Rd 3Aff vs.

Wake MS--Rumbaugh
1AC
Plan

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

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

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


The plan frees up resources and allows for institutional reform that resolves alternate
causes to organized crime
Jones, Baker Institute drug policy postdoctoral fellow, 2014
(Nathan, Will recreational marijuana sales in Colorado hurt Mexican cartels?, 1-2,
http://blog.chron.com/bakerblog/2014/01/will-recreational-marijuana-sales-in-colorado-hurt-mexican-
cartels/, ldg)

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


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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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




State Budget Adv


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

Plan allows states to better participate in bond markets which solves finance issues.
Dunn, Fortune Magazine, 2014
(Catherine, How marijuana munis could save the states, 1-30, http://fortune.com/2014/01/30/how-
marijuana-munis-could-save-the-states/, ldg)

Bonds backed by billions of dollars in pot sales taxes could shore up hard-hit state budgets that is, if the
feds would get out of the way. FORTUNE Thomas Doe, an analyst in the municipal bond market, was in Denver to give a speech last
September when an unmistakable scent caught his attention. Hed been walking down the 16th Street Mall, the citys main retail drag, and Im smelling it in the
air, says Doe, who goes by Tom. Then, completing the tableau, Doe popped into a hotel lobby and spotted three dudes wearing tie-dye and snacking on chips
this just a few months before marijuana for recreational use went on sale in Colorado. Thats when things really started to click for the 55-year-old founder and CEO
of Municipal Market Advisors, a research firm with subscribers including some 300 institutional investors, along with government regulators. Earlier last year Doe
and his colleagues had joked about whether a market for medical marijuana tourism could revive the flagging finances of a place like Puerto Rico, whose bond rating
has dropped in recent years. After Does trip to Denver, though, his thoughts on the matter of cannabis and credit ratings
turned serious, particularly in light of certain revenue projections. The Colorado Legislative Council Staff estimated additional
revenues from legalization, for example, at $100 million over two years (PDF). In Washington State, where recreational sales will begin later this year, a fiscal
impact study said tax revenue could reach up to $1.9 billion over five years, averaging nearly $400
million annually. Indeed, legalizing marijuana nationwide, to believe a 2010 report by the Cato Institute, would generate
some $8.7 billion in tax revenue, in addition to billions in cost savings related to law enforcement. Doe believes thats enough
money to help cash-strapped municipalities meet pension obligations, undertake construction
projects, and lower their borrowing costs in the bond market and, therefore, enough to inspire other states to legalize
marijuana, too. It would be a real positive for states that are struggling right now, he tells Fortune. Theyve got such an infrastructure
funding gap and they have challenges with funding their pensions that this is significant revenue. Gregory Whiteley, portfolio
manager for government securities at Jeffrey Gundlachs DoubleLine Capital, agrees about the potential upside. By all accounts the legal recreational marijuana
market is potentially quite large, so the impact on state and local finances could be significant, he says. Its not a totally new
idea. Back in 2010, hundreds of attendees surveyed at a Bond Buyer conference in California agreed that bonds backed by marijuana taxes
would materialize were the state to legalize the recreational use. (That measure, Proposition 19, failed the same year.) A
state estimate, from 2009, had put revenue potential at $1.4 billion a year (PDF). Though solid data is still lacking, Whiteley says that for now the subject is
definitely on my radar. Doe, meanwhile, has been busy putting the issue on the radar of analysts and investors. He began to speak publicly last fall about the
future of marijuana and public finances first to attendees at a bond market industry conference in Chicago in October, then to institutional investors at the
Massachusetts Investor Conference in December. This month he told clients in a research note that a successful experience in Colorado could result in a domino
effect of legalization across the country. Colorados legalization of marijuana on Jan. 1 will provide hard data as to the potential revenue source from the cannabis
product directly as well as ancillary products and services, according to the note provided to Fortune. Should tax revenue match projections then other states and
cities are apt to follow the lead of Colorado. State budget planners arent convinced by marijuanas potential just yet. Budget office folks are going to be very
cautious until they see money coming in, says Scott Pattison, executive director of the National Association of State Budget Officers. NASBOs membership would
also want to see whether any revenue gains are offset by expenditures resulting from legalization say, additional costs related to law enforcement or public
health. In other words, Pattison notes, Are there extra expenses, or do we spend less in certain areas? Budget officers would certainly take notice, however, of
revenue figures that exceed 2% of a states budget. Then I think theyll start to say, Yeah, wow, Pattison says. By Does reckoning, $400 million is enough to fund,
hypothetically, 10 social service programs that cost $40 million each, or to finance major construction. $400 million of new tax revenue would be material, he
says, adding, Ive seen states borrow $400 million to help fund infrastructure projects.
LA Relations Adv
Marijuana legalization is a necessary first step to transform relations with Latin
America
Hakim, Inter-American Dialogue president emeritus, 2014
(Peter, Why the U.S. should legalize marijuana, 1-26,
http://www.thedialogue.org/page.cfm?pageID=32&pubID=3496, ldg)

Legalizing cannabis, a step most Americans now favor, is the only way out of this jumble, particularly after
President Obama made clear that he would not enforce a federal ban on marijuana use in those states where it was now lawful. We have other fish to fry, he said.
In another interview, he said marijuana is no more harmful than alcohol. Legalization should also contribute to easier relations
with Mexico and other neighbors to the south on issues of public security. To be sure, legal marijuana comes with costs
and risks. The American Medical Association considers cannabis a dangerous drug while the American Psychiatric Association asserts that its use impedes
neurological development in adolescents and can cause the onset of psychiatric disorders. Some studies suggest it interferes with learning and motivation. It
should be anticipated that legalization will lead to greater use, at all ages, as marijuana becomes more accessible and less expensive, and the cultural and social
stigmas surrounding its consumption literally go up in smoke. Abuse and addiction including among juveniles will rise as well. But keeping marijuana illegal also
carries a high price tag. Particularly devastating are the human costs of arresting and jailing thousands upon thousands of young Americans each year. Roughly one-
third of all U.S. citizens are arrested by age 23. Racial and ethnic minorities are most vulnerable. African-American marijuana users are over three times more likely
to be arrested and imprisoned than whites, even though the two groups consume the drug at virtually the same levels. With cannabis accounting for roughly half of
total drug arrests, legalization would sharply reduce this egregious disparity. It would also save money by reducing the U.S. prison population. A half a million people
were incarcerated for drug offenses in 2011, a ten-fold jump since 1980 at an average annual cost per prisoner of more than $20,000 in a minimum-security
federal facility. Cannabis legalization would also help to lift an unneeded burden from U.S. foreign policy in
Latin America, where Washingtons drug war has long strained diplomatic relations. Most
governments in the hemisphere have concluded that U.S. anti-drug policies are just not working and,
in many places, are actually contributing to mounting levels of crime, violence and corruption. Colombia
has been a notable exception. With U.S. support of nearly $10 billion, the country has become far more secure in the past dozen years. Yet Juan Manuel Santos,
Colombias president and arguably Washingtons closest ally in the region, is now a leading advocate of alternative drug strategies. In an exhaustive report last year,
prompted by President Santos, the Organization of American States analyzed a range of alternative policy approaches, including cannabis legalization. Few Latin
American countries are actively contemplating legalization a la Uruguay. But many have stopped arrests for use and possession of marijuana, and virtually all are
keeping a close watch on developments in Uruguay. Nowhere is there much enthusiasm for cooperating with the United States in its continuing efforts to eradicate
drug crops and interrupt drug flows. A decision by the U.S. government to legalize marijuana would be a bold step
toward breaking todays bureaucratic and political inertia and opening the way for a genuine
hemisphere-wide search for alternative strategies.

Absent the plan military and law enforcement issues dominate the agendathe plan
is key to send a signal of partnership.
Carlsen, Center for International Policy Americas program director, 2013
(Laura, At the UN, a Latin American Rebellion, 10-4, http://fpif.org/un-latin-american-rebellion/, ldg)

Latin American leaders have grown increasingly discontent about more longstanding U.S. policies as
well. Right here, in this same headquarters, 52 years ago, the convention that gave birth to the war on drugs was approved. Today, we must acknowledge, that
war has not been won, Colombian President Juan Manuel Santos said, noting that his country has suffered more deaths, more bloodshed, and more sacrifices in
this war than almost any other. Santos, as he has done before, called for changing tracks rather than intensifying the war. He noted that he led the effort in the
Organization of American States to study different scenarios (meaning alternatives to the drug war approach) and commissioned studies that will be made
available to the public and evaluated in a UN Special Session in 2016. He concluded with a jab at the U.S.-led drug war. If we act
together with a comprehensive and modern visionfree of ideological and political biasesimagine
how much harm and how much violence we could avoid, he said. Central American nations repeated the need for a new model.
Costa Ricas Laura Chinchilla cited a regional agreement including Mexico and Guatemala to reevaluate internationally agreed-upon policies in search of more
effective responses to drug trafficking, from a perspective of health, a framework of respect for human rights, and a perspective of harm reduction. Guatemalan
President Otto Perez Molina, a military man who has somewhat ironically assumed the mantle of drug reform champion, told the UN, Since the start of my
government, we have clearly affirmed that the war on drugs has not yielded the desired results and that we cannot continue doing the same thing and expecting
different results. He called on nations to assess internationally agreed policies in search of more effective results and urged approaches based on public health,
violence reduction, respect for human rights, and cooperation to reduce the flow of arms and illegal funds. Perez Molina openly praised the vi sionary decision of
the citizens of the U.S. states of Colorado and Washington to legalize marijuana, and heralded the example set by [Uruguayan] President Jose Mujica in proposing
legislation that regulates the cannabis market instead of following the failed route of prohibition. Mexicos minister used the same terms, quoting the regional
agreement and placing a priority on prevention, arms control, and opening a global debate. Bolivias Morales noted that according to UN data, his country has made
more progress on fighting drug trafficking after liberating ourselves from the DEA, referring to his decision to expel the U.S. agency from Bolivia. This
onslaught of drug war opposition is not welcome in Washington. The Obama administration has been
actively trying to divert or dilute Latin American calls to reduce its militarized counternarcotics
operations, concerned more with maintaining and expanding the U.S. military presence in the region
than eliminating drug trafficking, which a recent report again shows has not diminished. Listening to Latin America Spying and the drug war
werent the only criticisms. Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro cancelled his UN participation altogether, citing provocations against him and fears for his
safety were he to visit the UNs New York City headquarters. His demand to move UN headquarters out of the United States was reiterated by other Latin American
leaders. Tensions have been high between the United States and Venezuela despite the death of U.S. nemesis Hugo Chavez. Maduro just expelled U.S. charg d
affaires Kelly Kiederling and two others for allegedly encouraging acts of sabotage against the Venezuelan electrical system and economy in meetings with right-
wing groups. Criticisms of inaction on global warming were also aimed northward. Mujica of Uruguay lashed out at U.S. consumer culture, saying, If everyone
aspired to live like the average U.S. citizen, wed need three planets. Amid all this, the mainstream media paid little attention to Latin America. Its time to
listen to what theyre saying. This is a bold new Latin America speaking. Not only are these nations
reclaiming a right to differentiate their views from those of the global superpower and refusing to
render it diplomatic tributewhatever your views, a step forward in self-determinationthey are
also standing up in defense of rights we should all be defending far more vigorously. Brazil and its allies sounded
an alarm that should be heeded by all nations and by U.S. citizens especially: it is not acceptable to assume that in the modern age we no longer have the basic right
to privacy. U.S. government eavesdropping on President Rousseff and othersthanks to the global reach of ATT, Microsoft, and Google, and their unprincipled
compliance with the unprincipled requests of the NSA and other spy agenciesaffects everyone. The spy-versus-spy scenarios that made for intriguing novels have
given way to a spy industry vs. common citizen reality on a global scale. And once again, our generation is demonstrating a terrible willingness to sacrifice rights that
our ancestors fought for and our children may never inherit. The evident anger in the words of these Latin American heads of
state shows just how far Washingtons relations with the region have deteriorated. It demonstrates
the growing gap between rhetoric and reality since Obama promised the region a relationship based
on mutual respect and self determination at the beginning of his first term. Diplomacy, reaffirmed in the 68th
Assembly, has been steadily eroding in U.S. relations with Latin America as the Pentagon dominates
the agenda. Does it matter for the United States to have good relations with Latin America, including
the left-leaning leaders? Apparently, Washington has decided it doesnt. Its defensive response to the spy scandal, its
efforts to pit its free-trade allies against countries that have turned away from neoliberal economies, and its use of regional allies like
Colombia and Mexico as proxy militaries has sought to create rifts rather than mend them. The U.S.
government continues to play the neighborhood bully long after the kids on the block have grown
up. The flurry of state visits to the region have generally aimed to reinforce unpopular policies,
including the drug war and free trade, rather than listen to the calls for change. In-the-box Washington pundits
view the hemispheric outburst in the UN as a PR problem. But the Obama administration doesnt need to work on its niceties or polish its Spanish. What it
needs to do is ditch the offensive policies and practices that stirred up regional ire. The voices of
outrage from the South brought an important lesson to the UN floor: Deception and strong-arm
tactics eventually backfire.


