2ac

2AC - Solvency

1. Revenue loss implicates other illegal markets40% less profit means less weapons
and corruption

2. Law enforcement shiftplan frees up police resources and enables a crackdown on
organized crime

3. Institutional reformlegalization lets Mexico focus on law and judicial institutions
which is sufficient to prevent a failed state

4. Plan spills over to other drugs and is modelled globallycartels cant compete
against legalized drugs

Thats Carpenter and Jones

2AC WMD Terror
Their defense doesnt assume a Mexican failed statelawless territory is an ideal
smuggling route for WMDsthats Brookes

Conventional weapons are sufficient to trigger nuclear retaliationa few thousands
spur Pearl Harbor mentalitypoliticians have to maintain resolve to curb paranoia
thats Conley
2AC Manufacturing UQ
Production sharing with Mexico is sufficient to stave off declineUS needs strong
Mexican economic relations to keep exports competitive and reshore our domestic
manufacturing basethats Berube

2ACHealth DA
Cart before the horseteens dropping out of school doesnt matter if the school they
go to doesnt create biotech

Legalizations public health benefits outweigh the costsalcohol substitution means
less traffic fatalities, teen use, and health crises
Anderson and Rees 13
D. Mark, Assistant Professor, Department of Agricultural Economics and Economics, Montana State
University, Daniel I., Professor in the Department of Economics at the University of Colorado Denver and
the Editor-in-Chief of the Economics of Education Review, "The Legalization of Recreational Marijuana:
How Likely Is the Worst-Case Scenario?", Oct 22 2013, Journal of Policy Analysis and Management,
www.dmarkanderson.com/Point_Counterpoint_07_31_13_v5.pdf
Studies based on clearly-defined natural experiments generally support the hypothesis that marijuana and alcohol
are substitutes . For instance, DiNardo & Lemieux (2001) found that increasing the MLDA from 18 to 21 encourages
marijuana use. Using data from the NSDUH and a regression discontinuity design, Crost & Guerrero (2012) found a sharp
decrease in marijuana use at 21 years of age, suggesting that young adults treat alcohol and marijuana
as substitutes. Finally, Anderson, Hansen, & Rees (2013) examined the relationship between legalizing
medical marijuana and drinking using data from the Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System. These
authors found that legalization was associated with reductions in heavy drinking especially among 18-
through 29-year-olds. In addition, they found that legalization was associated with an almost 5 percent decrease in
beer sales, the alcoholic beverage of choice among young adults (Jones, 2008).
The results of DiNardo & Lemieux (2001), Crost & Guerrero (2012) and Anderson, Hansen, & Rees (2013) suggest that, as marijuana becomes
more available, young adults in Colorado and Washington will respond by drinking less, not more. If non-medical marijuana states legalize the
use of recreational marijuana, they should also experience reductions in drinking with the accompanying public health benefits.
TRAFFFIC FATALITES
Reducing traffic injuries and fatalities is potentially one of the most important public health benefits
from legalizing the use of recreational marijuana. Tetrahydrocannabinol (THC), the principal psychoactive component of
marijuana, impairs driving-related functions (Kelly, Darke, & Ross, 2004), but there is evidence that drivers under the influence of
THC compensate for these impairments. For instance, they tend to drive slower and take fewer risks (Robbe &
OHanlon, 1993; Sewell, Poling, & Sofuoglu, 2009). In contrast, drivers under the influence of alcohol trend to drive
faster and take more risks (Burian, Liguori, & Robinson, 2002; Marczinski, Harrison, & Fillmore, 2008; Ronen et al., 2008). While
driving under the influence of marijuana is associated with a two-fold increase in the risk of being
involved in a collision (Asbridge, Hayden, & Cartwright, 2012), driving with a blood alcohol concentration (BAC) of 0.08 or
greater is associated with a 4- to 27-fold increase in this same risk (Peck et al., 2008).
Driving under the combined influence of alcohol and marijuana is especially dangerous (Sewell, Poling, & Sofuoglu, 2009). Therefore, if young
adults viewed alcohol and marijuana as complements, legalizing the recreational use of marijuana could seriously jeopardize roadway safety.
Fortunately, as noted above, studies based on clearly-defined natural experiments suggest that young
adults, a group responsible for a disproportionate share of traffic accidents and fatalities (Eustace & Wei,
2010), typically substitute marijuana in place of alcohol.
Using data from the Fatality Analysis Reporting System (FARS) for the period 1990- 2010, Anderson, Hansen, & Rees (2013) examined the effect
of legalizing medical marijuana on traffic fatalities. They found that legalizing medical marijuana was associated with a 13
percent decrease in fatalities involving alcohol. It is important to note, however, that their results do not necessarily imply
that driving under the influence of marijuana is safer than driving under the influence of alcohol. Because marijuana is not
typically consumed in public venues such as restaurants and bars, their results may reflect fewer
impaired drivers on the road.3
Finally, the Washington law that legalized recreational marijuana also established a THC limit for drivers of 5 nanograms per milliliter of blood. 4
A strict THC limit above which drivers are automatically considered impaired may, in the future, be viewed by the public and policymakers as a
necessary complement to legalizing recreational marijuana. However, there is little evidence that, as currently implemented, such limits
actually improve roadway safety (Anderson & Rees 2012). Given this lack of evidence, policymakers might consider lowering the BAC limit. This
