the country. But even with the focus on stepped-up counter terrorism, the next attorney general will also need a deft political touch to deal with Americans' concerns over wide-ranging government surveillance exposed by former spy agency contractor Edward Snowden. "The challenges that the next attorney general will have to balance are enormous, said Julian Zelizer, a national security expert at Princeton University. "With the new threats emerging overseas and all of the unfinished business (at home), its hard to believe the next two years will be any easier than the last six. The White House is moving carefully to identify a replacement for Holder, who announced his resignation on Thursday. U.S. solicitor-general Donald B. Verrilli, former White House counsel Kathryn Ruemmler and Manhattan U.S. Attorney Preet Bharara are seen as possible contenders.

Retal means extinctionAyson 10 (Professor of Strategic Studies and Director of the Centre for Strategic Studies: New Zealand at the Victoria University of Wellington (Robert, July. After a Terrorist Nuclear Attack: Envisaging Catalytic Effects. Studies in Conflict & Terrorism, Vol. 33, Issue 7. InformaWorld.)But these two nuclear worldsa non-state actor nuclear attack and a catastrophic interstate nuclear exchangeare not necessarily separable. It is just possible that some sort of terrorist attack, and especially an act of nuclear terrorism, could precipitate a chain of events leading to a massive exchange of nuclear weapons between two or more of the states that possess them. In this context, todays and tomorrows terrorist groups might assume the place allotted during the early Cold War years to new state possessors of small nuclear arsenals who were seen as raising the risks of a catalytic nuclear war between the superpowers started by third parties. These risks were considered in the late 1950s and early 1960s as concerns grew about nuclear proliferation, the so-called n+1 problem. It may require a considerable amount of imagination to depict an especially plausible situation where an act of nuclear terrorism could lead to such a massive inter-state nuclear war. For example, in the event of a terrorist nuclear attack on the United States, it might well be wondered just how Russia and/or China could plausibly be brought into the picture, not least because they seem unlikely to be fingered as the most obvious state sponsors or encouragers of terrorist groups. They would seem far too responsible to be involved in supporting that sort of terrorist behavior that could just as easily threaten them as well. Some possibilities, however remote, do suggest themselves. For example, how might the United States react if it was thought or discovered that the fissile material used in the act of nuclear terrorism had come from Russian stocks,40 and if for some reason Moscow denied any responsibility for nuclear laxity? The correct attribution of that nuclear material to a particular country might not be a case of science fiction given the observation by Michael May et al. that while the debris resulting from a nuclear explosion would be spread over a wide area in tiny fragments, its radioactivity makes it [is] detectable, identifiable and collectable, and a wealth of information can be obtained from its analysis: the efficiency of the explosion, the materials used and, most important some indication of where the nuclear material came from.41 Alternatively, if the act of nuclear terrorism came as a complete surprise, and American officials refused to believe that a terrorist group was fully responsible (or responsible at all) suspicion would shift immediately to state possessors. Ruling out Western ally countries like the United Kingdom and France, and probably Israel and India as well, authorities in Washington would be left with a very short list consisting of North Korea, perhaps Iran if its program continues, and possibly Pakistan. But at what stage would Russia and China be definitely ruled out in this high stakes game of nuclear Cluedo? In particular, if the act of nuclear terrorism occurred against a backdrop of existing tension in Washingtons relations with Russia and/or China, and at a time when threats had already been traded between these major powers, would officials and political leaders not be tempted to assume the worst? Of course, the chances of this occurring would only seem to increase if the United States was already involved in some sort of limited armed conflict with Russia and/or China, or if they were confronting each other from a distance in a proxy war, as unlikely as these developments may seem at the present time. The reverse might well apply too: should a nuclear terrorist attack occur in Russia or China during a period of heightened tension or even limited conflict with the United States, could Moscow and Beijing resist the pressures that might rise domestically to consider the United States as a possible perpetrator or encourager of the attack? Washingtons early response to a terrorist nuclear attack on its own soil might also raise the possibility of an unwanted (and nuclear aided) confrontation with Russia and/or China. For example, in the noise and confusion during the immediate aftermath of the terrorist nuclear attack, the U.S. president might be expected to place the countrys armed forces, including its nuclear arsenal, on a higher stage of alert. In such a tense environment, when careful planning runs up against the friction of reality, it is just possible that Moscow and/or China might mistakenly read this as a sign of U.S. intentions to use force (and possibly nuclear force) against them. In that situation, the temptations to preempt such actions might grow, although it must be admitted that any preemption would probably still meet with a devastating response. As part of its initial response to the act of nuclear terrorism (as discussed earlier) Washington might decide to order a significant conventional (or nuclear) retaliatory or disarming attack against the leadership of the terrorist group and/or states seen to support that group. Depending on the identity and especially the location of these targets, Russia and/or China might interpret such action as being far too close for their comfort, and potentially as an infringement on their spheres of influence and even on their sovereignty. One far-fetched but perhaps not impossible scenario might stem from a judgment in Washington that some of the main aiders and abetters of the terrorist action resided somewhere such as Chechnya, perhaps in connection with what Allison claims is the Chechen insurgents long-standing interest in all things nuclear.42 American pressure on that part of the world would almost certainly raise alarms in Moscow that might require a degree of advanced consultation from Washington that the latter found itself unable or unwilling to provide.