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

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

Failure to solve warming causes extinction geological history proves
Bushnell, NASA Langley Research Center chief scientist, 2010 (Dennis M. has a MS in mechanical
engineering, won the Lawrence A. Sperry Award, AIAA Fluid and Plasma Dynamics Award, the AIAA Dryden Lectureship, and is the recipient of
many NASA Medals for outstanding Scientific Achievement and Leadership, "Conquering Climate Change," The Futurist 44. 3, May/Jun 2010,
ProQuest)

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



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

Call me a converted skeptic. Three years ago I identified problems in previous climate studies that, in my
mind, threw doubt on the very existence of global warming. Last year, following an intensive research effort
involving a dozen scientists, I concluded that global warming was real and that the prior estimates of
the rate of warming were correct. Im now going a step further: Humans are almost entirely the cause. My total
turnaround, in such a short time, is the result of careful and objective analysis by the Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature project, which I founded with my
daughter Elizabeth. Our results show that the average temperature of the earths land has risen by two and a
half degrees Fahrenheit over the past 250 years, including an increase of one and a half degrees over the most recent 50 years.
Moreover, it appears likely that essentially all of this increase results from the human emission of
greenhouse gases. These findings are stronger than those of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the United
Nations group that defines the scientific and diplomatic consensus on global warming. In its 2007 report, the I.P.C.C. concluded only that most of the warmi ng of the
prior 50 years could be attributed to humans. It was possible, according to the I.P.C.C. consensus statement, that the warming before 1956 could be because of
changes in solar activity, and that even a substantial part of the more recent warming could be natural. Our Berkeley Earth approach used
sophisticated statistical methods developed largely by our lead scientist, Robert Rohde, which allowed us to determine earth
land temperature much further back in time. We carefully studied issues raised by skeptics: biases from
urban heating (we duplicated our results using rural data alone), from data selection (prior groups selected fewer than 20 percent of the
available temperature stations; we used virtually 100 percent), from poor station quality (we separately analyzed good stations and poor ones) and
from human intervention and data adjustment (our work is completely automated and hands-off). In our papers we demonstrate that
none of these potentially troublesome effects unduly biased our conclusions. The historic temperature pattern we
observed has abrupt dips that match the emissions of known explosive volcanic eruptions; the particulates from such events reflect sunlight, make for beautiful
sunsets and cool the earths surface for a few years. There are small, rapid variations attributable to El Nio and other ocean currents such as the Gulf Stream;
because of such oscillations, the flattening of the recent temperature rise that some people claim is not, in our view, statistically significant. What has caused the
gradual but systematic rise of two and a half degrees? We tried fitting the shape to simple math functions (exponentials, polynomials),
to solar activity and even to rising functions like world population. By far the best match was to the
record of atmospheric carbon dioxide, measured from atmospheric samples and air trapped in polar ice. Just as important, our record
is long enough that we could search for the fingerprint of solar variability, based on the historical record
of sunspots. That fingerprint is absent. Although the I.P.C.C. allowed for the possibility that variations in sunlight could have ended the Little
Ice Age, a period of cooling from the 14th century to about 1850, our data argues strongly that the temperature rise of the past
250 years cannot be attributed to solar changes. This conclusion is, in retrospect, not too surprising; weve learned from
satellite measurements that solar activity changes the brightness of the sun very little. How definite is the
attribution to humans? The carbon dioxide curve gives a better match than anything else weve tried. Its
magnitude is consistent with the calculated greenhouse effect extra warming from trapped heat radiation. These facts dont
prove causality and they shouldnt end skepticism, but they raise the bar: to be considered seriously, an alternative explanation must match the data at least as well
as carbon dioxide does. Adding methane, a second greenhouse gas, to our analysis doesnt change the results.
Moreover, our analysis does not depend on large, complex global climate models, the huge computer programs that are notorious for their hidden assumptions and
adjustable parameters. Our result is based simply on the close agreement between the shape of the observed temperature rise and the known greenhouse gas
increase. Its a scientists duty to be properly skeptical. I still find that much, if not most, of what is attributed to climate change is speculative, exaggerated or just
plain wrong. Ive analyzed some of the most alarmist claims, and my skepticism about them hasnt changed. Hurricane Katrina cannot be attributed to global
warming. The number of hurricanes hitting the United States has been going down, not up; likewise for intense tornadoes. Polar bears arent dying from receding
ice, and the Himalayan glaciers arent going to melt by 2035. And its possible that we are currently no warmer than we were a thousand years ago, during the
Medieval Warm Period or Medieval Optimum, an interval of warm conditions known from historical records and indirect evidence like tree rings. And the recent
warm spell in the United States happens to be more than offset by cooling elsewhere in the world, so its link to global warming is weaker than tenuous. The
careful analysis by our team is laid out in five scientific papers now online at BerkeleyEarth.org. That site also
shows our chart of temperature from 1753 to the present, with its clear fingerprint of volcanoes and carbon dioxide, but containing no component that matches
solar activity. Four of our papers have undergone extensive scrutiny by the scientific community, and the
newest, a paper with the analysis of the human component, is now posted, along with the data and
computer programs used. Such transparency is the heart of the scientific method; if you find our conclusions implausible, tell us of any errors of data
or analysis. What about the future? As carbon dioxide emissions increase, the temperature should continue to rise. I
expect the rate of warming to proceed at a steady pace, about one and a half degrees over land in the
next 50 years, less if the oceans are included. But if China continues its rapid economic growth (it has averaged
10 percent per year over the last 20 years) and its vast use of coal (it typically adds one new gigawatt per month), then that same
warming could take place in less than 20 years. Science is that narrow realm of knowledge that, in principle, is universally accepted. I
embarked on this analysis to answer questions that, to my mind, had not been answered. I hope that the Berkeley Earth analysis will help settle the scientific debate
regarding global warming and its human causes. Then comes the difficult part: agreeing across the political and diplomatic spectrum about what can and should be
done.


Not too late to solve warming-international cooperation in the next year is key
Leber, ThinkProgress reporter, 2014
(Rebecca, Climate Change Scientists Warn: We're Almost Too Late, 8-27,
http://www.newrepublic.com/article/119236/un-draft-climate-report-issues-warning-world, ldg)

There is an alarming message in a major new report on climate change, a draft of which the New York Times obtained on Tuesday. The United Nations
I ntergovernmental P anel on C limate C hange, a group of leading scientists who review the latest
and best available research, say we are dangerously close to the day when it will no longer be possible
to limit global warming to 3.6 degrees Fahrenheit (2.0 degrees Celsius) by mid-centurysomething
that world leaders have pledged to do. Of course, the pledge might already be delusional, given that countries continue to burn fossil fuels
at an unprecedented rate. In the first decade of the twenty-first century, emissions grew at 2.2 percent per year. Thats nearly twice as much as they increased in
the three decades that preceded it. And its no secret why. While emissions have been slowing in industrialized countries, that hasnt offset the growth in emissions
from China and India. The report also finds companies and countries are sitting on four times more of the fossil fuels than the world should be burning if it
reasonably expects to keep the worst of global warming at bay. In other words, countries will have the opportunity to fill the atmosphere with way too many
greenhouse gasesthe question is whether they can somehow resist the temptation. This latest draft is a revision of an earlier one,
which Reuters obtained in August. That version suggested that we would need drastic greenhouse gas
cuts of 40 to 70 percent worldwide by 2050, in order to keep to the 3.6 degrees target. What that
means in plain language is that countries like the U.S. and China would need to start confronting the
economic costs of switching away from fossil fuels now, in order to avoid a much more dangerous
(and costly) future. Why is 3.6 degrees so important? Most research today looks at the consequences warming on this scale. Its not a sure thing, as the
scientists acknowledge. The actual increase would fall somewhere within a fairly broad range. But even more optimistic scenarios, in which the planet ends up
warming little, would entail more extreme weather, acidic oceans, and a changing ecosystem. On the other end of the spectrum are some really nightmarish
possibilities. At eight degrees of warming, which the draft report sees as a distinct possibility, the effects would include vast ice sheets in Greenland and Antarctica
destabilizing completely, changing coastal civilization as we know it as sea levels rise by 23 feet. Recent studies suggest the western Antarctic ice sheet may already
be past the point of irreversible melting, so this scenario is not far-fetched. The clock is ticking and the nations of the world are
well it remains to be seen what the nations of the world will do. Next month the United Nations
will hold a Climate Summit. Its the prelude to a much bigger round of international negotiations, in
Paris in 2015. President Barack Obama seems to be brokering a climate accord ahead of these talks
seen as the best chance coordinate and agree upon the greenhouse gas cuts needed that would sidestep
Republican opposition by not requiring Senate ratification. Because as this new report indicates, waiting another day to
take action on climatelet alone a whole yearis tempting fate.


2AC

2AC States CP


CP chills pot industryCongressional action is key
Boyd, Third Way Social Policy & Politics Program visiting senior fellow, 2014
(Graham, Marijuana Legalization: Does Congress Need to Act?, June,
http://content.thirdway.org/publications/830/Third_Way_Report_-_Marijuana_Legalization-
_Does_Congress_Need_to_Act.pdf, ldg)
Additionally, reinforcing and arguably expanding upon the Memorandum, federal officials have issued guidance that takes an
important step toward allowing financial institutions to provide some services to licensed marijuana
businesses.22 The issue first arose when Deputy Attorney General Cole testified before the Senate Judiciary Committee and faced questions about the
potential dangers of forcing marijuana businesses to operate as cash-only enterprises. As several Senators pointed out, federal rules currently prevent marijuana
businesses from holding bank accounts, forcing them to keep large amounts of cash on hand, and thereby creating a high risk of robbery and violence. Cole declared
that he would take responsibility for clearing away obstacles to marijuana businesses having access to financial services.23 The Second Cole
Memorandum and the engagement in the banking issue suggest a shift in federal policy towards a
more nuanced and pragmatic policy stance on state-regulated marijuana . But without Congressional
action, it is merely a band-aid solution, since it could be changed at a moments notice and gives no
guarantee of protection against prosecution, still explicitly stating that banks and marijuana
businesses would be contravening federal law even by following the guidance. The current federal policy is a good
first step toward giving state officials room to construct a regulatory system and begin issuing licenses. But without legislation at the federal
level, the participants in these newly-regulated markets will continue to face significant hurdles and
uncertaint y, and states will continue to be hampered in their ability to protect the public safety interests of their citizens. The next President or
Attorney General could put a quick end to existing marijuana businesses and could even undertake
prosecutions for past actions. In short, an exercise of prosecutorial discretion today can become a
policy of prosecutorial vigor tomorrow. The federal government could also decide to change course and
sue the legalizing states directlya risk that increases each time a state gets more involved in directly
regulating certain aspects of the marijuana market. This atmosphere of uncertainty and peril
dissuades law-abiding businesspeople from becoming operators, discourages transparent business
practices, and impedes state lawmakers who wish to crack down on mislabeled marijuana products
which could threaten public safety and health . To solve these problems and create space for the states that have legalized recreational
marijuana use to do it right, Congress needs to amend the Controlled Substances Act to establish a policy of federal non-intervention based in state waivers that
carry the force of law.*

Fed key to solve state revenues
Kopel, Denver advanced constitutional law professor, 2012
(David, Reducing The Drug Wars Damage To Government Budgets, January,
http://works.bepress.com/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1043&context=david_kopel, ldg)

The modern misuse of federal power severely impedes a states ability to effectively tax legalized
marijuana within its borders. At a time when the State of California and California local governments
are having terrible budget problems, their taxation of legal medical marijuana is being thwarted by
the U.S. Attorney General. Contrary to the campaign promises of thencandidate Barack Obama,132 Attorney General Eric Holder announced a
policy to devote federal resources to the prosecution of medical marijuana dispensaries in California.133 The problem of federal
interference with state taxation will grow worse when, almost inevitably, states voters choose to
legalize marijuana in general, not just for medical use. Consider, for example, Californias Proposition 19. Had a mere 4% of voters
changed their minds, the legalization would have passed.134 Supporters of the ballot initiative pointed to the savings that could result from eliminating the $156
million that California spends on marijuana prohibition135 and to the $1.4 billion in tax revenue that marijuana excise and sales taxes would provide.136
Professor Robert A. Mikos examined how the wrench thrown into the machine by federal law
would lead to widespread tax evasion.137 Mikos argues that continuing federal prohibition
concurrent with state legalization would incentivize tax evasion for two reasons: 1) [i]t would
preserve the current fragmented structure of the marijuana market, by giving marijuana distributors
an incentive to remain small and to operate inconspicuously; and 2) it would put state tax collectors in
a dilemma, because federal authorities could use state tax rolls (and similar stategathered
information) to track down and punish taxpaying marijuana distributors .138 The first reason is based on the simple
fact that the risk of federal prosecution creates an incentive for a business to remain small and try to stay under the radar. Furthermore, other
federal laws, such as the Lanham Act,139 prohibit trademark registration for any product proscribed
by federal law, including marijuana.140 Insofar as trademarks help build market shareas they have
done in the strongly brandloyal cigarette marketsuch prohibitions could inhibit growth of
marijuana producers. The second reason is that the paper trail of state taxation could be seized by
federal agents and there is nothing the states can do to stop them.141




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

Specifically true for marihuana legalization
Alex Kreit, Associate Professor and Director, Center for Law and Social Justice, Thomas Jefferson School
of Law, 2010 Spring, 2010, Chapman Law Review, 13 Chap. L. Rev. 555 Beyond the Prohibition
Debate: Thoughts on Federal Drug Laws in an Age of State Reforms
This essay considers the question of how to think about federal drug laws in a post-drug war era - one
in which states are enacting reforms that are at odds with stated federal policy. My approach here has been, by
design, limited and focused. I have, for example, omitted some of the most important proposals for reforming federal drug laws, such as
reforms that would reduce the severity of federal sentences for low-level drug offenders. Instead, this essay seeks to examine
possible reforms that relate to the role of federal law in shaping and enforcing our drug policies. The
discussion reveals the importance of cutting through the debate about prohibition and legalization when thinking about federal drug laws. By
looking at a proposal in Congress to "decriminalize" marijuana, we find that the federal government
could not unilaterally legalize or decriminalize a drug even if it wanted to. As a practical matter, if the
federal government were to remove federal penalties for possession of small amounts of marijuana,
the result would not be nationwide decriminalization but a shift in at most 600-odd defendants from
federal to state courts. This is in large part because, even in an age of unprecedented federal
involvement in criminal law enforcement, states still arrest and prosecute far more offenders than the
federal government. For this same reason, the federal government may be unable to stop states from enacting reforms like the
legalization of medical marijuana, even though they are inconsistent with federal policy. [*581] The federal government cannot
legalize marijuana on its own, but it also cannot stop a state from doing so . n103 As a result, if we
approach proposals to reform federal drug laws from the prohibition/legalization framework, we will
be asking the wrong questions . Instead, we would be much better served by thinking about these
issues in terms of the role of federal government in light of state laws. This is not only a more accurate way to
look at issues like how the federal government should respond to state medical marijuana laws, but it also has the potential to help
begin to bridge the divide in what is often a polarizing debate.