could deter drunk driving (Dee, 2001; Eisenberg, 2003) and come with the added benefit of discouraging driving under the combined influence
of alcohol and marijuana. Alternatively, a substantial increase in alcohol excise taxes could help to discourage driving under the combined
influence of alcohol and marijuana. The current excise tax on liquor sold in Colorado is 60.26 cents per liter, which represents roughly 3 percent
of the retail price of Jim Beam Whisky purchased by the bottle. 5 In comparison, Colorado is set to impose a 15 percent excise tax and a 10
percent special sales tax on marijuana sales (Ingold, 2013b). Washington is considering taxing producers, sellers and buyers at a total rate of 75
percent (Donlan, 2013).
MARIJUNA USE BY TEENAGERS
Policymakers and the public are especially concerned that legalization of recreational marijuana will
encourage substance use among teenagers. This concern is bolstered by the fact that Denver teenagers receiving treatment
for substance abuse have reported obtaining marijuana from medical marijuana patients (Thurstone, Lieberman, & Schmiege, 2011;
Salomonsen-Sautel et al., 2012). The interesting question, however, is not whether diversion to teenagers will occur with the legalization of
recreational marijuana (it will). The more interesting (and policy- relevant) question is whether marijuana use by teenagers will increase when
"pot shops" open throughout Colorado and Washington.
Using data from national and state Youth Risk Behavior Surveys (YRBS) for the period 1993 through 2011, Anderson, Hansen, & Rees
(2012) found little evidence of a relationship between legalizing medical marijuana and the use of
marijuana among high school students.6 Critics of Anderson, Hansen, & Rees (2012) have argued that youth access to medical
marijuana did not appreciably increase until medical marijuana dispensaries became widespread (Ferner, 2013). In an effort to explore the role
of dispensaries, we turned to local YRBS data for the period 2001-2011.7 Specifically, we compared marijuana use among Los Angeles high
school students to marijuana use among Chicago, Dallas, Boston, and Miami-Dade County high school students (Figure 1). The first dispensaries
began operating in Los Angeles prior to the passage of the Compassionate Use Act (Curtius & Yates, 1996), but the dispensary boom did not
occur until after 2004 (Jacobson et al., 2011). From 2005 to 2010, the number of dispensaries operating in Los Angeles surged from only a
handful to more than 600 (Jacobson et al., 2011). There were no legal medical marijuana dispensaries operating in Chicago, Dallas, Boston, or
Miami-Dade County during the period 2001-2011.
Figure 1 provides little evidence that marijuana use among Los Angeles high school students increased in the
mid-2000s, perhaps because dispensaries could sell to adults with some assurance of not being shut down, while selling
marijuana to a minor was still a risky proposition even after the passage of the Compassionate Use
Act. 9 Marijuana use among Los Angeles high school students actually declined from 2007 to 2009 and
then increased from 2009 to 2011. However, there were comparably-sized increases in marijuana use
among Chicago, Dallas and Boston high school students from 2009 to 2011.
CRIME AND OTHER PUBLIC HEALTH OUTCOMES
There is evidence of a link between alcohol abuse and violent crime, including domestic violence
(Markowitz & Grossman, 1998; Markowitz, 2000, 2005; Carpenter & Dobkin, 2010). Therefore, if the legalization of recreational
marijuana leads to reduced alcohol consumption, we expect violent crime to fall. It is also possible that non-
violent crime will fall as policing resources are freed up and reallocated (Miron & Zwiebel, 1995). Adda, McConnell,
& Rasul (2011) found that non-drug crime went down after Lambeth, a borough of London, temporarily suspended arrests for marijuana
possession.
Other potential public health benefits from legalizing recreational marijuana could include a reduction
in suicides (Anderson, Rees, & Sabia, 2012), increased product quality and fewer emergency room episodes
resulting from the use of marijuana laced with chemicals such as phencyclidine (PCP) and embalming fluid. Quality
oversight by the government is absent for illegal drugs, and repeated interactions between buyers and sellers in a prohibited market is, in all
likelihood, only a partial solution (Miron & Zwiebel, 1995).
Finally, it is possible that the legalization of recreational marijuana will impact the demand for hard drugs such as
cocaine and heroin. Previous studies have documented a positive association between the use of marijuana and hard drugs
(DeSimone, 1998; van Ours, 2003; Fergusson, Boden, & Horwood, 2006; Bretteville-Jensen, Melbergy, & Jonesz, 2008; Melberg, Jones, &
Bretteville-Jensen, 2010), but these studies were not based on clearly-defined natural experiments. Two exceptions are
Kelly & Rasul (2012) and Model (1993). Kelly & Rasul (2012) found that hospital admissions for hard drugs increased after
the borough of Lambeth suspended arrests for marijuana possession. In contrast, Model (1993), who used U.S. data,
found that marijuana decriminalization led to fewer emergency room episodes involving drugs other
than marijuana.
CONCLUSION
Kleimans worst-case scenario is possible, but not likely. Based on existing empirical evidence, we expect
that the legalization of recreational marijuana in Colorado and Washington will lead to increased marijuana
consumption coupled with decreased alcohol consumption. As a consequence, these states will experience a
reduction in the social harms resulting from alcohol use. While it is more than likely that marijuana produced by state-
sanctioned growers will end up in the hands of minors, we predict that overall youth consumption will remain stable. On
net, we predict the public health benefits of legalization to be positive.