6

Text: The United States should limit the offenses of the Controlled Substances Act as it applies to marihuana to include local manufacture. The 50 states and all relevant territories should legalize nearly all marihuana in the United States except local manufacture.

CP solves the case and allows big producers to compete plan locks them outFine 13 Freelance journalist for such organizations as the Washington Post, Salon, U.S. News and World Report, Sierra, Wired, Outside, National Public Radio, and many other venues [Doug Fine, Will Marijuana Farming in Mendocino County, California, Lead America to Pot?,Truthout, Intervied By Mark Karlin, July 19, 2013,http://tinyurl.com/mrxv9jeWhy does the political class in DC persist in promoting a "reefer madness" image of marijuana as a dangerous drug? After all, even the Obama administration periodically cracks down on states that have legally allowed the dispensing of medical marijuana. Congress has made no moves to ease up on federal prosecution of marijuana growing and distribution, as it continues to finance a war on drugs that is fueled by taxpayer dollars and law enforcement and contracted-industry financial incentives. But there is a populist revolt brewing. Beginning with state legalization of marijuana use for easing medical pain, the movement to fully decriminalize pot has picked up steam as the voters of Washington and Colorado approved an end to marijuana prohibition. As with many trends, California is pointing the way. Doug Fine, author and rancher, detailed how the de facto tolerance for marijuana farmsand use in Mendocino County is likely a harbinger for a new green economic revolution in the United States: a legalized pot industry. Truthout talked with Fine about the issues covered in his book "Too High to Fail" and what he calls "the coming drug peace era." Get your copy of "Too High to Fail" now with a $30 minimum contribution (including shipping and handling) to Truthout. Click here. Mark Karlin: Let's take a look at a recurring focus that you adopt in "Too High to Fail." Why should marijuana be legalized for its positive economic impact on the US economy? How much tax revenue and spinoff economic development could it create as legally taxed product that could be grown in the United States and sold here? Doug Fine: Following a year of field-side research alongside farmers of Americas number one crop (cannabis), I believe most conventional estimates about the size of the crop are way low. In Too High to Fail, I studied the progress of one California county,Mendocino, whose deciders legalized and permitted the regional cannabis farmers, out of economic necessity. The sheriff signed on, as did the local government. Why? $6 billion. That is a conservative estimate of the plants value to local farmers (on paper) in one of Californias poorest counties. The way I came to that figure was that the 600,000 plants seized by law enforcement in 2010 were estimated (also by law enforcement) to be 10 percent of the crop. I gave the 6 million plants that did make it to market a very low-end value of $1,000 per plant. In other words, cannabis is not just Americas number one cash crop, it is that by far. We shouldnt be surprised. One hundred million Americans have used the plant, including the past three presidents. Tax that plant nationwide, and you not just generate billions in tax revenue (Harvards Jeffrey Miron estimates $30 billion annually) but you cripple criminal enterprises, the way that the end of alcohol prohibition pretty much put bootleggers out of work. California already generates $100 million annually from its medical cannabis industry, and thats with the majority of farmers still operating underground until federal prohibition ends. Space is preventing me from getting into ancillary industries, but in Mendocino County alone the legalizing of the local economic engine supported inspectors, contractors and flower trimmers (where skill and experience matter and are well-remunerated) dozens of jobs per farm. Mark Karlin: We've engaged in a decades-long "war on drugs" that has resulted in the deaths of tens of thousands of people in Mexico and Latin America and enriched drug cartels. Would the end of legal prohibition in the United States put the narcos out of business and reduce the dramatic death toll in Mexico? Doug Fine: Without question ending the war on cannabis will be devastating to criminal enterprises south of the border. This is whyLatin American governments (as well as an increasing number of European ones) are lining up behind ending the drug war.The Mendocino County, California, experiment I followed in Too High to Fail itself hurt criminal cartels by bringing the local industry aboveground. The administrator of what was called the Zip-tie Program (for the bright yellow bracelets every permitted plant wore) is named Captain Randy Johnson. A 27-year veteran of the force, most of those as a conventional drug warrior, Johnson told me that most important reason the program is an important model nationwide is not just the revenue it raised (saving seven deputy jobs locally). Its that we brought an entire community back into the law-abiding fold. South of the border, Bill Martin at Rice University estimates that up to 70 percent of cartel profits derive from cannabis (just as most drug war funding goes to the fruitless and unnecessary war on cannabis). Whenever I throw these numbers out in debates with the last of the taxpayer-funded drug war boosters (theyre becoming rare), I hear, Oh, thats exaggerated. Cannabis is only responsible for 50 percent of cartel proceeds, and theyve diversified. Hmm, Id hate to lose 50 percent of my income. Mark Karlin: What is the story with the ongoing stigmatization of marijuana on a political level that is far out of touch with its use on a social level? How can it be more evil than alcohol when liquor counts for far, far more road accidents, more addictions, deaths and violent encounters? Doug Fine: The war on drugs, Americas longest and most expensive (with a price tag of $1 trillion to you and me already, with $40 billion more added to our tab every year), is based at core on a crucial lie: that cannabis is very dangerous. Now, Im a father, and I want my kids to grow up in a safe, responsible society. Guess what? Even youth cannabis use rates go down, without fail, in places that legalize cannabis, whether completely (Portugal) or for medicinal use (New England). So why does such a fundamental lie endure? The easiest way to understand it is through the concept of a tipping point. Along with soft on crime, soft on drugs has, for 40 years, been something every politician fears hearing in an opponents television spot. The good news, for those interested in a stronger, safer America, is that the Drug Peace tipping point has been reached. Across the nation, across all demographics, Americans want to end the Drug War. Forty percent of