States insufficient-Courts will interpret federal law to enforce statutes that say people
cant commit illegal offenses
Kamin, Denver constitutional rights professor, 2014
(Sam, COOPERATIVE FEDERALISM AND STATE MARIJUANA REGULATION, Fall, University of Colorado
Law Review, lexis, ldg)

While negative externalities discussed above primarily affect marijuana practitioners, the consequences are no less profound for those simply wishing to consume
marijuana in compliance with their state's laws. These consequences are real and will persist so long as marijuana
remains prohibited by the CSA; promises from the federal government to let the states take the lead
in marijuana enforcement simply do not undo the consequences of federal prohibition . 1. Employment
Currently, one of the biggest impediments to the legalization of marijuana in the states is the fact
that those who test positive for marijuana can lose their employment even if their conduct is entirely
consistent with state law. In Colorado, both state46 and federal courtS47 have held that Colorado's "lawful off-duty conduct" statute does not
govern the consumption of marijuana. Because the possession of marijuana remains illegal under federal law, these
courts have reasoned that consuming marijuana is not "lawful" conduct, even if it does not violate
state law. Furthermore, the Colorado courts have concluded that an individual fired for testing
positive for marijuana is ineligible for unemployment benefits under the same reasoning, even if that
individual is a marijuana patient acting in compliance with state law.48 2. Probation/Parole Similarly, state courts have used marijuana's
continuing illegality at the federal level to deny otherwise qualified criminal defendants probation or
parole. 49 Because it is generally a standard condition of supervised release-either following a term of
imprisonment or in lieu of one-that the defendant agree to commit no new offenses during the period
of release, 50 courts have held that a defendant's positive test for marijuana permits his re-arrest. Unless
or until legislatures in marijuana states make explicit provision for marijuana use consistent with state law,51 the federal prohibition will continue to cast a shadow
over the availability of supervised release for those using marijuana either medically or recreationally. 3. Public Services Generally A number
of other public benefits, from public housing to student loans to government employment, are
conditioned on the recipient's abstinence from illegal-drug use. For example, the federal program that helps fund local public
housing agencies (PHAs) forbids those agencies from admitting into public housing facilities families that include members who use marijuana. 52 While PHAs have
the discretion not to evict residents who use medical marijuana, 53 that discretion does not extend to admitting marijuana users into public housing even where
their use is compliant with state law. A single medical marijuana patient, in other words, can make an entire family ineligible to receive public housing, as long as
marijuana remains illegal under federal law.

The DEA will fight tooth and nailand they will win in courtthe Fed will cling to
current marijuana lawsno spill up
Vitiello 13Michael, 2013 Distinguished Professor of Law, University of the Pacific, McGeorge School
of Law; University of Pennsylvania, J.D., 1974; Swarthmore College, B.A., 1969. Article: Joints or the
Joint: Colorado and Washington Square Off Against the United States, 91 Or. L. Rev. 1009
Not so fast, Cheech! But for two brief periods since the 1930s, the federal government has demonstrated little
flexibility with regard to the legalization of marijuana. 54 [*1017] Many commentators have written about early aggressive and
discriminatory enforcement of marijuana laws, especially in the post-Prohibition era, 55 and the modern efforts of the government in spite of increased calls for
legalization. 56 The first brief moment when the federal government seemed ready to reevaluate its position on marijuana occurred duri ng Jimmy Carter's
presidency. President Carter called for its decriminalization. Also during the Carter presidency, the government implemented a compassionate use program,
allowing some seriously ill patients access to marijuana through a carefully controlled federal program. 57 Begun during Richard Nixon's presidency, 58 the War
on Drugs proliferated during Ronald Reagan's presidency. 59 Penalties were increased, often with mandatory minimum
sentences. 60 And those laws were enforced, often vigorously. 61 Under federal drug laws, marijuana is categorized as a Schedule I drug, one for which there is no
recognized medical benefit. 62 The government has fought all efforts to reschedule marijuana. It fought early efforts of the National Organization for the Reform of
Marijuana Laws (NORML) to do so. As I summarized elsewhere, Litigation dragged on between 1972 and 1992, with drug enforcement agencies using various
procedural maneuvers to prevent a hearing on the issue. Despite an administrative law judge's recommendation, the DEA
administrator ruled against [*1018] reclassification... . [Every] president[] between Carter and Obama
[has] pursued an aggressive War on Drugs, including marijuana. 63 More recent efforts to reschedule
marijuana have been met with similar resistance by the federal government. Protracted litigation has ended
recently with a federal court of appeals again upholding the Drug Enforcement Agency's (DEA) refusal to reschedule marijuana. 64
During the 2008 presidential campaign, candidate Obama gave supporters of legalization of marijuana hope when he stated that he would stop raids on "legitimate"
medical marijuana dispensaries. 65 Shortly after the election, the Attorney General's office issued a memorandum seemingly implementing that promise. 66 Almost
certainly, the government's "softer" approach led to rapid expansion of dispensaries in states with existing medical marijuana laws 67 and to passage of medical
marijuana statutes elsewhere. 68 That was then. But what followed seems like a U-turn in administration policy. Notably, in California, marijuana providers opened
hundreds of dispensaries, often in central business locations. 69 The Obama administration reacted forcefully. Under his administration, there have been more raids
on marijuana dispensaries in California than there were under the Bush administration. 70 Federal government agents have threatened landlords with forfeiture of
their [*1019] property if they lease to dispensaries. 71 They have invoked federal drug laws that heighten penalties when drug dealers sell drugs within proximity
to schools. 72 Finally, the Internal Revenue Service has pursued "legitimate" dispensaries. The IRS's position is especially threatening to states' hopes of raising tax
revenues. Reagan-era legislation makes it unlawful for drug dealers to deduct ordinary business expenses, including salaries paid to staff. 73 At least according to
news reports, the IRS has targeted some of the most law-abiding dispensaries in California. 74 That stance, if upheld by the courts, 75 has a potentially perverse
effect: dispensary owners most interested in complying with the law would be forced out of business, while those who are interested in using medical marijuana
laws as a cover for drug trafficking may be able to remain in business. Some observers express little surprise in the Obama administration's shift in its position. 76 An
outsider might conclude [*1020] that the Obama administration discovered a reality of modern government: change is hard
because of inertia resulting from entrenched vested interests of governmental agencies. Thus, the
administration's policy shift may have resulted from a conflict between Obama's more tolerant position
towards marijuana and officials in the Office of National Drug Policy, the DEA, and other law enforcement agencies. 77 Unwilling
to take on entrenched bureaucrats, especially after the 2010 election debacle, the administration simply folded. If that
narrative is accurate, then at least for the next several years, talk of legalization of marijuana is wishful thinking . Using its full
arsenal, the federal government can prevent Colorado and Washington from implementing their laws. At least as drug laws are written, state officials
who participate in the state-authorized drug trade - for example, as employees providing marijuana - would
be violating federal law. As the federal government has done in California, it can invoke various laws, including
forfeiture laws and tax laws , to drive state-authorized drug sellers out of business. Again, continuing the same
narrative, efforts to legalize marijuana create an existential crisis for agencies like the DEA: officials in
those agencies will not go away without a fight. Viewed from that perspective, reports of the demise of
marijuana laws are greatly exaggerated.
2AC GOP Good

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

Foreign policy is key to the midterms, not the economy
Ball, The Atlantic, 9-10-14 (Molly, The Midterm Electorate Is Anxious and Unsettled,
http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2014/09/the-american-mood-and-the-midterm-
elections/379991/?single_page=true, accessed 9-11-14, CMM)
Less than two months before the midterm elections, American voters are frightened and unsettled by
conditions in the U.S. and around the world. They crave stability, distrust politicians, and have little
faith that changing control of Congress would accomplish anything. And while few are pleased with
President Obama's leadership, they don't see the November elections primarily as a referendum on it.
These were the attitudes expressed in a pair of focus groups of swing-voting women on Tuesday night. The two panels of middle-
income mothers in Little Rock and Des Moines revealed a political landscape that has shifted
markedly since the last election, as economic anxieties appear to have ebbed and worries about
physical security have risen to take their place. The "Walmart Moms"women with children living at
home who shop at Walmart, which underwrites the panels, at least once a montharen't a perfectly representative slice of the
electorate. But they have mirrored the electorate's swings in the last three elections, and they offer a
window into the sentiments that will determine this year's vote.
Most strikingly, the women in both groups expressed pervasive worry about violence . From the
Islamic State to the unrest in Ferguson, Missouri, to local crime and school shootings, these concerns
were at the top of their minds. The word "scary" came up repeatedly when they described the state of the world,
along with "unsettled" and "unstable." Amanda, a 31-year-old African-American mother of five in Little Rock, compared the situation to Forrest
Gump's box of chocolates: "You never know what you're going to get. One day you're okay; the next day
there's something overseas or a school shooting. We're okay for like a month, then here comes
something else." Louise, a white Des Moines travel agent with one child who voted for Romney, said she didn't think Obama
was handling ISIS well: "I think we needed to take action, and he's just stepped back .... I don't think it's going
to stay in that part of the world." Jerri, an Obama voter, agreed: "It just seems like when he's put under a lot of pressure, he just stops." An
Obama voter in Des Moines described the president as "more reactive than proactive."
This emphasis on security was a departure from previous groups, many of which I've covered in the
past few years, in which economic anxiety has overwhelmingly dominated. Neil Newhouse, the Republican
half of the bipartisan team of pollsters conducting the study, said he'd never heard that sense of instability from voters
before. Margie Omero, his Democratic counterpart, concurred: "There was so much more salience on crime and
safety than I've heard in a long time, and it broke across racial lines." The pollsters noted that other
international turmoil in recent years has not made such a strong impression on the mom groups.
Recent polling also supports the idea of a newly national-security-focused electorate, with war-
weariness receding somewhat and a majority of Americans favoring military action against ISIS,
though most still do not support ground troops.
The women in the groups were split between Obama and Romney voters, but nobody's assessment of
the president was particularly positive. Loyalists and even some antagonists thought he was trying his
best, but many expressed disappointment. "He's on vacation, golf-coursing, while the country's going
to crap!" said Dana, a 43-year-old Little Rock mother of three. On the other hand, there was little white-hot anti-Obama anger of the sort
that was common in 2010. Many of this year's Republican candidates are counting on voters' disapproval of the president to help them, as
voters punish Democratic candidates for supporting Obama's agenda. But the women, asked how Obama would influence their vote, insisted
they would evaluate the candidates for their individual characteristics and views on issues. And their anger at Washington wasn't focused solely
on the president. "I think our federal funds are used unwisely, I think the buck stops too high up," said Pam, a divorced, 51-year-old Romney
voter in Little Rock. "They pay themselves too much, and they pay for too many services." The moms' frustration encompassed Congress and
both parties, not just Obama.
Similarly, there was some talk of Obamacare, but feelings were mixed, with some saying they'd benefited while others
expressed distaste. Teresa, a 35-year-old Obama voter in Little Rock, said she thought Obama had spent too much time on
health care and "lost focus" on more important things. One woman said she arrived at the focus group late because her
children lost their doctor and had to start going to a new one. But Debra, a divorced Des Moines mother of two, said she was happy to give up
some of her income to "take care of the poor," even though she understood others were unhappy about the law.
Other supposedly raging national issues played little role in the discussion. Immigration did not come
up at all in Little Rock and was only mentioned briefly in Des Moines, where two of the women worried about
finding a compassionate way to deal with the children on the border and the undocumented around the country. Social issues, too, were
barely alluded to: One member of the Des Moines group brought up Republican Senate candidate Joni Ernst's support for a
"personhood" measure, which she perceived as limiting access to birth control and morning-after pills. Another, an Obama voter, praised the
president for increasing equality for women and gays. Several women who identified themselves as religious worried
about the decline of faith in society. In Des Moines, after one woman criticized Ernst for wanting to destroy the separation of
church and state, another responded, "I like that idea of church and state coming back together again, because I feel like we've gotten so far
away from it."
Many of the women decried the brutal nature of campaigns and wished the candidates would spend more time emphasizing the positive.
"Every time you turn on the TV it's negative, negative," Jerri said. "I'm trying to figure out what they're going to do." Nonetheless, most of the
voters' views of the candidates and their campaigns were drawn from negative campaign ads, neatly illustrating why candidates never heed
such pleas for positivity. Women in both groups also expressed the view that politicians are bought and paid for by their donors. Asked about
the Koch brothers, the billionaire libertarians who are spending hundreds of millions to influence the midterms and whose name Democrats
have tried to turn into a slur, no one in the Little Rock focus group could say who they were. In Des Moines, however, a couple of Obama voters
associated the Kochs with Ernst: "She supports their agenda, like privatizing Social Security," said Marguerite. "They fund herthey support her
campaign," Rochelle added.
The women's views of the hotly contested Senate races in their states were largely unformed. Few
had solid opinions of the candidatesin Arkansas, Democratic Senator Mark Pryor and his Republican challenger,
Representative Tom Cotton; in Iowa, Democrat Bruce Braley and Republican Joni Ernst. In Little Rock, Teresa summed up the commercials
she'd seen this way: "Mark Pryor has apparently changed a whole lot and not voted for Arkansas, and Tom Cotton was apparently in the
military at some point." In Des Moines, no one could say what Braleya four-term congressman from a different part of the state
did for a living. One was sure he was "a criminal" but couldn't say why. Impressions of Ernst, however, were vivid and polarized. "She
rides a Harley." "She has guns." "She believes in God." "She inseminates pigs." (If only, the pigs might respond.) All of the women indicated they
were somewhat or very likely to vote, but many said they planned to do more research closer to election day. One planned to check the
candidate scorecard put out by Rock the Vote, while another was counting on her Christian Coalition newsletter. If the vote were held today,
the D es Moines women would pick Braley, 6 votes to 4, while the Little Rock group would choose Cotton, 5 to 4, with one unable to decide.
These results are anecdotal, of course, and highly preliminary. Many of the women said their minds were not made up. But they align
with recent polls in their respective states. More importantly, the attitudes the women expressed provide a
window into this year's changed political landscape. In 2008 and 2010, the financial crisis was fresh in
people's minds, and economic fear and anger were raw. This time, while there is still plenty of
economic anxiety, the women "were not as personally anxious as past groups," Omero said. "There was a
little more personal optimism, but consistent global pessimism." Nor was the Obama effect as powerful as 2010 or,
among Republicans, 2012. Based on what they saw, both pollsters agreed the elections are very much up in
the air. "A couple of years ago, it was all about the economy," Newhouse said. "Now it's not that."
Link Turnlegalization is unpopular
Galston, senior fellow and Chair in Governance Studies at Brookings, and Dionne, senior fellow in
Governance Studies at Brookings, 13 (William and E.J., May, The New Politics of Marijuana
Legalization: Why Opinion is Changing,
http://www.brookings.edu/~/media/research/files/papers/2013/05/29%20politics%20marijuana%20leg
alization%20galston%20dionne/dionne%20galston_newpoliticsofmjleg_final.pdf, accessed 8-29-14,
CMM)
Despite last years legalization victories in Colorado and Washington, the battles of recent years suggest that, on
the whole, there is more intensity among those who oppose legalization and more ambivalence
among those who favor it. For example, a survey conducted during the battle over Californias Proposition
19 that would have legalized marijuana use found that 39 percent of the states voters were strongly
opposed to legalization while only 34 percent strongly favored it. The rest of the voters held their
views less intensely. Similarly, the survey found that 41 percent of voters said they were definitely
opposed to legalization, while only 27 percent were definitely in favor. There are other ambivalences in public
attitudes toward marijuana, notably a substantial dif - ference between attitudes toward legalization for recreational purposes and attitudes
toward medical marijuana. For example, the Pew survey that found a 52-to-45 percent majority in favor of overall legalization also found a
much larger majority, 77-to-16 percent, saying that marijuana had legitimate medical uses. Other surveys suggest that
decriminalization tends to enjoy more support than outright legalization.