Marijuana wont become Big Tobaccoonly a small percentage of consumers are
heavy users, marijuana is significantly less toxic, and Colorado proves that regulations
can be effective
Ingraham 8/8/14
Christopher, a data journalist focusing primarily on issues of politics, policy and economics. He
previously worked at the Brookings Institution and the Pew Research Center, "Why marijuana wont
become another Big Tobacco", August 8 2014,
www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2014/08/08/why-marijuana-wont-become-another-big-
tobacco/
I wrote earlier this week about the sophisticated ad campaigns recently launched by supporters and opponents of marijuana legalization. The
two camps agree that marijuana is going mainstream but part company on whether this is an ominous development or cause for celebration.
The argument put forth by the anti-legalization Grass Is Not Greener coalition is a novel one, and
worth digging into. "If were not careful, the marijuana industry could quickly become the next Big
Tobacco," its Web site warns. "I think most Americans would be surprised to learn how quickly this industry has matured," Kevin Sabet, co-
founder of Project SAM (Smart Approaches to Marijuana) and an outspoken legalization critic, told me. "Big Tobacco ignored major scientific
findings about cigarettes, deceived the public, funded their own research, and devoted every ounce of their energy to one thing: increasing use
for profit." He says the marijuana industry is doing the same today. Even if there is some truth to this, legalization opponents are on
shaky ground when it comes to ignoring scientific findings and misleading the public. After all, the federal
case for marijuana prohibition continues to be built on half-truths and the occasional deception. Grass Is
Not Greener's Web site repeats many of these same talking points in a breakdown of "Facts" and "Myths" that takes considerable liberties with
the definition of both. On the other hand, there's no doubt that the marijuana industry is becoming more
sophisticated. There is a trade organization, the National Cannabis Industry Association, that promotes "the
growth of a responsible and legitimate cannabis industry." There are at least two full-time pro-
marijuana lobbyists working on Capitol Hill. It seems inevitable that marijuana will continue to get
bigger, but a comparison point with Big Tobacco doesn't work. For starters, marijuana is simply less
harmful than tobacco. Marijuana's addictive potential is less than a third of tobacco's. THC, the active
compound in marijuana, is considerably less toxic than nicotine, which until this year was used as an
industrial insecticide in the U.S. Currently the evidence is mixed on the prevalence of cancers associated
with marijuana use, although it seems reasonable to conclude that inhaling flaming plant material into your lungs on a regular basis
could produce negative health consequences down the road. Mark Kleiman, a UCLA professor who studies drug abuse and drug policy, says
that compared to tobacco, marijuana will be "a smaller industry and therefore less powerful. But I dont
think it will be less insidious." He thinks the alcohol industry is a better comparison, because the usage
breakdown of alcohol is similar to marijuana's. Most of the alcohol industry's revenue comes from the top 10
percent of drinkers, who consume half of the drinks, Kleiman says. This tracks with the marijuana sales figures
currently coming out of Colorado, which show that the top 20 percent of marijuana users account for
67 percent of the overall demand so far. The distribution of tobacco users, on the other hand, is different.
The average smoker consumes about 15 cigarettes per day, or three-fourths of a pack. The tobacco
industry is "appealing to the median smoker, and the median smoker has a drug problem," Kleiman says.
Tobacco revenues are more evenly distributed across the user base, but marijuana revenues are likely
to come largely from a smaller share of heavy users. While there's plenty of room for debate about
whether it's preferable for marijuana to tread the path of alcohol or tobacco, there's no doubt that
the stakes are considerably smaller. "The dangers of really bad cannabis policy simply aren't as great
as the dangers of really bad alcohol policy," Kleiman says. A privatized marijuana industry's profit-making
motives are almost certain to conflict with various public health interests. But conflicting interests
don't constitute grounds for outright prohibition and criminalization - if that were the case we would
have outlawed fast food, congressional lobbying, and much of the financial industry a long time ago.
They do, on the other hand, make a compelling case for smart, cautious regulation. A recent Brookings
institution report concluded that, from a governance perspective, the rollout of legal marijuana in
Colorado has largely been a success (the report is agnostic over whether the actual policy of legalization is a good one). You can
be sure that other states will be watching closely as they consider similar legalization measures in the
coming years.
Prohibition is comparatively worse for public healthunregulated quality control,
plus other illegal drug use is more likely
Boetke, GMU economics professor, 2013
(Peter, Keep Off the Grass: The Economics of Prohibition and U.S. Drug Policy,
May, http://law.uoregon.edu/org/olr/volumes/91/4/documents/Boettke.pdf, ldg)

