You are on page 1of 8

FILE NAME

DDI 2008 <BQ>


Your Name

1NC DEA CP

Counter Plan Text: The Drug Enforcement Administration should legalize the growth of industrial hemp
for the production of alternative energy.

Observation 1 – Topicality: The Counter Pan is not topical because it uses the DEA instead of the USFG

Observation 2 – Competitiveness: the Counter Plan competes through the net benefits

Observation 3 – Solvency:

The DEA should regulate the production of industrial hemp in the U.S.

THE PEOPLES' SUMMIT, The OTHER Economic Summit, TOES '97 - Denver, June 20 - 22, 1997
"Working Alternatives: A World That Works", *Sen. Lloyd Casey, AHA Voter, former Colorado State Senato,
Industrial Hemp: The fiber, pulp, and oil crop of the 21st Century, Important information on how you can help
preserve forests, reduce pollution, save the family farm, and capitalize on a growing global industry,
http://www.ese.upenn.edu/~rabii/toes/Toes97Prog2.html/

Industrial hemp should be regulated as an agricultural crop as it is in the other G7 nations. The DEA
should be as capable as law enforcement in other countries of changing its regulations to allow the
production of industrial hemp in the U.S. Encourage your federal legislators to use the G7 summit as an
opportunity to explore industrial hemp production in other countries. Regulations should be adopted by the
USDA, DEA, and other federal agencies that will allow U.S. farmers to produce industrial hemp
profitably. Industrial hemp prohibition is an unfair trade barrier. U.S. farmers should be able to compete
with the other G7 nations in the global marketplace.

1
FILE NAME
DDI 2008 <BQ>
Your Name

1NC DEA CP

The DEA can solve

Seaton Thedinger, a class of 2006 candidate for the Juris Doctor degree at the University of Colorado School of
Law. In 2002, he received his B.S. in Mathematics and Computer Science from Vanderbilt University, Spring,
2006, Colorado Journal of Int'l Envt'l Law and Policy Colorado Journal of International Environmental Law and
Policy, Lexis, http://www.lexisnexis.com/us/lnacademic/search/journalssubmitForm.do

The United States should realize the reactionary view of the DEA and change the regulations accordingly.
The DEA should reclassify products containing less than 0.3 percent THC as "not marijuana." It has the
power to promulgate this regulation without permission from Congress or other agencies. Although a
citizen suit could challenge the agency's action in declaring hemp exempt from the legal definition of a drug
status, given the legislative history of the CSA, the plain language of the statute, and the deference afforded
agencies in these manners, the [*446] challenge would likely fail. Other options include congressional
legislation declaring the intent to regulate hemp and allow its growth, or pressure from the President urging the
DEA to change its interpretation. These actions will not occur until they are politically feasible, which requires
that a majority of the electorate believe in industrial hemp's possibilities.

Industrializing hemp can help the DEA solve it’s concerns.

THE PEOPLES' SUMMIT, The OTHER Economic Summit, TOES '97 - Denver, June 20 - 22, 1997
"Working Alternatives: A World That Works", *Sen. Lloyd Casey, AHA Voter, former Colorado State Senato,
Industrial Hemp: The fiber, pulp, and oil crop of the 21st Century, Important information on how you can help
preserve forests, reduce pollution, save the family farm, and capitalize on a growing global industry,
http://www.ese.upenn.edu/~rabii/toes/Toes97Prog2.html/

The Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) is the main force behind industrial hemp prohibition.
Farmers know that hemp and marijuana are distinct varieties of the same plant species, just as
other crops also have distinct varieties. As one farmer points out, "There's sweet corn and field corn and
silage corn and popcorn." Hemp would actually help the DEA eliminate outdoor marijuana
production. Marijuana growers must protect their female plants from male pollen. This would be
impossible if hemp were grown on a large scale. Perhaps marijuana has become a "shallow ruse" for the
DEA to deter American farmers from growing a profitable crop and to deter environmentalists and
business people from developing environmentally-friendly alternatives to petroleum and trees.

If the DEA were to legalize hemp, it will provide serious benefits.