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

Marijuana isnt key
Fabian, Fusion political editor, 14 (Jordan, 4-29-14, Poll: Democrats Face an Ugly Midterms
Without Young Voters, http://fusion.net/leadership/story/harvard-youth-poll-democrats-face-ugly-
midterms-young-635862, accessed 7-1-14, CMM)
President Obama and Democrats will have a tough time counting on young voters in this Novembers
midterm elections, a new poll says. Young voters are increasingly unlikely to cast a ballot this fall, according to a
poll from Harvard Universitys Institute of Politics released Tuesday. The survey found a growing sense of political apathy among
adults under 30, driven by a lack of trust in political process and institutions. And one issue that
Democrats have hoped would drive youth turnout, marijuana legalization, might be more
complicated than that. Heres a closer look at the polls three main takeaways: 1. Bad news for Democrats Young people helped elect President
Obama to office in 2008 and 2012. But this year, theyre not so eager to vote. Just 23 percent of people ages 18 to 29 said they will definitely cast a ballot in the
congressional elections in November. By comparison, 45 percent of voters under 30 showed up in 2012, with Obama winning six in ten. Harvards midterm
estimate has dropped 10 percentage points since last fall and its eight points lower than the polls numbers before the 2010 midterms, when Republicans won
control of the House. Theres a lot at stake this November, as Democrats are in danger of losing control of the
Senate. In presidential election years, young people have become a key part of Obamas winning coalition and given an edge to Democrats in Congress. But
millennials traditionally stay home in midterm election years, and this one is no different. In addition, the
young voters who said they would show up come from traditionally Republican groups. Forty-four
percent of those who said they voted for Mitt Romney in 2012 said they will definitely vote this year,
compared to 35 percent who voted for Obama. Young men were nine points more likely to vote than women. Whites were also more
likely to vote than African-Americans and Hispanics. The one silver lining for Democrats? President Obamas approval ratings have jumped six percentage points to
47 percent from a historic low of 41 percent last November. 2. A lack of trust Young Americans were already cynical about the countrys political process and
institutions. And the problem has only gotten worse in the last year. Trust in the president has dipped from 39 percent to 32 percent, trust in the military went
from 57 percent to 47 percent, and trust in the Supreme Court fell from 40 percent to 36 percent. The decline in trust was driven by changing attitudes among self-
described Democrats and independents, according to Harvard. The number of young people who say elected officials seem to be motivated by selfish reasons has
jumped eight points since 2010 to 62 percent, another indicator that adults under 30 are losing faith in government. Twenty-nine percent say that political
involvement rarely has any tangible results, up from 23 percent from four years ago. 3. Marijuana isnt the key Legalized marijuana
is more popular than ever, leading some political consultants to believe that the issue could be used
as a youth turnout mechanism. But the Harvard poll paints a more mixed picture. Forty-four percent of those under 30
say they support legalizing marijuana, 23 percent strongly so. Thirty-four percent oppose it, and 22
percent are not sure. Thats much different from what the Pew Research Center found earlier this
year, which is that 69 percent of adults ages 18 to 33 want pot to be legal. Harvard found that
millennials dont think monolithically about weed. Almost half of young Democrats back legalized pot,
but legalization also drew support from 32 percent of Republicans. And the desire for legalization isnt
stronger among non-white millennials, who are often more likely to be arrested for marijuana. Forty-
nine percent of whites back legalization, more than 10 points higher than blacks (38 percent) and Hispanics
(37 percent). All of this shows that marijuana is a more complicated political issue for young voters than
what many in politics believe .


Predictions fail they cant account for key variables they wont be decided on
November 4
th

Kondik, Christian Post, 9-19-14 (Kyle, 5 Reasons Senate Control May Not Be Decided on Election
Day, http://www.christianpost.com/news/5-reasons-senate-control-may-not-be-decided-on-election-
day-126702/, accessed 9-20-14, CMM)
Think the Senate will be decided on Election Day, Nov. 4? There are all sorts of reasons why you
shouldn't, unless in the next seven weeks one side or the other probably the Republicans starts opening up a clear lead in enough
races to give them a clear majority. If neither side does, control of the Senate could remain up in the air for a while.
At the very least, political watchers are going to be in for a longer night than usual because one of the key races that is likely to determine
control, Sen. Mark Begich's (D) reelection bid in Alaska, is taking place 4,000 miles and four time zones away from Washington, D.C. (and five in
the Aleutian Islands). Load up on Red Bull and, if you can, hold the vodka. Beyond that, though, the uncertainty could continue for
much longer. The potential for overtime exists in two key states, and perhaps others, too, depending
on how close the races are on Nov. 4. Beyond that, a close or even tied Senate will test the partisan
loyalties of some members, including those who were elected with no party label at all. With that, here
are five plausible scenarios that might prevent us from definitively knowing who controls the Senate
for days, weeks, or even months after Election Day. 1. A recount In the HuffPost Pollster polling averages as of
Wednesday afternoon, five races currently show the top two contenders separated by less than three
percentage points: Alaska, Arkansas, Iowa, Kansas, and Louisiana. That does not include some other
races that are hotly contested and could be very close at the end, like Colorado, Georgia, Kentucky, Michigan, New
Hampshire, North Carolina, and maybe others. What if one of these races is so close that the state election
authorities cannot certify a winner without a recount? In Minnesota six years ago, Sen. Al Franken (D) beat
then-Sen. Norm Coleman (R) by 312 votes, a result that took so long to finalize that the state's second
Senate seat was vacant until July of the following year. The dragged-out result deprived Democrats of
the 60th vote they needed to cement their fleeting filibuster-proof Senate majority (the election of
Republican Scott Brown in a Massachusetts special election the following January knocked the Democrats
back down to 59 seats). A recount/legal battle over a razor-thin Senate election could leave the Senate
short a member when it organizes in early January. The side with more seats could organize the Senate under its control,
but the eventual recount winner could flip control later in the session. 2. A runoff in Louisiana Of all the possibilities
discussed here, this one is the likeliest. Louisiana has an odd election system in which there is an all-
party primary in November. Every candidate runs against one another on Election Day, and if no one
gets over 50%, the top-two finishers advance to a runoff, which this year would be held more than a
month after the general election on Saturday, Dec. 6. That also happens to be the same day as the Southeastern
Conference college football championship game: If the LSU Tigers manage to make it, plenty of stories may be written about how football
affected voter turnout. If we had to bet right now, we'd say this race is likely to head to a runoff. In addition to
Sen. Mary Landrieu (D) and Rep. Bill Cassidy (R), the candidates who would almost certainly advance to the runoff, there is a another notable
Republican running, retired Air Force Col. Rob Maness. Maness won't finish ahead of Cassidy, but he'll get some votes (he's endorsed by Sarah
Palin). Beyond these three candidates, the Louisiana Secretary of State's office lists four other Democrats, one other Republican, and a
Libertarian. Presumably these candidates will all get at least a smattering of votes, further reducing the odds that either Landrieu or Cassidy can
get to 50%. 3. Greg Orman's choice Let's say, for the sake of argument, that there's not a result close
enough to require a recount and there's no runoff in Louisiana. So we can put this election to bed,
right? Well, not necessarily because Greg Orman, the independent running against Sen. Pat Roberts (R)
in Kansas, might actually win. The Democratic candidate in Kansas, Chad Taylor, remains on the ballot, but he's trying to remove his
name and, even if he can't, it should be clear to voters that he isn't really in the race. That leaves Orman as the de facto Democratic candidate,
although it is not clear he would caucus with the Democrats. Orman says that if one side has a clear majority, he will
caucus with that party to increase his clout (and that of his state). That makes sense. But what if Republicans
have just a 50-49 edge after Election Day, leaving both Republicans and Democrats short of their
magic number for Senate control (51 for the Republicans and 50 for the Democrats because of Biden's tiebreaker)? Orman would
hold control of the Senate in his hand, and he might be able to extract big concessions out of the party caucus he chooses to join. For instance,
he has said that Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) and Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) are too partisan. Could he make the
election of a new caucus leader a condition of his giving one side or the other control? 4. A runoff in Georgia Like Louisiana,
Georgia also requires winners to get over 50% to be elected to the Senate. In the Peach State's open
seat contest, businessman David Perdue (R) appears to have a small lead over former nonprofit CEO Michelle Nunn (D),
although Perdue is short of 50% in most polls. He may have a hard time getting there in part because
of the presence of a Libertarian, Amanda Swafford, on the ballot. A Libertarian candidate might also push Georgia's
gubernatorial race between Gov. Nathan Deal (R) and state Sen. Jason Carter (D) to a runoff. What's odd here is that Senate and gubernatorial
runoffs are held on different dates: The gubernatorial runoff is scheduled for Dec. 2, and the Senate runoff is scheduled for Jan. 6, 2015, which
would be just after the 114th Congress convenes. That means the new Senate could come to order a member short, and that member could
decide the majority, too, even assuming that the first three items on this list are resolved in an orderly way (all the other races have clean
winners and Roberts is reelected). 5. A party switch Beyond the choice of a potential Sen. Orman, it's not out of
the realm of possibility that a current senator could switch parties. In a closely divided Senate, that
could lead to a change of party control. We saw this in 2001, a crazy year in the Senate. When the
Senate opened that year on Jan. 3, control was split 50-50, but Vice President Al Gore (D) was still in
office, which allowed Sen. Tom Daschle (D-SD) to serve as majority leader for 17 days. After President George W.
Bush was inaugurated, Vice President Dick Cheney's (R) tiebreaking vote made Sen. Trent Lott (R-MS) majority
leader. Later that year, Sen. Jim Jeffords (VT) announced he was switching from Republican to independent and would caucus with
Democrats, which made Daschle majority leader again. Republicans re-took the chamber in the 2002 elections. Who could switch this
time? The most obvious candidate would be independent Sen. Angus King (ME), who currently caucuses
with the Democrats. He's left the door open to a post-election caucus switch. A longer shot would be someone
like Sen. Joe Manchin (D-WV), one of the more conservative members of the Democratic caucus. It's possible that after this election, he will be
the only Democrat in the Mountain State's congressional delegation, and it's also possible that his state's House of Delegates (the lower
chamber of the state legislature) will flip to the Republicans for the first time since 1928. Additionally, we've heard rumblings that Manchin's
own numbers are not as strong as they used to be, and he might sense the political winds shifting in his state as he eyes a reelection bid in 2018
or a return to the governor's office in 2016. One longtime West Virginia observer said that the chances of a Manchin party switch were
remote but added, "Manchin changes with the wind." Perhaps other senators could be induced to flip sides, though those
changes might not necessarily change the majority party. One possibility if the Republicans win a clear majority (something like 52 or more
seats) is that their edge may grow as someone like King decides life is better in the majority. In 1994, Republicans won a 52-seat majority that
increased to 54 seats after Sen. Richard Shelby (AL) and then-Sen. Ben Nighthorse Campbell (CO) switched from the Democrats to the
Republicans. This is all the more incentive the good Democratic Senate map coming in 2016 is another for Republicans to think of their
Senate goal as more than just 51 seats. Conclusion The general public is probably getting sick of this election because they hate Congress and
they would rather watch cereal commercials than political ads. The political class is getting sick of this election because it distracts from
Hillarymania and the Republican presidential jumble. There are many who want this election over and done with on
Nov. 4. But they may not get their wish.
The GOP wants to avoid any legislative fights before midterms theyll let the plan
slide
Sherman and Bresnahan, Politico, 9-15-14 (Jake and John, House Republicans say yes to
Obama, http://dyn.politico.com/printstory.cfm?uuid=20E48F14-353D-49EB-94AF-FEB51DE391AF,
accessed 9-17-14, CMM)
The party thats acted as a bulwark against President Barack Obamas agenda suddenly looks like it will
quickly agree to some of his biggest demands. House Republicans are poised to extend the Export-
Import Banks charter well into next year, despite decrying the agency as an antiquated vestige of crony capitalism. They
will fund the federal government until mid-December without much of a fight. And, most notably, they are
rapidly moving toward giving the White House authority to arm and train Syrian rebels, despite deep
misgivings about their ability to defeat the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant and even deeper distrust of Obamas
foreign policy. And this is all playing out in the final three days of session before Election Day in a
historically unproductive Congress. The forthcoming deals represent a big swing on Capitol Hill. Just a
year ago, House Republicans were locked in a bitter battle with Obama over repealing his signature
health care law, leading to a 16-day government shutdown that left both sides bruised. Now with
less than 50 days until the midterms Speaker John Boehner, Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy and Majority Whip
Steve Scalise want nothing to do with Washington and its potential drag on Republicans sunny
electoral fortunes. The calculation, though, shows Boehner is an institutionalist, willing to support the
president on the international stage when it comes to matters of war but careful to preserve his
partys political standing. And it shows that Boehner and his new leadership structure have found a
way to navigate a tumultuous House Republican Conference with relative ease. Thats why, despite doubts,
Republican leadership has snapped into action and is giving Obama the ability to go after ISIL in the Middle East. But the legislation Boehner will
try to pass Wednesday comes with serious strings for Obama. Republicans chiefly Armed Services Chairman Buck McKeon of California
added language to the proposal that specifically states they will not allow Obama to engage in full-scale combat operations using American
troops. To do that, Obama will have to return to Congress for a separate authorization resolution. The way in which the GOP
leadership team privately handled Obamas request shows a new level of political maneuvering,
balancing Obamas wants with the constrictions of the House Republican Conference. The leaders held firm
against White House demands that the Syria language be inserted directly into a continuing resolution to fund the government. It will instead
be voted on as an amendment to the spending package. Boehners leadership team tamped down anger from chairmen, who thought the
Obama administrations closed-door classified briefings were disappointing. They inserted language into the bill to tighten the scope of the
operations, force the Obama administration to report to Congress every three months about the progress of the operation. And Boehner
has held firm against conservative hard-liners inside and outside the Capitol who have tried to derail
his nonconfrontational approach with the White House. For example, outside groups like Heritage Action have tried to
force Boehner to remove the Export-Import Bank extension from the CR advice he summarily has ignored. Boehners approach
has defused what had the chance of being a massively complex and messy September for
Republicans, and his senior GOP colleagues in the House and Senate appreciate the speakers
maneuvering. I think its a good idea for the House to pass the CR and whatever they need to do to
get that done, Im for, Texas GOP Sen. John Cornyn said in an interview Monday.