Colorado Republicans voted to legalize cannabis in 2012, and youth turnout (the holy grail for Democrats since 18-year-olds got the vote in 1972) was up 12 percent in Colorado in 2012 vs. the 2008 Yes We Can election. This is the issue that galvanizes all Americans. Even in my very conservative New Mexico valley, the cowgirl next to me in the post office line might believe that our president was born in Kenya, but she knows from seeing our border region chaos with her own eyes that cannabis is not the problem with our regions public safety. The war on cannabis is the problem (along with meth and prescription pill abuse). In fact, it was a massive raid of my AARP member retiree rancher neighbor for something like a dozen cannabis plants that spurred me to write Too High to Fail. The raid, paid for by you and me, pointedly ignored criminal cartels operating with impunity nearby. Eighty percent of Americans call the drug war a failure, which it is. Almost everyone is onto the myths and lies that allowed the war on cannabis to endure for ten times longer than World War II. Mark Karlin: A lot of urban rumors have circulated that the cigarette industry is sitting on brand names and marketing plans for selling marijuana when "the time is right." Where does big tobacco stand on marijuana legalization? Doug Fine: More than one tobacco company has, at some point during the war on drugs, said or done something that indicates it wasnt opposed to profiting from cannabis when the time was right. But having spent so much time with small farmers, I take to heart the views of Tomas Balogh, co-founder of the Emerald Growers Association farmer trade group, which is creating a brand of Northern Californiassustainable, outdoor-cultivated, third-generation cannabis culture. In his view, the cannabis crop is alreadydecentralized and farmer-controlled, and its up to consumers to keep it that way after legalization. As I often put it when Emerald Triangle farmers speak of creating a top-shelf, regionally based international brand (like Champagne), If Napa is any model, get ready for the Bud and Breakfast. When prohibition ends, some consumers will choose a Big Tobacco or Big Alcohol model, and somewill seek out the co-op, farmers market or CSA farm. Thats why we have Dom Perignon and Two Buck Chuck. Mark Karlin: Obviously, the jury is still out on the how the recent legalization of possession in Washington and Colorado will play out. What do you think the passage of the two statewide propositions mean to the pace of legalization? Doug Fine: Its the fall of the Drug Wars Berlin Wall the end of Americas worst policy since segregation. The tipping point has been reached I think well see cannabis removed from the Controlled Substances Act entirely within five years. And not a moment too soon states want to regulate it and need the revenue. Another huge event was last weeks inclusion of hemp cultivation provisions in the House side of the Farm Bill. Its imperative that the Senate come on board, too. Im researching a hemp book now, and it will play a significant role in Americas energy independence. Already, a Kentucky utility company is planning to plant hemp on coal-damaged land to use to generate electricity via ethanol and other processes. Mark Karlin: The Washington and Colorado votes came after years of inroads in state approvals of medical marijuana use. In at least some jurisdictions, the Obama Department of Justice has pounced on medical marijuana dispensaries, including in California. Doesn't Eric Holder have better things to do with our taxpayer dollars? Doug Fine: If theres one thing that pretty much full-time, front-line coverage of the cannabis plant during the drug wars final battles has taught me, its that looking for rationality in the execution of this war is an exercise in futility. At this point the drug war, having lost both scientific and public support, operates on bureaucratic inertia, and even many of the law enforcers who have to fight the war admit as much. The bottom line is that the people have spoken, their voices are only getting louder, and the people who are paid to win elections realize this. This is why President Obama, in his first major post-re-election interview in December 2012 (with Barbara Walters) for the first time took a cannabis legalization question seriously. He said he didnt yet support it, but he had bigger fish to fry than harassing Colorado and Washington. If you want to know why federal policy suddenly became laissez-faire, its about public opinion in swing states. Arizona, just about as silver and red a state as a Goldwaterite could wish for, is polling at 56 percent in support of regulating cannabis for adult use like alcohol. In heartland Illinois, 63 percent of voters support the about-to-be-enacted medicinal marijuana program. Heck, 60 percent of Kentuckians favor medical cannabis. The fact is, if President Obama were to step to the podium next week and announce that he was returning to his pre-2008 drug policy position, which called the Drug War an utter failure, his favorable numbers would go up in key swing states. This is true for anyone whod like to succeed the president by spurring an energized youth turnout in 2016. Mark Karlin: How does marijuana-growing in Mendocino County, which you feature prominently in your book, present a model for future breakthroughs in marijuana becoming a national and legal homegrown industry? Doug Fine: As a sustainability journalist who lives on a solar-powered goat ranch, the Mendocino Zip-tie model is a vital one if smallindependent farmers are to retain a foothold in the industry that is born around Americas number one cash crop after prohibition ends. The craft beer model is illustrative here. Yes, Coors et al. control the corner store, but the microbrew sector is worth $10 billion annually. The Emerald Triangle farmers of Northern California acutely realize this they are developing what MichaelPollan calls supermarket pastoral. This is the story that an organic food provider tells on her packaging we imagine the chickens who lay our eggs playing cards and attending square dances. If any cannabis cultivating region can brand itself as top shelf, the way we have fine wines coming from Washington to Vermont, it can beat Wall Streets offerings. And as with wine and craft beer, farmers in plenty of places besides California, such as Oregon, Kentucky, Louisiana and Colorado, to name a few, that can claim to have top-shelf cannabis farmers. The most marketablebranding model, I believe, will be family-owned, outdoor cultivating sustainable farmers explaining that theyre just growing a plant that the original American colonist cannabis farmers (including Thomas Jefferson and George Washington) did. When the kind of people who shop at farmers markets start asking how their cannabis is grown, models like this will be huge; I think even bigger than for high-end wine and beer.