2
FILE NAME
DDI 2008 <BQ>
Your Name

BY JORDAN SMITH Weed Watch Industrial Hemp in California; Medi-pot in New Mexico, HOME:
FEBRUARY 3, 2006: NEWS, The Austin Chronicle,
http://www.austinchronicle.com/gyrobase/Issue/story?oid=oid:333872

If the measure gets a nod from the state Senate and from Republican Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger (who
has reportedly not taken a position on the issue), California would become the 15th state to legalize hemp
cultivation. (Still, the DEA has continued to enforce a ban on hemp farming, claiming that because
the Controlled Substances Act doesn't differentiate between hemp and its psychoactive brother
marijuana, hemp farming is illegal.) "Hemp is a potential bonanza for California," Leno said. "The
opportunity to create thousands of new jobs, new industries, and new markets while protecting our
environment should not be missed."

2AC/ Central Asia DA


1. Non Unique—Azerbaijan econ is already vulnerable
3
FILE NAME
DDI 2008 <BQ>
Your Name

Svetlana Tsalik, director, Caspian Revenue Watch, Central Eurasia Project, Open Society Institute, 2003
“Caspian Oil Windfalls: Who will benefit?” http://archive.revenuewatch.org/reports/051203.pdf

Just as oil production has overshadowed other sectors of the economy, so it has come to dominate trade. When
the Azerbaijan International Operating Company (AIOC) began to produce oil in 1997 from the Chirag
oil field, one of the three ACG fields, the share of oil and oil products in Azerbaijan’s exports was 61
percent. By 2001, Azerbaijan had become a virtual “monocrop” economy, with crude oil and oil products
comprising 91 percent of the value of exports.16 This rising share is explained not only by the increase in oil
production, but also by domestic oil requirements holding relatively constant, by the sharp decline in other
exports, and by a relatively high price for oil sold abroad. In the same period, non-oil products fell from 38.6
percent to 8.7 percent of total exports.17 Such a high volume of oil in the country’s trade makes
Azerbaijan’s economy highly vulnerable to oil price shocks. In 1998 and 1999, when crude oil prices
tumbled as low as $10.90 per barrel, Azerbaijan’s balance of payments deficit ballooned to 32.6 percent of
GDP.18 The shortfall in revenues had an immediate toll on the budget, where revenues and expenditures
both contracted sharply from the previous year. Revenues decreased by 9.3 percent and expenditures by
10.3 percent.19

2. No Link--- Nuclear Energy provides the US with economic competitiveness

Nicolas Loris and Jack Spencer, Research Assistant and Research Fellow Institute for Economic Policy
Studies at The Heritage Foundation, 7/2/08, The Heritage Foundation, “Nuclear Energy: What we can
learn from other countries” http://www.heritage.org/Research/Energyandenvironment/wm1977.cfm
Affordable energy is critical to sustaining economic competitiveness in economies with high labor
costs, expensive environmental mandates, and other regulatory expenditures. This is especially true
in economies that depend on energy-intensive activities like manufacturing, such as the Finnish and
U.S. economies. Finland concluded that access to vast quantities of affordable energy should be a top
national priority, and nuclear was an obvious choice. These countries and others searching to expand
their nuclear capacity have an opportunity to fuel their respective economies through the thousands
of jobs, both temporary and permanent, that nuclear energy creates. A global nuclear renaissance
will attract construction jobs as well as high-skill engineering jobs to operate the plants. Thus, two
of the greatest benefits of building more nuclear reactors, if done correctly, will be more jobs and
cleaner, cheaper energy. Countries that do not choose to produce clean energy in a carbon
constrained world will inevitably pay more to produce energy, resulting in higher input costs and
higher prices for consumers on the open market. As the economic consequences of higher fossil-fuel
costs spread to countries that do not produce nuclear power, many countries will likely increase
imports of nuclear electricity from foreign suppliers. While less expensive and more reliable than
other non-nuclear, non-emitting sources, this energy will surely cost more to import than it would
have had to produce it domestically. In the end, the countries that have barred nuclear power from
being produced in their respective countries will ultimately rely on nuclear power, albeit at a more
expensive imported price.