Dems are fractured they cant take advantage of the plan
Cupp, NY Daily News, 9-17-14 (S.E., Sorry, Hillary, things are breaking the GOP's way,
http://www.nydailynews.com/opinion/hillary-breaking-gop-article-1.1941926, accessed 9-17-14, CMM)
Hillary Clintons creepy Im baack" announcement in Iowa this weekend should be enough to scare any good Republican. Not only did it
unwittingly recall the tagline from an actual horror movie Poltergeist II: The Other Side it was also a warning to anyone who thought the
90s were safely behind us. But for all the oxygen devoted to a potential Clinton run, and as inevitable as some Democrats think she is, all
the wind is behind Republicans right now, not Democrats . And certainly not Democrats associated in
any way with the Obama administration. Yes, its going to require some smart maneuvering and a good, serious candidate
from the GOP to make the shift from what will likely be a wave election in 2014 to the White House in 2016. But the stars are aligning in ways
that have weakened the prospects of a third consecutive Democratic presidential term. Take a look at just a few factors
bolstering Republican momentum right now: Its still the economy, stupid. Despite President Obamas
insistence that the economy has turned around (and he deserves the credit for it), voters disagree. According to new
polling from Politico, most voters are unhappy with the economic recovery and 57% disapprove of Obamas
economic leadership. If voters think six years is too long to wait for a substantial recovery, just think
how frustrated theyll be in eight. Dems are losing on their signature issues. While the GOP faces
significant demographic deficiencies among Hispanics, nearly two-thirds of likely voters in
battleground races disapprove of Obamas handling of immigration, according to Politico. And thats not
because they dont think hes gone far enough to relax immigration laws. Almost inexplicably, more voters
said they trust the GOP over Democrats on immigration, a feat they achieved while doing next to
nothing to move the fraught issue forward. On Obamacare, the other major Democratic policy
success, the legislation had its worst month ever this July. According to Kaiser Family Foundation polling,
public opinion sank to a record low as more people than ever 53% said they viewed the law
unfavorably, despite Democrats insistence that polling on Obamacare would only improve as it was implemented. If Democrats are
losing the public on at least two of their signature agenda items, where will they point in 2016 when asking for
another four years of Democratic control of the White House? An unexpected election driver? Foreign policy doesnt usually drive elections. Its
too esoteric and rarely immediate enough for most voters to prioritize above other kitchen-table issues. But 2016 could be different. Thanks to
a frenzy of recent foreign policy failures overseas, complete with gruesome video, the American people are thinking more seriously about our
role abroad. More people tuned in 34 million to President Obama's ISIS speech last week than most of his recent addresses, including his
January State of the Union, and according to the latest Wall Street Journal/NBC News poll, hes hit his lowest-ever approval numbers on foreign
policy, with 62% disapproving. Its hard to imagine Democrats can course-correct in less than two years the failures they
and Hillary Clinton, in particular have overseen for more than six. In the lead-up to the 2014 midterms, Democrats have
tried and failed to figure out successful campaign strategies. They tried to resurrect the war on
women, but believe it or not, Democrats have a bigger problem with men than Republicans do with
women. According to GWU battleground polling, Republicans are only six points behind among women, whereas
Democrats are 15 points behind among men, and 28 points behind among white men in particular.
Thats a lot of ground to make up. Raising the minimum wage turned out not to be the barnstormer
Democrats hoped it would be either. Another of their big ideas was to make tax inversion, where
businesses move to foreign countries to avoid steep corporate taxes here, a turnout issue. Last week
Politico called that effort a massive dud. Without any cohesion united only, it seems, by their desire to
distance themselves from their standard-bearer Democrats are having to run a spaghetti strategy: throw it on
the wall and see what sticks. Republicans won big in the 2010 midterms but werent able to swing
back to the center in time for 2012. With all this momentum behind them, the pathway is clear. And not
even Hillary Clinton should be able to stop them.


Republican senate locks in gridlock ensures nothing will pass
Liasson 9/9 (Mara, NPR, In An Era Of Gridlock, Does Controlling The Senate Really Matter?,
http://www.npr.org/2014/09/09/347144865/in-an-era-of-gridlock-does-controlling-the-senate-really-matter)
Republicans are increasingly confident that when this year's midterm elections are over, they will control both houses of
Congress. But in this period of polarization and gridlock, what difference would it make? This midterm
election doesn't seem to be about anything in particular other than whether you like President Obama or not. There's no overarching issue, no
clashing national agendas. Instead, it's just a series of very expensive, brutally negative races for Congress. "I'm not so sure it's going to be a
referendum on anything, but what it is all about, I would respectfully suggest, is who controls the Senate for the next two years," says former
Democratic Senate aide Jim Manley. And that's about it. It's all about who controls the Senate. The House is not
expected to change hands. But, since nothing much happens in the Senate now under a narrow Democratic
majority, why would anything be different under a narrow Republican majority? President Obama tried to
answer that question on Sunday's Meet the Press. He said the fate of his agenda on issues like the minimum wage, equal
pay and infrastructure funding hangs in the balance if he doesn't have at least one chamber of Congress
making his arguments . "I know that given the gridlock that we've seen over the last couple years, it's easy to say that these midterms
don't matter. But the fact of the matter is that on every issue that's important to middle-class Americans,
overwhelmingly we're seeing a majority prefer the Democratic option," Obama said. From the Republican
point of view, stopping that Democratic agenda would be a positive outcome. Scott Reed, senior political
strategist at the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, says a lot would change with a Republican Senate. "I wouldn't go as far as to call it a mandate, but
I'd call it a step in the right direction, and I think the press will be forced to cover it as ... a repudiation of the president's leadership style, and
thus it will be a new day," Reed says. "The president and the White House team will be focused on legacy, legacy, legacy, and there will be an
opportunity to try to get some things done that are good for the country." Those things might include compromises on immigration or energy,
for example. But so far, the Republican leadership hasn't laid out a governing agenda. Last week, the Wall Street Journal editorial page implored
the GOP to run a campaign that is about more than attacking Obama. Minority Leader Mitch McConnell has begun talking about
what he'd do as majority leader in the Senate. In remarks at a private meeting with the Koch brothers that were reportedly
leaked to a liberal-leaning YouTube channel called the Undercurrent, McConnell laid out an aggressive agenda. He said, "We're going to go after
them" on health care, on financial services, on the Environmental Protection Agency, across the board. He goes on to say he will
place riders on spending bills that only need 50 votes to pass . That strategy would set up a series of
confrontations with the president . "There will be an opportunity to pass some bills ... and send them
to the president, where he will have the opportunity to either veto them or not," Reed says. In addition
to veto fights, there would be other changes. Republicans would get more oversight of the Obama
administration, the White House would get more subpoenas. "Just imagine all the subpoenas that former Secretary
Clinton would have to deal with over the next two years under such a scenario," former aide Manley says. "For me, it's nothing short of a
nightmare." If Republicans overreach and let the Tea Party call the shots, Obama might be able to do what other presidents have done when
they lost control of Congress: turn the tables. Former Obama White House aide Stephanie Cutter doesn't exactly see a silver lining for
Democrats if they lose the Senate. But, she says, "If Republicans win control of the Senate, there is opportunity. ... Hopefully if they come to
table we could get something done." She adds, "If they decide not to do that, then the opportunity is to really show the difference in agenda
and vision for this country between Democrats and Republicans." So if the Senate changes hands, one thing won't
change: gridlock . Perhaps more dramatic and clarifying than the gridlock we have today, but gridlock
all the same. And it will set the table for the 2016 presidential elections



Asia pivot off the rails---trade and Middle East focus
Financial Times 1-31-14
(Trade backlash leaves US pivot to Asia on the rocks, http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/6063f074-8a94-
11e3-9c29-00144feab7de.html#axzz2sPs11pr4, ldg)

But the impact of Senate majority leader Harry Reids decision to delay giving the White House
approval to negotiate trade pacts goes deeper, says analysts and former officials, undermining one of
Mr Obamas key diplomatic initiatives the pivot to Asia. The rebalancing, first outlined in late 2011, was already faltering before
Mr Reid pulled the pin on granting Mr Obamas negotiators the authority to cut deals without fear they will later be modified by Congress. Defence cuts,
the overwhelming focus of John Kerry, the secretary of state, on the Middle East and Iran, and the
cancellation of Mr Obamas trip to Asia late last year to deal with the US government shutdown have
drained momentum from the initiative. Mr Reids decision deals it another body blow, as it stalls the Trans Pacific Partnership trade talks
with Asia-Pacific nations, including Japan, which had been launched on a tight timetable. At a minimum, the pivot is on the rocks, says
Michael Auslin, an Asia expert at the American Enterprise Institute. If TPP falls apart because of
events at our end, it will be a huge blow to American prestige and leadership. The pivot to Asia was always
intended to be a long-term drive to reinforce the American presence and relevance in the region and counter a rising China after a decade of fighting war in Iraq and
Afghanistan. Yet while its success will be measured over a decade, rather than just a few months, the setback plays into the hands of a confident China, which has
been telling Asian nations the pivot was primarily about military strength. While the Pentagon was at the forefront of the
initiative early, with plans to base 60 per cent of its military assets in the region, the administration
has held up the TPP to demonstrate that its regional strategy is as much about economics as security.
It showed we had a 360-degree approach to the rebalancing, said Chris Johnson, of the Centre for Strategic and International Studies. Now, the rebalancing is at
risk of becoming unbalanced itself. Mr Reids comments threaten to chill negotiations for the moment, as other
nations will be reluctant to make politically difficult concessions if they think the US Congress is not
on board. On Iran, Mr Reid has been enormously useful to Mr Obama, helping to hold back a proposal for new sanctions supported by a majority of senators.
On trade, however, he has undermined the presidents plans. The administrations Asia strategy was also hampered by the
reaction to Chinas controversial December announcement of an air identification zone in the East
China Sea, which included islands disputed by both Tokyo and Beijing. The unexpected move holds great dangers for
Beijing, because it reminds the region of Chinas extensive territorial claims and could encourage them to balance against the risk of future Chinese aggression.
However, in the short-run it has succeeded in sowing some mistrust between the US and Japan, which was angered by Washingtons decision to tell commercial
airlines to abide by the new Chinese rules. There is nervousness in Tokyo about whether the US really has the juice if
things get rough in the East China Sea, says Mike Green, former Asia director at the National Security
Council.