Spills over to the rest of agKennedy, award-winning journalist and communications professional who has covered international news, including business reportage, for MSN Money, CNN, NPR, Reuters Television and AOLs Daily Finance web site, 13(Bruce, "Greener marijuana: can a budding industry grow sustainable agriculture?," 10-30-13, http://www.theguardian.com/sustainable-business/hubs-energy-efficiency1, accessed 9-13-14) PMWill marijuana innovations move into mainstream commercial agriculture? Cary Mitchell, a professor of horticulture at Purdue University, thinks the marijuana industry's work with LED technology might have practical applications in mainstream commercial agriculture. He's the director of a $4.9m project to evaluate and improve LED lighting for America's so-called "specialty crop industry" greenhouse-grown fruits, vegetables, nursery plants and other crops. Specialty crops bring in around $50bn annually, and their producers, like the commercial marijuana growers, are looking for ways to decrease energy costs while increasing greenhouse yields. "They've undoubtably been doing this for years and years," Mitchell says about the cannabis growers' use of LEDs. "Since they don't publish their research, we don't really know how far they've taken the optimization. They probably are ahead of the specialty crop commercial production industry." Medical marijuana producers, meanwhile, say they realize their industry has an environmental responsibility to its customers and communities, especially if it is to become further decriminalized. As Khalatbari said: "The point is ... how can we make this practice more sustainable, because [this is] an industry that's really reached 5% of its potential, maybe, in this country, with so many states still to come online."Big ag is key to food production and GMOs---collapse of agri-consolidation is worse for every impactMichael Grunwald 9, a senior correspondent at Time magazine, is the author of The Swamp: The Everglades, Florida, and the Politics of Paradise. The Case for Big Ag: Industrial farming pollutes rivers, distorts politics, and hurts rural communities. But it might just save the rainforest, http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/2009/0907.grunwald.html, DOA: 9-23-14, y2kHmm. Were going to need more food. And were going to need our food growers to use less land. It sounds like were going to needindustrial agriculture. In the future, for the same reason we wont want to sacrifice valuable cropland for biofuels, we wont want to sacrifice it for low-yield organic kale either. As much as we love Michael Pollans delicious prose, as much as we feel we ought to love locally grown, pesticide-free, genetically unmodified, naturally fertilized, antibiotic-free, multigrain whatever, were going to need the worlds farmland to produce as much sustenance as possible on as little ground as possible, so that we can leave the Amazon alone. Just as well have to increase people-per-acre urban densities to rein in exurban sprawl, well have to increase calorie-per-acre farm production to rein in agricultural sprawl. Michelle Obamas little garden is a lovely gesture, but its not going to feed a world where food demand is rising much faster than food supply, where overpumping is lowering water tables and imperiling agriculture in China and India, and where grain reserves dwindled to an all-time low last year. To feed that world, well need Big Ag to do what it does best. This will require a jolting paradigm shift. Industrial farmers have a well-earned reputation in policy circles as obesity-promoting, pesticide-spewing, water-wasting, energy-hogging, illegal-alien-hiring, politician-buying corporate welfare queens who wax hypocritical about family farmers and the "heartland" while driving small farms out of business and hollowing out rural towns. Their subsidies help deplete aquifers, destroy rivers, intensify Third World poverty, and scuttle free trade deals that would boost the nonagricultural sectors of the U.S. economy. But now that their high yields look like the best way to limit agriculture to a sustainable footprint that would leave enough trees and marshes to avoid a planetary emergency, it might be time for good-government types, environmentalists, anti-hunger activists, free trade