3. No Link---The Oil concerns with Central Asian countries matter to China and not the U.S.

4
FILE NAME
DDI 2008 <BQ>
Your Name

The National Academic Press, The Worldwide Move to High Efficiency Fuels: China Should Too [pp. 90 -
96] "Cooperation in the Energy Futures of China and the United States", a December 1999 joint report
by the Chinese Academy of Sciences, Chinese Academy of Engineering and the U.S. National Research
Council report is available on the web at http://www.usembassy-
china.org.cn/sandt/sdpcenergy.html/

Every developed country moved to high efficiency fuels --- China should too. [p. 54] Higher exports and greater
integration into the world trading system will pay for oil with higher exports and assure China's energy security.
The wide variety of oil users and suppliers and China's value to oil exporters as a counterweight to the big
multinationals also works in favor of China's energy security. Increased energy cooperation with East Asian and
especially NE Asian economic cooperation and NE Asia supply organization for joint exploration and dispute
resolution. [pp. 55 - 64] The oil and gas resources of the Central Asian countries will be especially
important for China. [p. 60] Moving away from coal and towards lower carbon or no-carbon fuels such as
oil, natural gas, nuclear power and solar power will enable China to carry out commitments to reduce
emissions to meet global warming agreement commitments.

4. Link Turn: The increase in oil prices benefits Azerbaijan.

ANS PRESS, Economy / 17.06.2008 17:34, State Oil Fund of Azerbaijan planning long-term investments
Presently SOFAZ carries out investigations on the directions of the investments,
http://www.ans.az/nid77289.html

Growth of oil prices in world markets has increased benefits of Azerbaijan. The Executive Director of State
Oil Fund of Azerbaijan (SOFAZ) Shahmar Movsumov told. To him, it is difficult to predict benefits of oil for
the end of the year as prices of oil change in world markets. Sh.Movsumov emphasized the growth of
benefits of SOFAZ enabled it to long-term investment. Presently SOFAZ carries out investigations on the
directions of the investments.

4. No Impact- Rising oil revenues in exporting nations are used to support corrupt and
totalitarian governments and buy nuclear weapons.

5
FILE NAME
DDI 2008 <BQ>
Your Name

(Ariel Cohen, PhD and senior research fellow in energy security at the heritage foundation,
6/4/08, The Heritage Foundation, “Big Money, Big Oil, Big Risk”,
http://www.heritage.org/Press/Commentary/ed060408b.cfm)
Yet, there is a downside to the skyrocketing oil prices, which hurts Azerbaijan's ally, the United States, Western
Europe, China, Japan, and other countries without energy resources.
From Russia to Iran to Venezuela, America's and the West's adversaries are splurging on oil windfalls, while
programs directed against Uncle Sam and his allies are funded by petroleum revenues. Big bucks are allowing the
oil sultans and dictators to intimidate US allies, buy politicians and academics, and purchase election outcomes.
Oil prices are going up partly because of supply and speculation. Part of the reason they can do this is that
governments of the Oil Producing and Exporting Countries (OPEC) cartel, and the non-cartel producers like Russia,
make sure that international oil companies do not own reserves in the ground.
Exxon, for instance, spent only 4 percent of its exploration budget in the Middle East last year - local governments
do not allow Western companies to take control of their own destiny.
Thus, the global oil production is at the mercy of opaque and corrupt national oil companies, while the governments
that own them enjoy skyrocketing oil prices and the growing, mind-boggling wealth.
The revenues of the major oil producing countries have quadrupled in three years. Since 9/11, oil prices have more
than quintupled: from $20/barrel to $125/barrel. This year Europe and the US will spend approximately $2 trillion
on imported oil, while the world will spend close to $3 trillion.
This money recycles back to the US and the West, often in the most legitimate ways. Sovereign Investment Funds
have acquired large chunks of America's financial flagships: Citigroup, Merrill Lynch, Morgan Stanley, Blackstone
and the Carlyle Group.
A foreign government acquiring a serious stake in US corporate gems can influence US policies in the Middle East
and elsewhere. The oil sheikhs can "tweak" attitudes towards extremism and terrorism, and buy access to politicians
through lobbying and campaign contributions. In the future, these funds may acquire defense and technology
flagships: Boeing, General Electric, Lockheed Martin and others, or go after primary media assets, from CNN to
FOX.
However, oil revenues may be used in much more sinister ways. Money can buy nuclear weapons programs,
ballistic missile arsenals, and other arms. It can also pay for terrorist armies.
Today's attempt to overthrow the democratically elected government in Lebanon is bankrolled by Iran.