Adv CP

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

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

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

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


Conditionality is a voting issuedis-incentivizes adequate 2AC coverage and clashpossible
contradictions constrain the aff from making the best arguments

2ac Federalism
1. Not intrinsic the plan can be the states and federal government DAs that
compete on actors undercut topic education since the debate should be centered on
broad change versus infinitely regressive agent mechanisms
US Code - Section 4612: Definitions and special rules,
http://codes.lp.findlaw.com/uscode/26/D/38/A/4612#sthash.fWW1o73T.dpuf
4) United States (A) In general The term "United States" means the 50 States, the District of Columbia, the
Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, any possession of the United States, the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana
Islands, and the Trust Territory of the Pacific Islands.
Specifically true for marihuana legalization
Alex Kreit, Associate Professor and Director, Center for Law and Social Justice, Thomas Jefferson School
of Law, 2010 Spring, 2010, Chapman Law Review, 13 Chap. L. Rev. 555 Beyond the Prohibition
Debate: Thoughts on Federal Drug Laws in an Age of State Reforms
This essay considers the question of how to think about federal drug laws in a post-drug war era - one
in which states are enacting reforms that are at odds with stated federal policy. My approach here has been, by
design, limited and focused. I have, for example, omitted some of the most important proposals for reforming federal drug laws, such as
reforms that would reduce the severity of federal sentences for low-level drug offenders. Instead, this essay seeks to examine
possible reforms that relate to the role of federal law in shaping and enforcing our drug policies. The
discussion reveals the importance of cutting through the debate about prohibition and legalization when thinking about federal drug laws. By
looking at a proposal in Congress to "decriminalize" marijuana, we find that the federal government
could not unilaterally legalize or decriminalize a drug even if it wanted to. As a practical matter, if the
federal government were to remove federal penalties for possession of small amounts of marijuana,
the result would not be nationwide decriminalization but a shift in at most 600-odd defendants from
federal to state courts. This is in large part because, even in an age of unprecedented federal
involvement in criminal law enforcement, states still arrest and prosecute far more offenders than the
federal government. For this same reason, the federal government may be unable to stop states from enacting reforms like the
legalization of medical marijuana, even though they are inconsistent with federal policy. [*581] The federal government cannot
legalize marijuana on its own, but it also cannot stop a state from doing so . n103 As a result, if we
approach proposals to reform federal drug laws from the prohibition/legalization framework, we will
be asking the wrong questions . Instead, we would be much better served by thinking about these
issues in terms of the role of federal government in light of state laws. This is not only a more accurate way to
look at issues like how the federal government should respond to state medical marijuana laws, but it also has the potential to help
begin to bridge the divide in what is often a polarizing debate.
2. No unique link status quo state-legalization isnt federalism the federal
government instituted a coercive waiver
Chermerinsky 14 Erwin, Professor @ University of California, Irvine School of Law, Cooperative
Federalism and Marijuana Regulation, Legal Studies Research Paper Series No. 2014-25,
http://ssrn.com/abstract=2411707
In the fall of 2013, the federal Department of Justice (DOJ) announced it will not prioritize enforcement of federal
marijuana laws in states with their own robust marijuana regulations, specifying eight federal
enforcement priorities to help guide state lawmaking .4 This announcement has been widely interpreted
to signal that the federal government will not enforce its stricter marijuana laws against those
complying with the new Washington and Colorado laws so long as the new state regulatory regimes
effectively prevent the harms the DOJ has identified as federal priorities . Yet even if the federal government
voluntarily refrains from enforcing its drug laws against those complying with robust state regulatory regimes, the ancillary consequences
flowing from the continuing federal prohibition remain profound.
3. Turn federal legalization is key to federalism and state innovation otherwise the
status quo will undercut the signal from marihuana
Firestone 7/26/14 David, editorial page editor at the New York Times, Let States Decide on
Marijuana http://www.nytimes.com/2014/07/27/opinion/sunday/high-time-let-states-decide-on-
marijuana.html
In 1970, at the height of his white-hot war on crime, President Richard Nixon demanded that Congress pass the C ontrolled
S ubstances A ct to crack down on drug abuse. During the debate, Senator Thomas Dodd of Connecticut held up a package
wrapped in light-green paper that he said contained $3,000 worth of marijuana. This substance, he said, caused such dreadful hallucinations
in an Army sergeant in Vietnam that he called down a mortar strike on his own troops. A few minutes later, the Senate unanimously passed the
bill. That law, so antique that it uses the spelling marihuana, is still on the books , and is the principal
reason that possessing the substance in Senator Dodds package is considered illegal by the United States government.
Changing it wouldnt even require an act of Congress the attorney general or the secretary of Health and Human Services could each do so
although the law should be changed to make sure that future administrations could not reimpose the
ban. Repealing it would allow the states to decide whether to permit marijuana use and under what
conditions. Nearly three-fourths of them have already begun to do so, liberalizing their laws in defiance of
the federal ban. Two have legalized recreational use outright, and if the federal government also recognized the
growing public sentiment to legalize and regulate marijuana, that would almost certainly prompt more
states to follow along. The increasing absurdity of the federal governments position is evident in the text of the Nixon-era law.
Marihuana is listed in Schedule I of the C ontrolled S ubstances A ct alongside some of the most dangerous and mind-
altering drugs on earth, ranked as high as heroin, LSD and bufotenine, a highly toxic and hallucinogenic toad venom that can cause
cardiac arrest. By contrast, cocaine and methamphetamine are a notch down on the governments rankings,
listed in Schedule II. That illogical distinction shows why many states have begun to disregard the federal
governments archaic rules . Schedule II drugs, while carrying a high potential for abuse, have a legitimate medical use. (Even meth
is sold in prescription form for weight loss.) But according to the language of the law, marijuana and the other Schedule I drugs have no
currently accepted medical use in treatment in the United States. States Take the Lead No medical use? That would come as
news to the millions of people who have found that marijuana helped them through the pain of AIDS, or the nausea
and vomiting of chemotherapy, or the seizures of epilepsy. As of this month, 35 states and the D istrict of C olumbia permit some
form of marijuana consumption for medical purposes. New York is one of the latest states to defy the tired edict of the
Controlled Substances Act. Its hard for the public to take seriously a law that says marijuana and heroin have
exactly the same high potential for abuse, since that ignores the vastly more addictive power of narcotics ,
which have destroyed the lives of millions of people around the world. (There are no documented deaths from a marijuana overdose.) The
44-year refusal of Congress and eight administrations to alter marijuanas place on Schedule I has
made the law a laughingstock , one that states are openly flouting. In addition to the medical exceptions, 18
states and the D istrict of C olumbia have decriminalized marijuana, generally meaning that possession of small amounts is
treated like a traffic ticket or ignored. Two states, Colorado and Washington, have gone even further and legalized it for
recreational purposes; two others, Alaska and Oregon, will decide whether to do the same later this year. The states are taking the
lead because theyre weary of locking up thousands of their own citizens for possessing a substance that has
less potential for abuse and destructive behavior than alcohol. A decision about what kinds of substances to
permit, and under what conditions, belongs in the purview of the states, as alcohol is handled. Consuming
marijuana is not a fundamental right that should be imposed on the states by the federal government, in the manner of abortion rights,
health insurance, or the freedom to marry a partner of either sex. Its a choice that states should be allowed to make
based on their culture and their values , and its not surprising that the early adopters would be socially liberal states like
Colorado and Washington, while others hang back to gauge the results. Pre-empted by Washington Many states are unwilling to
legalize marijuana as long as possessing or growing it remains a federal crime. Colorado, for instance, allows its
largest stores to cultivate up to 10,200 cannabis plants at a time. But the federal penalty for growing more than 1,000 plants is a
minimum of 10 years in prison and a fine of up to $10 million. That has created a state of confusion in which law-abiding
growers in Colorado can face federal penalties. Last August, the Justice Department issued a memo saying it
would not interfere with the legalization plans of Colorado and Washington as long as they met
several conditions: keeping marijuana out of the hands of minors or criminal gangs; prohibiting its transport out of the state; and
enforcing prohibitions against drugged driving, violence and other illegal drugs. The government has also said banks can do business with
marijuana sellers, easing a huge problem for a growing industry. But the Justice Department guidance is loose; aggressive federal prosecutors
can ignore it if state enforcement efforts are not sufficiently robust, the memo says. Thats a shaky foundation on which to
build confidence in a states legalization plan. More important, it applies only to this moment in this
presidential administration. President Obamas Justice Department could change its policy at any time ,
and so of course could the next administration. How to End the Federal Ban Allowing states to make their own decisions on
marijuana just as they did with alcohol after the end of Prohibition in 1933 requires unambiguous
federal action. The most comprehensive plan to do so is a bill introduced last year by Representative Jared Polis, Democrat of Colorado,
known as the Ending Federal Marijuana Prohibition Act. It would eliminate marijuana from the Controlled Substances Act, require a federal
permit for growing and distributing it, and have it regulated (just as alcohol is now) by the Food and Drug Administration and the Bureau of
Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives. An alternative bill, which would not be as effective, was introduced by Representative Dana
Rohrabacher, Republican of California, as the Respect State Marijuana Laws Act. It would not remove marijuana from Schedule I but would
eliminate enforcement of the C ontrolled S ubstances A ct against anyone acting in compliance with a state
marijuana law. Continue reading the main story Congress is clearly not ready to pass either bill, but there are signs that sentiments are
changing. A promising alliance is growing on the subject between liberal Democrats and libertarian
Republicans. In a surprise move in May, the House voted 219 to 189 to prohibit the Drug E nforcement
A dministration from prosecuting people who use medical marijuana, if a state has made it legal. It was the
first time the House had voted to liberalize a marijuana law; similar measures had repeatedly failed in previous years. The measures fate is
uncertain in the Senate. While waiting for Congress to evolve, President Obama, once a regular recreational marijuana
smoker, could practice some evolution of his own. He could order the attorney general to conduct the study necessary to
support removal of marijuana from Schedule I. Earlier this year, he told The New Yorker that he considered marijuana
less dangerous than alcohol in its impact on individuals, and made it clear that he was troubled by the
disproportionate number of arrests of African-Americans and Latinos on charges of possession. For
that reason, he said, he supported the Colorado and Washington experiments. Its important for it to go
forward, he said, referring to the state legalizations, because its important for society not to have a
situation in which a large portion of people have at one time or another broken the law and only a
select few get punished. But a few weeks later, he told CNN that the decision on whether to change Schedule I should be left to
Congress, another way of saying he doesnt plan to do anything to end the federal ban. For too long, politicians have seen the high
cost in dollars and lives locked behind bars of their pointless war on marijuana and chosen to do nothing. But
many states have had enough, and its time for Washington to get out of their way.
4. No unique link ACA killed federalism
Horne 13 Mark, staffwriter, Obamacare Sales Blitz Wars Against Federalism
http://godfatherpolitics.com/12693/obamacare-sales-blitz-wars-federalism/
This is how the central government destroys Federalism. The state of Texas has, on paper, the right to decide
whether or not to cooperate with Obamacare, but the F ederal G overnment has lots of money (by putting us all
in deeper debt) which it can use to reach into each state and each important city. By having control of money, the
F ederal g overnment overwhelms the states. Enroll America is virtually another arm of the Federal Government through its cronies.
Of course, they are reported as a private organization. But that is a misleading way of describing them. A better description can be found
here: The organization is a national non-profit funded by the health-care industry, insurance companies and private and non-profit donors,
and run by staffers of President Barack Obamas re-election campaign. So who in the health-care industry and which insurance companies are
funding this recruiting group? Obviously, the money is coming from the ones big enough to hope the sweep out the competition and make
money on new, federally-subsidized clients. In other words, Enroll America is simply a sales force and, again, Federal
money is responsible for its existence. Im sure if you looked at the non-profit foundations that are also throwing money at
Enroll America you would find they too are supported by these same companies and businesses. Obamacare is one more way to
make the states, at best, nothing more than regional administrations of the Federal Government, or
else to bypass them altogether.
5. Federalism is dead and nothing can save it
Robb 13 Robert, RealClearPolitics contributor, Obama and the Death of Federalism
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2013/02/20/obama_and_the_death_of_federalism_117073.h
tml
President Barack Obamas State of the Union address illustrated what a dead letter federalism is among
Democrats. Not that further illustration was necessary. Federalism holds that the national government should limit itself to things of truly
national scope. Things that are primarily of local concern should be left to state and local governments. Federalism was a big deal to
the founders. They wanted an energetic national government, but one that was confined to enumerated national functions. The founders
also envisioned a bright line between the federal and state governments, each sovereign within their own spheres. We are a long way
from that . Today, the Democratic Party sees virtually nothing as outside the purview of the federal government. The Republican
Party talks a good game about federalism, but usually ends up undermining the principle when it
acquires national power. Today, the lines between the federal government and state and local
governments are hopelessly blurred . The federal government spends over $ 600 billion a year on grants to
state and local governments . Arizona state government receives more in federal funds than it raises
in general-fund taxes. Today, state governments operate principally as service delivery mechanisms for
federal social-welfare programs. This means that there is no real political accountability for the
programs, which is why they grow and function like a blob. If Medicaid costs are spinning out of control, whos to
blame and who should do something about it? The federal government that provides most of the funding and sets up the
basic rules, or the state governments that actually administer the program? The food stamp program has grown astronomically of late. Purely a
function of a bad economy, or is there something else going on? Whose job is it to figure that out? President Ronald Reagan wanted to
sort out the blob with his new federalism initiative, clearly making some functions, such as Medicaid, fully federal, while
making other functions, including most welfare programs, fully state and local. There were some Democratic governors at the time, including
Arizonas Bruce Babbitt, who were also interested in a sorting out of responsibilities. But agreement was never reached,
nothing of significance happened. So, the blob endured and grew. Obama proposes to feed it even
more. The federal government should establish manufacturing innovation institutes in economically
distressed areas and provide incentive grants to states to increase the energy efficiency of homes and businesses. The federal government
should fix 70,000 bridges and create a federal fund to modernize ports and pipelines. The federal government
should have a new grant program to get high-school graduates better ready for high-tech jobs. And,
according to Obama, the federal government should make sure that every kid has access to high-quality
preschool. The federal government, however, does not have a greater interest in the recovery of
economically distressed areas than the states in which they are located , or greater insight into how to turn them
around. Every bridge in America is located in a state and local community that has a greater interest in its condition than the federal
government. Every port and pipeline in the United States is located in a state and local community.
Theres no modeling of our Constitution and if there was it would create instability.
Seitz-Wald 2013
Alex, reporter for the National Journal, The U.S. Needs a New ConstitutionHere's How to Write It,
November 2 2013 http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2013/11/the-us-needs-a-new-
constitution-heres-how-to-write-it/281090/

Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg was pilloried when she told Egyptian revolutionaries last year that she "would not look to the U.S.
Constitution, if I were drafting a constitution in the year 2012." But her sentiment is taken for granted by anyone who has actually tried to write
a constitution since politicians stopped wearing powdered wigs. "Our Constitution really has been a steady force guiding
us and has been perhaps the most stable in the world," says Louis Aucoin, who has helped draft constitutions in
Cambodia, East Timor, Kosovo, Rwanda, and elsewhere while working with the U.N. and other groups. "But the disadvantage to the
stability is that it's old, and there are things that more-modern constitutions address more clearly."
Almost nobody uses the U.S. Constitution as a modelnot even Americans. When 24 military officers
and civilians were given a single week to craft a constitution for occupied Japan in 1946, they turned to
England. The Westminster-style parliament they installed in Tokyo, like its British forebear, has two houses. But unlike Congress, one is
clearly more powerful than the other and can override the less powerful one during an impasse. The story was largely the same in
defeated Nazi Germany, and more recently in Iraq and Afghanistan, which all emerged from American
occupation with constitutions that look little like the one Madison and the other framers wrote. They have the
same democratic values, sure, but different ways of realizing them. According to researchers who analyzed all 729
constitutions adopted between 1946 and 2006, the U.S. Constitution is rarely used as a model. What's more, "the
American example is being rejected to an even greater extent by America's allies than by the global
community at large," write David Law of Washington University and Mila Versteeg of the University of Virginia. That's a not a fluke. The
American system was designed with plenty of checks and balances, but the Founders assumed the elites elected to Congress would sort
things out. They didn't plan for the political parties that emerged almost immediately after ratification, and
they certainly didn't plan for Ted Cruz. And factionalism isn't the only problem. Belgium, a country whose ethnic divisions make
our partisan sparring look like a thumb war, was unable to form a governing coalition for 589 days in 2010 and 2011. Nevertheless, the
government stayed open and fulfilled its duties almost without interruption, thanks to a smarter institutional arrangement. As the famed
Spanish political scientist Juan Linz wrote in an influential 1990 essay, dysfunction, trending toward constitutional
breakdown, is baked into our DNA. Any system that gives equally strong claims of democratic
legitimacy to both the legislature and the president, while also allowing each to be controlled by people with
fundamentally different agendas, is doomed to fail. America has muddled through thus far by compromise, but what happens when the
sides no longer wish to compromise? "No democratic principle exists to resolve disputes between the executive
and the legislature about which of the two actually represents the will of the people," Linz wrote.
"There are about 30 countries, mostly in Latin America, that have adopted American-style systems. All
of them, without exception, have succumbed to the Linzian nightmare at one time or another, often repeatedly," according
to Yale constitutional law professor Bruce Ackerman, who calls for a transition to a parliamentary system. By "Linzian nightmare," Ackerman
means constitutional crisisyour full range of political violence, revolution, coup, and worse. But well short of war, you can
end up in a state of "crisis governance," he writes. "President and house may merely indulge a taste for endless
backbiting, mutual recrimination, and partisan deadlock. Worse yet, the contending powers may use
the constitutional tools at their disposal to make life miserable for each other: The house will harass
the executive, and the president will engage in unilateral action whenever he can get away with it." He
wrote that almost a decade and a half ago, long before anyone had heard of Barack Obama, let alone the Tea Party. You can blame today's
actors all you want, but they're just the product of the system, and honestly it's a wonder we've survived this long: The presidential election of
1800, a nasty campaign of smears and hyper-partisan attacks just a decade after ratification, caused a deadlock in the House over whether John
Adams or Thomas Jefferson should be president. The impasse grew so tense that state militias opposed to Adams's Federalist Party prepared to
march on Washington before lawmakers finally elected Jefferson on the 36th vote in the House. It's a near miracle we haven't seen more
partisan violence, but it seems like tempting fate to stick with the status quo for much longer.

2AC Treaty

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


1AR
cartels
Diversification is enabled by drug profits-the plan resolves it.
Bolton, Council on Hemispheric Affairs research associate, 2012
(Gene, Drug Legalization In Latin America: Could It Be The Answer?, 10-16, http://www.coha.org/drug-
legalization-in-latin-america-could-it-be-the-answer/, ldg)
If Latin American countries pass legislation to legalize drugs while Washington retains its current policies, it is likely
that the U.S. drug demand and the resulting incubation effect will persist. The incubation effect is the redirection
of criminal organizations into other forms of illegal activities as a result of residing inside a country for long periods of time.9 In other
words, the drug trade allows criminal organizations to expand as they nestle deep into social fabrics .
By all accounts, the incubation period will continue as long as U.S. drug demand finances profitable DTOs. Los Zetas, a
Mexican drug cartel, provides an interesting case study in illustrating this point. The Mexican DTO decided to venture into migrant smuggling in an effort to increase
its profits. Today such smuggling is Los Zetas second most lucrative activity; its influence has spread all the way to Petn in northern Guatemala. According to the
Guatemalan Human Rights Commission, human smuggling was not a part of organized criminal networks before Los Zetas began targeting the industry. Instead,
coyotes, independent human smugglers, would charge fees to smuggle groups of migrants through Mexico and into the United States. Because of their substantial
drug profits, Los Zetas completely transformed the human smuggling industry. While coyotes could only smuggle scarcely more than twenty migrants at a time, Los
Zetas could smuggle hundreds of migrants in armored vehicles across the border. Ultimately, Los Zetas gained control of the Guatemalan human smuggling market,
killing anyone attempting to travel beyond their control.10 The estimated industry value of migrant smuggling in Latin America today is $6.6 billion USD according to
the U.N. report on crime globalization, having grown in no small part from Los Zetas.11 Morris Panner, a former U.S. federal crime prosecutor, suggests that the
trend of DTOs exploring new business ventures is far more pervasive than their drug trade involvement. He goes on to imply that the entire
business model for Latin American organized crime is in a transitional period, in which these organizations are
diversifying ways to earn money, either as a growth or survival strategy.12 For example, PEMEX, the Mexican state-owned oil
company, has reported that the local committee has lost approximately 40 percent of its production, or $750 million USD, to oil theft in cartel-controlled
territory.13 While other figures are difficult to estimate, kidnap ransoming is valued between $200 million and $500 million USD annually.14 It appears
that these industries are growing as a result of continuing U.S. drug demand and DTO incubation .
While Panner does not adequately address the potential impact of widespread drug legalization, he does conclude
that criminal organizations are pursuing a larger, more extensive agenda.15 It appears DTOs are able to
expand into other illicit markets because of their substantial drug trade revenues.

la
Changing the paradigm on drugs transforms relations with Latin America
ONeil, CFR Latin America studies senior fellow, 2013
(Shannon, What to Watch in 2013: U.S. Policy Toward Latin America, 1-9,
http://blogs.cfr.org/oneil/2013/01/09/what-to-watch-in-2013-u-s-policy-toward-latin-america/, ldg)

This year will also see more discussion, and perhaps evolution, in the global approach to fighting
drugs. Latin American presidentswhether in or out of officehave become increasingly vocal against the status quo, demanding greater dialogue and new
methods. The OAS has agreed to study the issue, and should come out with reports/studies during the year. Others are pushing forward on their ownfor instance
Mexican President Enrique Pea Nieto has stated that he will shift from focusing on drug kingpins to reducing violence and crime more generally. In the United
States, recent successful referendums to legalize marijuana in Washington and Colorado (along with sixteen states and Washington DC that allow the use of medical
marijuana) are changing the national discussion. With public opinion polls showing that roughly 50 percent of Americans support marijuana legalization, Obama and
his administration have signaled that cracking down on states that legalize marijuana (and thus go against federal drug law) wont be a top priority. These
international and domestic groundswells provide an opportunity to rethink the current international
drug control regime, and perhaps begin moving away from the supply and law enforcement driven
model that has dominated the last several decades. Legislative or other actions in these three areas
would lead to long term shifts in the human, economic, and security ties throughout the hemisphere,
fundamentally changing U.S. relations with many of its neighbors, so keep watching.
Drugs is the biggest wedge
Shifter, Inter-American Dialogue president, 2012
(Michael, Land of the Lost, 11-5,
http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2012/11/05/land_of_the_lost, ldg)

The issue driving the biggest wedge between Latin America and the United States is narcotic s, and even
the most hardcore optimists doubt that a second Obama term would bring a serious review of U.S. anti-drug policy or more far-reaching measures to control the
flow of arms and money to the region. (Most of the drug-related murders in Mexico are committed with arms sold in the United States.) While the issue
hardly gets mentioned anymore in U.S. presidential contests, a number of respected former and
current Latin American presidents have recently called for a rethinking of the U.S.-led prohibitionist
approach to and criminalization of drug consumption. As the drug trade fuels violent crime and corruption in countries such as
Guatemala, Honduras, and El Salvador, Obama has agreed to listen to alternative proposals, but not much more than that. And there is, of course, no sign that
Obama is ready to take on the powerful gun lobby in the United States.


**Midterms DA**
Pivot 1AR
Decline causes US lashout
Beckley, Tufts political science professor, 2012
(Michael, Chinas Century? Why Americas Edge Will Endure, International Security, 36.3, project
muse, ldg)

One danger is that declinism could prompt trade conflicts and immigration restrictions. The results of this study suggest
that the United States benefits immensely from the free flow of goods, services, and people around the globe; this is what
allows American corporations to specialize in high-value activities, exploit innovations created elsewhere, and lure
the brightest minds to the United States, all while reducing the price of goods for U.S. consumers. Characterizing Chinas export expansion as a loss for
the United States is not just bad economics; it blazes a trail for jingoistic and protectionist policies. It would be tragically ironic if Americans
reacted to false prophecies of decline by cutting themselves off from a potentially vital source of
American power. Another danger is that declinism may impair foreign policy decision-making. If top government officials come to
believe that China is overtaking the United States, they are likely to react in one of two ways, both of
which are potentially disastrous. The first is that policymakers may imagine the United States faces a
closing window of opportunity and should take action while it still enjoys preponderance and not wait until the diffusion of
power has already made international politics more competitive and unpredictable.158 This belief may spur [End Page 77] positive action, but it also
invites parochial thinking, reckless behavior, and preventive war.159 As Robert Gilpin and others have shown,
*H+egemonic struggles have most frequently been triggered by fears of ultimate decline and the perceived erosion of power.160 By fanning such
fears, declinists may inadvertently promote the type of violent overreaction that they seek to prevent.
The other potential reaction is retrenchmentthe divestment of all foreign policy obligations save those linked to vital interests, defined
in a narrow and national manner. Advocates of retrenchment assume, or hope, that the world will sort itself out on its own; that whatever replaces American
hegemony, whether it be a return to balance of power politics or a transition to a post-power paradise, will naturally maintain international order and prosperity.
Order and prosperity, however, are unnatural. They can never be presumed. When achieved, they are the result of
determined action by powerful actors and, in particular, by the most powerful actor, which is, and will be for some time, the United States. Arms buildups,
insecure sea-lanes, and closed markets are only the most obvious risks of U.S. retrenchment. Less
obvious are transnational problems, such as global warming, water scarcity, and disease, which may
fester without a leader to rally collective action.
Pivot doesnt solve because china is doing it to protect themselves, also ISIS thumps
Desker 9/19
Barry Desker is the Dean, S. Rajaratnam School of International Studies, Nanyang Technological
University, US AIR CAMPAIGN AGAINST ISIS: A MORE BALANCED PIVOT TO EAST ASIA? ANALYSIS,
http://www.eurasiareview.com/19092014-us-air-campaign-isis-balanced-pivot-east-asia-analysis/
The United States rebalancing to Asia, frequently described as a pivot to Asia, is unravelling . The crisis in the Ukraine and the rise of the Islamic State in
Iraq and Syria (ISIS) highlight the challenges posed to US policymakers as they seek to change American policy priorities to deal
with the rise of Asia, especially China. As then US secretary of defence Leon Panetta noted at the Shangri-La Dialogue in Singapore in June 2012, after the withdrawal from Afghanistan and
Iraq and the drawdown of military forces in Europe, rebalancing will result in a shift from a 50:50 to a 60:40 ratio of US naval forces in the Asia-Pacific and Europe. In practice planned cuts in
the defence budget would result in major reductions in defence spending. Balancing US forces in Europe and Asia-Pacific Effectively, rebalancing meant that the US would maintain its current
military presence in the Asia-Pacific while significant declines occurred in Europe. Since the Cold War, Americas status and interests as a global superpower resulted in American national
security planners devising scenarios where the US faced conflicts simultaneously in Europe and Asia. With the end of the Cold War, European states took a peace dividend and cut military
budgets significantly, unlike the US. This changed under the leadership of President Barack Obama. Faced with fiscal constraint s arising from growing budget deficits,
the increasing unpopularity in America of the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq , pressure for greater expenditure on
health care , social services, domestic infrastructure and education as well as his own preference for a more low-key posture on defence issues, Mr Obama pushed
for major US defence budget cuts



. In an era where resources were constrained, Mr Obamas rebalancing strategy made sense. It recognised that the US would have to make difficult choices as defence budgets were reduced.
Rebalancing could effectively occur only if American policymakers could focus their attention on the emerging challenges in the Asia-Pacific theatre. The contemporary impact of television and
the social media has meant that the onscreen execution of two American hostages by ISIS has suddenly had a major impact on
domestic American opinion. From opposition to further involvement in the internecine conflicts in the Middle East, aside from backing Israel, Americans now support a
firm response to the rise of ISIS, or ISIL, the Islamic State in Iraq and the Levant.