supporters, health advocates, and other perennial Big Ag bashers to start thinking about how to work with them. Those taxpayer-supported amber waves of grain have environmental benefits as well as costs. That doesnt mean we have to support agro-fuelsalthough we should support efforts to convert crop waste into energy as long as it doesnt remove land from production. We dont have to support egregious subsidies for multimillionaire farmers, eitheralthough given the hopeless politics of the issue it might make sense to agree to support them if theyre tied to soil, water, and energy conservation requirements. But we ought to recognize and encourage the potential of genetically modified crops to produce high-yield, drought-resistant crops that require fewer petroleum-based fertilizers and pesticides. And we ought to acknowledge that agricultural consolidation, while painful for family farmers and rural communities, is not only inevitable but in many ways desirable. Big Ag can use the advantages of bigness not only to boost production (by buying the best seeds and inputs and tractors) but to reduce waste (with precision GPS gadgets that adjust spraying and watering according to the topography of the field). We might even rethink our opposition to those icky confined-feeding operations, especially when theyre clumping together (more greenhouse-friendly) chickens rather than cows. In exchange, maybe those feedlots could stop destroying the Chesapeake Bay. That would be Big Ags end of the bargain: Eliminate its most egregious and least sustainable practices. Stop farming to the edge of the river, and stop draining wetlands. Keep the cows out of the stream, and more runoff on the farm. Stop spreading petroleum-based fertilizer when and where it isnt needed. Stop creating a massive dead zone in the Gulf of Mexico. The industry made strides dealing with its erosion problems in response to federal incentives; perhaps it could clean up the rest of its act with proper inducements. Big Ag has been so politically successful for so long that it might resist any compromise, but the farm lobby knows its cue-the-violins baloney about humble tillers of the heartland soil might not justify redistribution from taxpayers to agro-industrialists forever. And one positive by-product of the trend toward corporate farming is that corporations tend to worry about their images. If agriculture keeps producing more than 30 percent of the worlds emissions, including the deforestation effect, its going to get stuck with the mother of all image problems. Brazil is an interesting example. Its larger producers make our Big Ag look like Jeffersonian yeomen, and theyve become international pariahs to the save-the-rainforest crowd. But theyre much lighter on the land than the slash-and-burn subsistence farmers on the Amazon frontier. Its probably too late for another green revolution; were bumping up against the limits of photosynthesis, and global yield increases have dwindled to about 1 percent per year. And there would be social costs to a large-scale expansion of industrial agriculture in Africa and the rest of the low-yield Third World, as well as political costs; its no coincidence that the worlds biggest soybean farmer is also the governor of a large Brazilian province on the Amazon frontier. But agricultural consolidation is going to continue no matter what; economies of scale create huge efficiencies, and they give large producers at least some counterweight against the vastly consolidated processing, shipping, and retailing industries. Searchingers epiphanies remind us that if its going to happen eventually, it might as well happen now, while theres still a rainforest to save. World hunger and global warming are two of the great challenges of this century, and they are inextricably linked through agriculture and the land. About five million children already die of nutrition-related causes every year, and about fifteen million acres of carbon-rich forests already get converted into farms every year. As the world population rises, both of those figures are likely to explode unless agricultural productivity can explode as well. So by all means, we should ask industrial farmers to clean up their act. But first, we might want to beg them to save the planet and feed the world.