The first unintended consequence of prohibition is that individuals are more likely to consume
poisonous substances and overdose with the increase in drug prices. As the price of a given drug rises,
it creates additional profit opportunities for those willing to enter the drug trade. Since the drug
market is illegal, and therefore, conducted underground, quality control is reduced compared to above ground
markets. Drug users have few means available to determine which drugs are pure and have no
recourse should they purchase a substance of inferior quality. Further, the underground market allows for less
information sharing about products and vendors because transactions take place secretly to avoid authorities.
Consequently, more poor-quality drug products enter the market, which leads to a greater potential for
poisoning and overdose. The greater prevalence of poor-quality drugs is not the sole mechanism through which overdoses increase.
The illegality of drug use generates unintended potency effects, which affect both the supply and demand sides of
the drug market. On the supply side, prohibition results in drug dealers carrying and selling more potent drugs.
Because drug laws increase the risk of selling low potency drugs, suppliers tend to substitute toward higher potency drugs. For example, under
prohibition, suppliers prefer to transport cocaine, as compared to marijuana, because cocaine is more potent and therefore more valuable per
unit. On the demand side, drug prices are driven up by prohibition, which causes drug users to seek more bang for
their buck. That is, since the overall cost of obtaining drugs is higher, more potent drugs are relatively cheaper than weak drugs.
Because drug users must act illegally to obtain drugs, they seek to maximize the satisfaction or high from each
dollar spent. This dynamic manifests itself in several ways. Drug users may switch from lower potency to higher
potency within a given drug (for example, from marijuana with lower levels of THC to marijuana with
higher levels of THC). Alternatively, drug users may switch from substances like marijuana to harder
drugs like cocaine and heroin. Finally, drug users may employ more intense methods of drug use, such as injection. Taking
both sides of the market together, prohibition leads to a greater use of more potent substances,
which increases the likelihood of overdose and drug-related death. Indeed, these effects may be seen in the rate of
unintended overdose deaths in the United States. In 1971, two years before the creation of the DEA and the year President
Nixon declared drugs to be a public menace, just over one death per 100,000 deaths was due to an overdose.53 By
the year 2007, over 27,500 people died as a result of a drug overdose, which translates to almost ten per
100,000 deaths.54 Between 1990 and 2007 alone, overdose rates increased five-fold.55 The most common sources of overdose deaths
are higher potency drugsmainly cocaine, heroin, and opioid painkillers.56