2AC Shell (1/2)

6
FILE NAME
DDI 2008 <BQ>
Your Name

1. Rising oil revenues in exporting nations are used to support corrupt and totalitarian
governments and buy nuclear weapons.
(Ariel Cohen, PhD and senior research fellow in energy security at the heritage foundation,
6/4/08, The Heritage Foundation, “Big Money, Big Oil, Big Risk”,
http://www.heritage.org/Press/Commentary/ed060408b.cfm)
Yet, there is a downside to the skyrocketing oil prices, which hurts Azerbaijan's ally, the United States, Western
Europe, China, Japan, and other countries without energy resources.
From Russia to Iran to Venezuela, America's and the West's adversaries are splurging on oil windfalls, while
programs directed against Uncle Sam and his allies are funded by petroleum revenues. Big bucks are allowing the
oil sultans and dictators to intimidate US allies, buy politicians and academics, and purchase election outcomes.
Oil prices are going up partly because of supply and speculation. Part of the reason they can do this is that
governments of the Oil Producing and Exporting Countries (OPEC) cartel, and the non-cartel producers like Russia,
make sure that international oil companies do not own reserves in the ground.
Exxon, for instance, spent only 4 percent of its exploration budget in the Middle East last year - local governments
do not allow Western companies to take control of their own destiny.
Thus, the global oil production is at the mercy of opaque and corrupt national oil companies, while the governments
that own them enjoy skyrocketing oil prices and the growing, mind-boggling wealth.
The revenues of the major oil producing countries have quadrupled in three years. Since 9/11, oil prices have more
than quintupled: from $20/barrel to $125/barrel. This year Europe and the US will spend approximately $2 trillion
on imported oil, while the world will spend close to $3 trillion.
This money recycles back to the US and the West, often in the most legitimate ways. Sovereign Investment Funds
have acquired large chunks of America's financial flagships: Citigroup, Merrill Lynch, Morgan Stanley, Blackstone
and the Carlyle Group.
A foreign government acquiring a serious stake in US corporate gems can influence US policies in the Middle East
and elsewhere. The oil sheikhs can "tweak" attitudes towards extremism and terrorism, and buy access to politicians
through lobbying and campaign contributions. In the future, these funds may acquire defense and technology
flagships: Boeing, General Electric, Lockheed Martin and others, or go after primary media assets, from CNN to
FOX.
However, oil revenues may be used in much more sinister ways. Money can buy nuclear weapons programs,
ballistic missile arsenals, and other arms. It can also pay for terrorist armies.
Today's attempt to overthrow the democratically elected government in Lebanon is bankrolled by Iran.

2. Widespread nuclear proliferation is the most dangerous scenario for nuclear war
(Victor Utgoff, Deputy Director of the Strategy Division of the Institute for Defense Analysis,
2002, “Proliferation, Missile Defense and American Ambitions”, pgs. 87-90)

The war between Iran and Iraq during the 1980s led to the use of chemical weapons on both
sides and exchanges of missiles against each other’s cities. And more recently, violence in the
Middle East escalated in a few months from rocks and small arms to heavy weapons on one side,
and from police actions to air strikes and armoured attacks on the other. Escalation of violence is
also basic human nature. Once the violence starts, retaliatory exchanges of violent acts can
escalate to levels unimagined by the participants before hand. Intenseand blinding anger is a
common response to fear or humiliation or abuse. And such anger can lead us to impose on our
opponents whatever levels of
2AC Shell (1/2)

[cont]

7
FILE NAME
DDI 2008 <BQ>
Your Name

violence are readily accessible. In sum, widespread proliferation is likely to lead to an occasional
shoot-out with nuclear weapons, and that such shoot-outs will have a substantial probability of
escalating to the maximum destruction possible with the weapons at hand. Unless nuclear
proliferation is stopped, we are headed toward a world that will mirror the American Wild West
of the late 1800s. With most, if not all, nations wearing nuclear 'six-shooters' on their hips, the
world may even be a more polite place than it is today, but every once in a while we will all
gather on a hill to bury the bodies of dead cities or even whole nations.