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

Cartels

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

So 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. 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. Assuming improbably that half of all murders in those areas were marijuana-related, 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 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 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. 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 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 reached record levels. 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.

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

No subject is liable to be more controversial than the question of whether to legalize drugs in the United States. The often repeated belief that legalization would defeat the cartels breaks down on the data. As stated previously, the drug cartels have reached a stage of development that would ensure their continued operation during any transition to legalized drugs on the part of the United States and beyond. It is highly unlikely that the legalization of drugs some or even all drugsin the United States would end the threat from these organizations. The cartels and other drug trafficking organizations are multifaceted criminal enterprises dedicated to making profits from any activity that brings in money. Although the majority of their income comes from illicit drugs, they also engage in other violent and white-collar crimes. The assorted cartelsthe Mexican cartels, the FARC, and other organizationsare a new kind of transnational criminal organization, taking advantage of the global black economy not only to move drugs, but also to support human trafficking, prostitution, identity theft, arms trading, illicit financial transactions, and so forth. They have powerful state sponsors in a global network of illicit commerce. For the United States to turn to legalization as a primary strategy against the cartels would be a shot in the dark, particularly when other strategies to decrease drug use have been effective.

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

Mexican drug cartels fighting each other for smuggling routes face increasing competition in the U.S. where legalization in some states has increased the amount of marijuana available. The drug war in Mexico may have helped U.S. growers gain a foothold in some regions. The majority of this weed is coming from California, a little bit of it is coming from Colorado, said a narcotics officer with the El Paso Police Department who works undercover. According to the DEA, the amount of marijuana from Mexico seized in the El Paso area declined by nearly half starting in 2009 as drug cartels clashed violently just across the border in Juarez. As they fought for control of smuggling routes, narcotics officers in El Paso began to see more U.S. grown pot, especially a variety known as Kush. Its more potent, but higher priced than Mexican marijuana. On a recent afternoon, officers arrested two people on drug charges in a quiet El Paso neighborhood. The woman is a soldier at Fort Bliss. Officers said her boyfriend was a dealer who sold Kush in the home they shared. This guy has a little bit more than the usual street dealer: half a pound of Kush. Youre looking at $3,000 to $4,000, said an undercover officer on the scene. A one-pound bundle of Kush known on the streets as a baby is worth $8,000. One medical marijuana patient in Las Cruces, who did not want his name used , said there are still plenty of people who can only afford the less expensive Mexican marijuana he referred to as gas tank pot because its often compressed and smuggled across international border crossings hidden in vehicles. Supporters of legalization, predict it will reduce the need to rely on marijuana smuggled across the border by criminal organizations. But others doubt drug cartels will give up on their No. 1 cash crop without a fight. I think theyll compete in an economic battle with American marijuana producers because it doesnt serve their interest to get into a violent clash with Americans on U.S. soil, said Howard Campbell, a professor at the University of Texas El Paso, and author of Drug War Zone. I think the Mexican cartels are rational business organizations. said Campbell. Even though theyre very violent in Mexico, what theyll do with the growing legalization in the U.S. is figure out ways to get their product to the American consumer. There are already signs that cartels in Mexico are adapting. Weve had one seizure that theyve told us that its Mexican Kush, not very good quality, but its coming. Experts expect the quality to improve as Mexican growers perfect their crop. The quantity smuggled across the border in the El Paso area is starting to increase now that violence has subsided in Juarez. Law enforcement officers do not expect cartels in Mexico to get out of the marijuana business once U.S. consumers can find a legal supply. If all the states legalized it the Mexicans would somehow snake their way into it because they can produce a cheaper product. They can produce more of it, said the undercover narcotics officer.