2AC Food Impact
Industrial ag is unsustainable and causes food price spikes

That causes global warnationalism, civil strife and refugee flows empirically
motivate conflictthats Claire

Highest risk of extinction
Brown 11 Lester, President of the Earth Policy Institute,The New Geopolitics of Food, April 25,
2011, http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2011/04/25/the_new_geopolitics_of_food
While temperatures are rising, water tables are falling as farmers overpump for irrigation. This
artificially inflates food production in the short run, creating a food bubble that bursts when aquifers
are depleted and pumping is necessarily reduced to the rate of recharge. In arid Saudi Arabia, irrigation had surprisingly enabled the
country to be self-sufficient in wheat for more than 20 years; now, wheat production is collapsing because the non-replenishable aquifer the
country uses for irrigation is largely depleted. The Saudis soon will be importing all their grain. Saudi Arabia is only one of some 18 countries
with water-based food bubbles. All together, more than half the world's people live in countries where water tables are falling. The politically
troubled Arab Middle East is the first geographic region where grain production has peaked and begun to decline because of water shortages,
even as populations continue to grow. Grain production is already going down in Syria and Iraq and may soon decline in Yemen. But the largest
food bubbles are in India and China. In India, where farmers have drilled some 20 million irrigation wells, water tables are falling and the wells
are starting to go dry. The World Bank reports that 175 million Indians are being fed with grain produced by overpumping. In China,
overpumping is concentrated in the North China Plain, which produces half of China's wheat and a third of its corn. An estimated 130 million
Chinese are currently fed by overpumping. How will these countries make up for the inevitable shortfalls when the aquifers are depleted? Even
as we are running our wells dry, we are also mismanaging our soils, creating new deserts. Soil erosion as a result of overplowing
and land mismanagement is undermining the productivity of one-third of the world's cropland. How
severe is it? Look at satellite images showing two huge new dust bowls: one stretching across northern and western China and western
Mongolia; the other across central Africa. Wang Tao, a leading Chinese desert scholar, reports that each year some 1,400 square miles of land
in northern China turn to desert. In Mongolia and Lesotho, grain harvests have shrunk by half or more over the
last few decades. North Korea and Haiti are also suffering from heavy soil losses; both countries face famine
if they lose international food aid. Civilization can survive the loss of its oil reserves, but it cannot survive the
loss of its soil reserves. Beyond the changes in the environment that make it ever harder to meet human demand, there's an
important intangible factor to consider: Over the last half-century or so, we have come to take agricultural progress for granted. Decade
after decade, advancing technology underpinned steady gains in raising land productivity. Indeed, world grain
yield per acre has tripled since 1950. But now that era is coming to an end in some of the more agriculturally
advanced countries, where farmers are already using all available technologies to raise yields. In
effect, the farmers have caught up with the scientists. After climbing for a century, rice yield per acre in Japan
has not risen at all for 16 years . In China, yields may level off soon. Just those two countries alone account for one-
third of the world's rice harvest. Meanwhile, wheat yields have plateaued in Britain, France, and Germany --
Western Europe's three largest wheat producers. IN THIS ERA OF TIGHTENING world food supplies,
the ability to grow food is fast becoming a new form of geopolitical leverage, and countries are scrambling to
secure their own parochial interests at the expense of the common good. The first signs of trouble came in 2007, when farmers began having
difficulty keeping up with the growth in global demand for grain. Grain and soybean prices started to climb, tripling by mid-2008. In response,
many exporting countries tried to control the rise of domestic food prices by restricting exports. Among
them were Russia and Argentina, two leading wheat exporters. Vietnam, the No. 2 rice exporter, banned exports entirely for several months in
early 2008. So did several other smaller exporters of grain. With exporting countries restricting exports in 2007 and 2008, importing countries
panicked. No longer able to rely on the market to supply the grain they needed, several countries took
the novel step of trying to negotiate long-term grain-supply agreements with exporting countries. The
Philippines, for instance, negotiated a three-year agreement with Vietnam for 1.5 million tons of rice per year. A delegation of Yemenis traveled
to Australia with a similar goal in mind, but had no luck. In a seller's market, exporters were reluctant to make long-term commitments.