UQ 1AR
Prefer our method
Wang, founder of the Princeton Election Consortium, 9-9-14 (Sam, associate professor of
neuroscience and molecular biology at Princeton University, "Democrats Now Have a Seventy-Per-Cent
Chance of Retaining Control of the Senate, http://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/democrats-
seventy-per-cent-chance-retaining-control-senate, accessed 9-13-14, CMM)
Last weekend, the Sunday news shows were abuzz about the growing consensus in the mainstream media
that the G.O.P. holds a slight advantage in the battle for the Senate. This forecast has come from the New York
Times The Upshot, the Washington Posts The Monkey Cage, and FiveThirtyEights Nate Silver, the nerd king of statistical analysis. All of
these predictions have one thing in common: they are based on more than pure polling data. By
considering other factors, these data journalists are putting their thumbs on the scalelightly, but
with consequential effects. Here is a table of current polling data for the key Senate races, along with win probabilities issued by
various handicappers:* The first column of numbers lists the median lead by either candidate in the recent polls.* The next three columns show
Democratic win probabilities from sites that only rely on polling data: the Princeton Election Consortium, which I founded; the Huffington Posts
Pollster; and Daily Koss Poll Explorer. Win probabilities higher than fifty-five per cent are colored blue if Democrats are favored, and red if
Republicans are. The rationale for these calculations is straightforward: if a candidate is leading now, he or she is likely to win in November. The
discrepancies in these numbers come from the slightly different rules each organization uses to average the poll results. The colors change once
we reach the Post, FiveThirtyEight, and the Times: a sea of red starts to appear. Compared with the average probabilities from the first group,
the Posts figures come the closestwithin two percentage pointsbut they still favor the Republican candidate. The Times leans farther right,
by an average of six percentage points, and FiveThirtyEight veers the hardest to the right, favoring the Republican candidate in nearly every
race by an average of twelve percentage points. In addition to polling data, these analysts are taking into account
fundamentalsfactors that supposedly capture the state of the political playing fieldlike
incumbency, campaign funding, prior experience, and President Obamas job-approval rating.
Fundamentals can be useful when there are no polls to reference. But polls, when they are available,
capture public opinion much better than a model does. In 2012, on Election Eve, for example, the
Princeton Election Consortium relied on polls alone to predict every single Senate race correctly, while
Silver, who used a polls-plus-fundamentals approach, called two races incorrectly, missing Heidi Heitkamps
victory, in North Dakota, and Jon Testers, in Montana. The Princeton Election Consortium generates a poll-based
snapshot in which the win/lose probabilities in all races are combined to generate a distribution of all
possible outcomes. The average of all outcomes, based on todays polls, is 50.5 Democratic and
Independent seats (two Independents, Bernie Sanders and Angus King, currently caucus with the Democrats). Simplicity, Simplicity,
Simplicity! I did not always appreciate the importance of sticking closely to polling data. I first started analyzing
polls during the 2004 Presidential campaign, in which John Kerry and George W. Bush traded the Electoral College lead three times between
June and November. An October calculation based purely on polls suggested that Bush would win. However, I added an extra assumption: that
undecided voters would break by two percentage points toward Kerry. On Election Day, the president of my university e-mailed me asking for
my final prediction. I told her, with confidence, that it would be Kerry. It was a humbling mistake. Because polls have better predictive value
than fundamentals do, it would seem prudent to ask what an unadulterated poll-based snapshot of the Senate race looks like. Today, it looks
like this: Based on this calculation, if the elections were held today, Democrats and Independents would control
the chamber with an eighty-per-cent probability . (The green section accounts for Greg Orman, the Independent candidate
in Kansas, who would provide the fiftieth vote. Orman has said that he would caucus with the majority, that he would caucus with the other
Independents, and that he wants to break the Senate gridlock. For this histogram, I have graphed him as caucusing with the Democrats.) But
can a snapshot of todays polls really tell us that much about an election held eight weeks from now?
As it turns out, it might. A poll-based snapshot moves up and down, like the price of a stock. That
movement can show us the range of the most likely outcomes for Election Day. The chart below displays those
ups and downs. On the right is a zone of highest probability, drawn out in much in the same style as a hurricane strike zone on a weather map.
This area indicates where the campaign is most likely to land. At the point marked November, the smaller bracket indicates the two-sigma
range, where I estimate about eighty-five per cent of outcomes should fall. Near the center of this range is the most probable outcomean
equal split of seats, fifty Democratic and Independent, and fifty Republican, a situation in which the Democrats would retain control. The entire
range includes the additional possibilities of a fifty-one-to-forty-nine split in either direction, as well as a fifty-two-to-forty-eight split favoring
the Democrats and Independents. By adding up the parts of the strike zone that encompass fifty or more Democratic and Independent votes, it
is possible to estimate the probability of sustained Democratic control after the election: seventy per cent. A more accurate way to
interpret the current state of the race is this: At the start of 2014, conditions slightly favored the
G.O.P., when measured by fundamentals. Based on opinion polls, Democrats are currently
outperforming those expectations. The shape of next years Senate is based on whether that level of
performance will continue. Work on Your Fundamentals On Monday, the WNYC radio host Brian Lehrer asked Silver what accounted
for the large difference between my calculation and his. It must be noted that despite the difference in probabilities, the two calculations are
not all that different. The FiveThirtyEight projection favors Republicans with sixty-five-per-cent probability.
The range of possibilities in that projection is indicated in the chart with a much wider range of
outcomes, indicating the many uncertainties included in a model that goes beyond polling data. Those
uncertainties seem to favor Republicans, but they are, as yet, unrealized. The difference between the
polls number and the polls-plus-fundamentals number sounds large when it is expressed in
probabilities. But, in terms of where opinion will go, they do not represent a huge difference in view. A
sixty-five to seventy-per-cent probability is close to two-to-one odds, which, while sounding solid, is
far from a lock. Indeed, a swing of opinion of two percentage points toward Republicans in all races would be enough to account for the
difference between my predictions and Silvers.


Foreign Policy


Sucks out all the oxygen and prevents dems from spinning the plan
Song, CBS News, 9-2-14 (Jean, Foreign policy talk "deprives oxygen" from Democrats in midterms,
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/midterm-elections-2014-foreign-policy-issues-steal-spotlight-depress-
democrats/, accessed 9-3-14, CMM)
Foreign policy issues are stealing the spotlight as November midterm elections approach, and it's not
helping the Democrats. "To the extent we're all talking about foreign policy, it deprives oxygen from
Democratic opponents who want to talk about their issues, their local issues," CBS News political director John
Dickerson said Tuesday on "CBS This Morning," adding that some on the left are "depressed" about the situation. Dickerson said
Democrats want to address issues including increasing minimum wage and equal pay, not ISIS or other
foreign policy problems.

Link

Young voters care about education
Sledge, Huff Post, 14 (Matt, 1-23-14, How Marijuana May Influence The 2016 Election,
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/01/23/marijuana-2016-election_n_4647715.html, accessed 8-29-
14, CMM)
Peter Levine, director of the youth voting research center CIRCLE, also threw cold water on the notion
that pot could drive major changes in turnout. "The big picture is that it's not anywhere near the top
of young people's issue priorities . Their issue priorities are always jobs and education and other
issues drug legalization hardly polls at all ." Even the 2012 youth turnout evidence, Levine said, is
"mixed." Exit polls suggest it went up in all of the legalization states. But the separate Census Current
Population survey of voting found that the youth vote went down from 2008 to 2012 in Washington.
"No one knows for sure whether the exit polls or the census are absolutely correct. They are both
surveys, after all," Levine said in an email.


Cant Predict
The GOP wont win the majority its a toss-up now at best
Blumenthal, Huff Post, 9-12-14 (Mark, Ariel Edwards-Levy, Rachel Lienesch, HUFFPOLLSTER: GOP
Leads Nationally, While Democrats Do Well In Senate Polls,
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/09/12/national-senate-
polls_n_5809896.html?1410524087&ncid=tweetlnkushpmg00000067, accessed 9-13-14, CMM)
BUT DEMOCRATS GET BETTER NEWS IN STATE POLLS: -Michigan: A Suffolk University poll for USA Today
was the latest of three polls to find Gary Peters (D) significantly ahead of Terri Lynn Land (R) -- in this case,
with a 9-point margin, 46 percent to 37 percent. PPP (D) and Glengariff polls released earlier this month gave him leads of 7 and 10
points, respectively. Several other pollsters, including CBS/NYT/YouGov in its two rounds of polling, give Land better numbers. HuffPollster's
Senate model puts Peters up by just over 6 points, with a win probability of about 68 percent. [Toplines, Pollster chart] -North Carolina:
Rasmussen gives incumbent Kay Hagan (D) a 6-point edge over Thom Tillis (R), her best showing since
June. Polling of the state remains inconsistent, and dominated by partisan results. In September, a survey for the DSCC gave Hagan a 3-point
edge, while one for the NRSC found the race tied, and CBS/NYT/YouGov put Tillis up by one. HuffPollster gives Hagan a lead of just under 3
points, with both candidates facing essentially even odds of winning. [Rasmussen, Pollster chart] -New Hampshire: "Sen. Jeanne
Shaheen (D-N.H.) continues to lead Republican challenger Scott Brown,according to a poll conducted by
Mayday, a campaign finance reform super PAC, and released Thursday to The Huffington Post. The automated phone survey, conducted by
the Democratic firm Global Strategy Group, finds Shaheen leading the former Massachusetts senator, 48 percent to 41 percent, in New
Hampshire's U.S. Senate race.Journalists and politicians on both sides of the aisle raised eyebrows at an August survey that showed Shaheen
in a dead heat with Brown. But a broader look at the polling shows her continuing to lead, though her margin narrowed over the summer as
Republican voters began to line up in support of Brown. Surveys conducted in August and September find her lead ranging from 2 to 8
percentage points, down from 5 to 12 points in June and July. Brown has not led in any survey of the race." HuffPost
Pollster's Senate model gives Shaheen a lead of about 6 points." [HuffPost, Pollster chart] New Jersey: Two
new university-sponsored surveys confirm that Cory Booker (D) is comfortably leading opponent Jeff Bell
(R). Fairleigh Dickinson University and Stockton College both give Booker a 13-point margin, unchanged from the first polls on the race this
summer. The Pollster model gives him a 99.9 percent chance of victory. [Stockton, FDU, Pollster chart] IS HUFFPOLLSTER 'OUT ON A
LIMB'? -- As of this writing, the HuffPost Pollster Senate Forecast gives Republicans a 44 percent
probability of gaining a Senate majority, which is slightly lower than similar Senate forecasts as of this
writing, such as the Daily Kos Poll Explorer (48 percent), The Washington Post/Monkey Cage's Election Lab (54 percent),
New York Times/Upshot's Leo (57 percent) and the FiveThirtyEight forecast (58 percent). [HuffPost Pollster Senate Forecast] A friend of
HuffPollster emailed yesterday, asking, "are you lonely out there on that limb?" Our answer is, it may feel a little lonely, but HuffPollster
does not consider our estimate to be as far "out there" on a limb as some may believe. The models
cited above are all telling is more or less the same thing: It's a "toss-up." We don't know with
meaningful confidence which party will control the Senate . The difference between 44 and 58 would
be huge as a percentage of votes cast, but it has little substantive significance when it comes to
probabilities. As the Times' Josh Katz and Amanda Cox noted back in May, if you had two "biased coins" that came up
heads 49 percent and 55 percent of the time, respectively, it would take 375 flips of those coins (and
about 30 minutes of flipping) to know with certainty which coin was which. A helpful summary chart
produced by New York Times/Upshot shows how four of the models differ in terms of their forecasts
for individual states. Two of the biggest differences involve Alaska and Kansas. In Alaska, Pollster's
model sees an almost exactly even race (both in terms of the vote margin and probability), while FiveThirtyEight
gives Republican nominee Dan Sullivan a 68 percent chance of winning. In Kansas, the Upshot model
still gives Sen. Pat Roberts (R) a 76 chance of winning, while the Pollster model rates the race a 50-50 toss-
up. In both cases, the polling is extremely thin and questionable -- just one recent automated survey in Kansas and
just a ha ndful of automated and internet polls in Alaska. In both cases, we are comfortable showing less confidence
in the outcome, at least for now. The Pollster forecasts are also generally less confident about the
leaders' chances of victory across the board. This difference has the most apparent consequence when
comparing the various models in Arkansas, Kentucky and Louisiana, where both the Upshot and
FivethirtyEight models show 70 percent or better confidence in the Republican winning. Our model
shows the Republican candidates leading in both states, but given the relatively slim polling margins
in each -- including the 1.5 percentage point difference in Arkansas -- we are comfortable showing less confidence in
projecting an ultimate winner.