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

Violence in Mexico has escalated dramatically in recent years. In 2009 alone, at least 6,500 people were killed in apparent drug-related incidents, and more than 2,000 have already died in such violence this year. The recent killings of three people linked to the U.S. Consulate in Ciudad Juarez (just across the border from El Paso) have left many wondering whether the situation is hopeless. In Mexico last week, Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton lamented the "cycle of violence and crime that has impacted communities on both sides of the border" and pledged continued U.S. engagement. With Washington's support, the Mexican government has been pursuing an aggressive multiyear campaign to confront criminal groups tied to the drug trade. To understand those efforts' chances of success, let's look beyond common misperceptions about Mexico's plight. 1. Mexico is descending into widespread and indiscriminate violence. The country has certainly seen a big rise in drug violence, with cartels fighting for control of major narcotics shipment routes -- especially at the U.S. border and near major seaports and highways -- and branching into kidnapping, extortion and other illicit activities. Ciudad Juarez, in particular, has been the scene of major battles between two crime organizations and accounted for nearly a third of drug-linked deaths last year. But the violence is not as widespread or as random as it may appear. Though civilians with no evident ties to the drug trade have been killed in the crossfire and occasionally targeted, drug-related deaths are concentrated among the traffickers. (Deaths among military and police personnel are an estimated 7 percent of the total.) A major reshuffling of leaders and alliances is occurring among the top organized crime groups, and, partly because of government efforts to disrupt their activities, violence has jumped as former allies battle each other. The bloodshed is also geographically concentrated in key trafficking corridors, notably in the states of Sinaloa, Chihuahua and Tamaulipas. While the violence underscores weaknesses in the government's ability to maintain security in parts of the country, organized crime is not threatening to take over the federal government. Mexico is not turning into a failed state. 2. The Mexican government lacks the resources to fight the cartels. Last week, the Mexican newspaper Milenio released a survey indicating that 59 percent of Mexicans believe the cartels are winning the drug war; only 21 percent believe the government is prevailing. Such assessments are well founded, but the battle against organized crime is not a lost cause. Thanks to a genuine commitment by Mexican officials and greater cooperation with the United States, important cartel leaders have been arrested over the past several years. Some cartels, such as Arellano Felix in Tijuana, have been seriously weakened. The Mexican government has the tools to succeed, but it must redirect its efforts. To date, its campaign against drug traffickers has relied on the massive deployment of federal security forces, both police and military. But their "presence and patrol" strategy presents only a minor inconvenience to criminal groups, which work around it by shifting their trafficking routes. To strengthen law enforcement and restore public confidence, there is an urgent need to modernize and professionalize Mexico's police and courts. The 2008 passage of constitutional reforms in this area was a good start. As they are implemented, the changes will transform the country's judiciary from one that relies on closed courtrooms and mostly written evidence into a system where evidence is presented in open court. The federal government has also made strides in developing a professional national police force. It is devoting resources to the improvement of state and local forces and boosting investigative capabilities, including creating a national police database that allows authorities to track crimes in different parts of the country. 3. Endemic corruption allows the cartels to flourish. Corruption does continue to be a major challenge for Mexico. In 1997, for instance, the country's drug czar was found to be on the take from the Juarez cartel, and last year, the Federal Investigative Agency was dissolved after a third of the force was placed under investigation for corruption. But there appears to be a real commitment by honest officials to root out malfeasance. Recent arrests and prosecutions have brought down the head of Mexico's Interpol office, senior officials in the attorney general's office, three state public security chiefs, hundreds of state and local police officers, and a few mayors and local police commanders. Meanwhile, Mexico is slowly cultivating a culture of lawfulness, thanks to courageous journalists and new civic organizations calling for greater accountability. Far more can be done, but this is a good start. 4. Drug violence is a Mexican problem, not a U.S. one. Hardly. Mexico and the United States share a 2,000-mile border, and our southern neighbor is also our third-largest trading partner. Since the drug cartels run a binational business -- moving drugs from south to north and weapons from north to south -- both the problem and the solution will inevitably involve Washington. Perhaps the top contribution the United States could make is to redouble its efforts to reduce American demand for illegal narcotics. The trafficking in Mexico is driven overwhelmingly by U.S. consumption -- especially of cocaine, marijuana, heroin and methamphetamine -- which is estimated to exceed $60 billion annually. Moreover, the U.S. government estimates that $18 billion to $39 billion flows south each year as a result of American sales of illegal narcotics. Some of this money is invested in high-caliber weapons purchased in the United States and taken across the border illegally. Little surprise that in Mexico on Tuesday, Clinton referred to "our shared responsibility to combat and defeat organized transnational crime." In a positive development, the White House Office of National Drug Control Policy announced this month that it will seek more funding for programs to reduce U.S. demand for illicit drugs -- with a 13 percent increase for prevention and 4 percent for treatment. Such funding pales in comparison to law enforcement budgets, but it's a step in the right direction. 5. Mexican drug violence is spilling over into the United States. Despite the violent confrontations between drug-trafficking organizations in Mexico, there has been little of the same spectacular violence on the American side of the border, even though the cartels operate with U.S.-based distribution networks. El Paso, one of the least violent cities in the United States, sits right across from Ciudad Juarez, the most violent in Mexico. This points to important institutional differences. In Mexico, a crime has only a 1 to 2 percent chance of leading to a conviction and jail time; the greater likelihood of arrest in the United States leads traffickers to keep most of their violent activities south of the border. Of course, drug violence does occur here, but not with the severity or impunity found in Mexico. For better or worse, the United States and Mexico are in this together. It is hard to imagine a solution that does not involve a joint strategy to disrupt organized crime; a shift in U.S. drug policy to address consumption; shared efforts to improve Mexican law enforcement and judicial institutions; and continued cooperation to foster greater economic opportunity in Mexico.