Fearing they might not be able to buy needed grain from the market, some of the more affluent
countries, led by Saudi Arabia, South Korea, and China, took the unusual step in 2008 of buying or
leasing land in other countries on which to grow grain for themselves. Most of these land acquisitions are in Africa,
where some governments lease cropland for less than $1 per acre per year. Among the principal destinations were Ethiopia and Sudan,
countries where millions of people are being sustained with food from the U.N. World Food Program. That the governments of these two
countries are willing to sell land to foreign interests when their own people are hungry is a sad commentary on their leadership. By the end of
2009, hundreds of land acquisition deals had been negotiated, some of them exceeding a million acres. A 2010 World
Bank analysis of these "land grabs" reported that a total of nearly 140 million acres were involved -- an area that exceeds the cropland devoted
to corn and wheat combined in the United States. Such acquisitions also typically involve water rights, meaning that
land grabs potentially affect all downstream countries as well. Any water extracted from the upper Nile River basin to
irrigate crops in Ethiopia or Sudan, for instance, will now not reach Egypt, upending the delicate water politics of the Nile by adding new
countries with which Egypt must negotiate. The potential for conflict -- and not just over water -- is high. Many of the
land deals have been made in secret , and in most cases, the land involved was already in use by villagers when it was sold or
leased. Often those already farming the land were neither consulted about nor even informed of the
new arrangements. And because there typically are no formal land titles in many developing-country villages, the farmers who lost their
land have had little backing to bring their cases to court. Reporter John Vidal, writing in Britain's Observer, quotes Nyikaw Ochalla from
Ethiopia's Gambella region: "The foreign companies are arriving in large numbers, depriving people of land they have used for centuries. There
is no consultation with the indigenous population. The deals are done secretly. The only thing the local people see is people coming with lots of
tractors to invade their lands." Local hostility toward such land grabs is the rule, not the exception. In 2007, as food
prices were starting to rise, China signed an agreement with the Philippines to lease 2.5 million acres of land slated for food crops that would be
shipped home. Once word leaked, the public outcry -- much of it from Filipino farmers -- forced Manila to suspend the agreement. A similar
uproar rocked Madagascar, where a South Korean firm, Daewoo Logistics, had pursued rights to more than 3 million acres of land. Word of
the deal helped stoke a political furor that toppled the government and forced cancellation of the
agreement. Indeed, few things are more likely to fuel insurgencies than taking land from people. Agricultural equipment is
easily sabotaged. If ripe fields of grain are torched, they burn quickly. Not only are these deals risky, but foreign
investors producing food in a country full of hungry people face another political question of how to get the grain out. Will villagers permit
trucks laden with grain headed for port cities to proceed when they themselves may be on the verge of starvation? The potential for
political instability in countries where villagers have lost their land and their livelihoods is high.
Conflicts could easily develop between investor and host countries. These acquisitions represent a potential
investment in agriculture in developing countries of an estimated $50 billion. But it could take many years to realize any substantial production
gains. The public infrastructure for modern market-oriented agriculture does not yet exist in most of Africa. In some countries it will take years
just to build the roads and ports needed to bring in agricultural inputs such as fertilizer and to export farm products. Beyond that, modern
agriculture requires its own infrastructure: machine sheds, grain-drying equipment, silos, fertilizer storage sheds, fuel storage facilities,
equipment repair and maintenance services, well-drilling equipment, irrigation pumps, and energy to power the pumps. Overall, development
of the land acquired to date appears to be moving very slowly. So how much will all this expand world food output? We don't know, but the
World Bank analysis indicates that only 37 percent of the projects will be devoted to food crops. Most of the land bought up so far will be used
to produce biofuels and other industrial crops. Even if some of these projects do eventually boost land productivity, who will benefit? If virtually
all the inputs -- the farm equipment, the fertilizer, the pesticides, the seeds -- are brought in from abroad and if all the output is shipped out of
the country, it will contribute little to the host country's economy. At best, locals may find work as farm laborers, but in highly mechanized