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

A Failed State is generally defined as a country that has lost some or all control over its sovereignty. The fact is that Mexico, even at the height of the Mexican Drug War never relinquished control over its sovereignty. I am sure some of you will argue that there were and are pockets of criminality in Mexico that seem to surpass the governments ability to maintain control. However, all of that rhetoric ignores a fundamental reality; a failed state has a failed economy and an ineffective government. So, lets take a look at those two functions. Has the Mexican economy faltered? The World Bank ranks Mexicos economy as the second largest economy south of the Rio Bravo (Rio Grande), behind Brazil. This month Moodys rated Mexico as A3, the first time the country has received an A rating in its entire history. Keep in mind that the rating is derived from actions taken by two administrations under two different political parties. I wish George Friedman would explain to everyone how it is that a country on the verge of collapse is able to attain an A rating for its economy. Somehow, I dont expect he will, as it isnt something he can sell to the news outlets and his subscribers looking for doom-and-gloom coming from Mexico. Somehow, a country on the verge of collapse, according to George Friedman is on the road to becoming the United States number one automobile exporter this year. Again, how is it that a country on the verge of collapse continues to build enough automobiles to outpace Canada and Japan? Clearly, the Mexican economy is not on the verge of collapse and therefore the countrys government is in full control. So, lets a take a look at the transition of power. On December 1, 2012, President Enrique Pea Nieto took office. Mexico had effectively transitioned power from one government to another. Former President Felipe Calderon Hinojosa, who initiated the Mexican Drug War, democratically relinquished power in a transition from one party to another. Both US president Barack Obama and leftist president Hugo Chavez both agreed that the transfer of power was properly completed. In other words, two opposing political ideologies both agreed that Mexicos electoral process was completed properly under the law. In fact, Mexico has now transitioned power from one party, to another and back to the original party making Mexico a two-party country. So much for the notion that Mexico was on the verge of collapse. The problem of the drug cartels is a significant problem for Mexico but it is a geopolitical problem with many facets at work at the same time. For the most part Mexico has risen to the occasion and has demonstrated that far from being a failed state, it is in fact an economically growing country in full control of its sovereignty. As much as the naysayers want it to be, the facts are that Mexico is not some backwards country on the border holding the US back. Rather it is a country that the US should be proud to call a friend. Unfortunately, for people like George Friedman and those who subscribe to his voodoo research the facts are just inconvenient things that should be ignored.

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

Over the years, the United States has been concerned about threats to Latin American and Caribbean nations from various terrorist or insurgent groups that have attempted to influence or overthrow elected governments. Although Latin America has not been the focal point in the war on terrorism, countries in the region have struggled with domestic terrorism for decades and international terrorist groups have at times used the region as a battleground to advance their causes. The State Departments annual Country Reports on Terrorism highlights U.S. concerns about terrorist threats around the world, including in Latin America. The 2011 report (issued in July 2012) maintained that terrorist attacks in the Western Hemisphere rose by 40% from 2010 to 2011, with 343 attacks in 2010 and 480 attacks in 2011.1 The majority of terrorist attacks in the region were reported to be perpetrated by terrorist organizations in Colombia (the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia and the National Liberation Army) and by other radical leftist Andean groups, such as the Shining Path in Peru. Overall, the report maintained that the threat of a transnational terrorist attack remained low for most countries in the hemisphere. U.S. policymakers have expressed concerns over the past several years about Irans deepening relations with several Latin American countries, especially Venezuela, and its activities in the region. These concerns were reflected once again in the 2011 terrorism report, which cited a foiled plot in 2011 to assassinate the Saudi Ambassador to the United States in Washington, D.C. by an Iranian operative who thought he was working with a member of a Mexican drug trafficking organization (but was actually a U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration informant). The terrorism report also cited U.S. sanctions against several Venezuelan companies for violating U.S. sanctions against Iran. One of the main concerns about Irans increasing relations with the region is its ties to Hezbollah, the radical Lebanon-based Islamic group that the Department of State designated a Foreign Terrorist Organization in 1997. While the State Department asserted in its 2011 terrorism report that there were no known operational cells of either Hezbollah or Al Qaeda or in the hemisphere, it noted that ideological sympathizers in South America and the Caribbean continued to provide financial and moral support to these and other terrorist groups in the Middle East and South Asia. The re