operations, the jobs will be few. At worst, impoverished countries like Mozambique and Sudan will be left with
less land and water with which to feed their already hungry populations. Thus far the land grabs have
contributed more to stirring unrest than to expanding food production. And this rich country-poor country divide
could grow even more pronounced -- and soon. This January, a new stage in the scramble among importing countries to secure food began to
unfold when South Korea, which imports 70 percent of its grain, announced that it was creating a new public-private entity that will be
responsible for acquiring part of this grain. With an initial office in Chicago, the plan is to bypass the large international trading firms by buying
grain directly from U.S. farmers. As the Koreans acquire their own grain elevators, they may well sign multiyear delivery contracts with farmers,
agreeing to buy specified quantities of wheat, corn, or soybeans at a fixed price. Other importers will not stand idly by as South Korea tries to
tie up a portion of the U.S. grain harvest even before it gets to market. The enterprising Koreans may soon be joined by China, Japan, Saudi
Arabia, and other leading importers. Although South Korea's initial focus is the United States, far and away the world's largest grain exporter, it
may later consider brokering deals with Canada, Australia, Argentina, and other major exporters. This is happening just as China may be on the
verge of entering the U.S. market as a potentially massive importer of grain. With China's 1.4 billion increasingly affluent consumers starting to
compete with U.S. consumers for the U.S. grain harvest, cheap food, seen by many as an American birthright, may be coming to an end. No one
knows where this intensifying competition for food supplies will go, but the world seems to be moving away from the
international cooperation that evolved over several decades following World War II to an every-
country-for-itself philosophy. Food nationalism may help secure food supplies for individual affluent
countries, but it does little to enhance world food security. Indeed, the low-income countries that host
land grabs or import grain will likely see their food situation deteriorate. AFTER THE CARNAGE of two world wars
and the economic missteps that led to the Great Depression, countries joined together in 1945 to create the United Nations, finally realizing
that in the modern world we cannot live in isolation, tempting though that might be. The International Monetary Fund was created to help
manage the monetary system and promote economic stability and progress. Within the U.N. system, specialized agencies from the World
Health Organization to the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) play major roles in the world today. All this has fostered international
cooperation. But while the FAO collects and analyzes global agricultural data and provides technical
assistance, there is no organized effort to ensure the adequacy of world food supplies . Indeed, most
international negotiations on agricultural trade until recently focused on access to markets, with the United States, Canada, Australia, and
Argentina persistently pressing Europe and Japan to open their highly protected agricultural markets. But in the first decade of this century,
access to supplies has emerged as the overriding issue as the world transitions from an era of food surpluses to a new politics of food scarcity.
At the same time, the U.S. food aid program that once worked to fend off famine wherever it threatened has largely been replaced by the U.N.
World Food Program (WFP), where the United States is the leading donor. The WFP now has food-assistance operations in some 70 countries
and an annual budget of $4 billion. There is little international coordination otherwise. French President Nicolas Sarkozy -- the
reigning president of the G-20 -- is proposing to deal with rising food prices by curbing speculation in commodity markets. Useful though this
may be, it treats the symptoms of growing food insecurity, not the causes, such as population growth and climate change. The world now
needs to focus not only on agricultural policy, but on a structure that integrates it with energy,
population, and water policies, each of which directly affects food security. But that is not happening.
Instead, as land and water become scarcer, as the Earth's temperature rises, and as world food
security deteriorates, a dangerous geopolitics of food scarcity is emerging. Land grabbing, water
grabbing, and buying grain directly from farmers in exporting countries are now integral parts of a
global power struggle for food security. With grain stocks low and climate volatility increasing, the risks are also increasing.
We are now so close to the edge that a breakdown in the food system could come at any time. Consider,
for example, what would have happened if the 2010 heat wave that was centered in Moscow had instead been centered in Chicago. In round
numbers, the 40 percent drop in Russia's hoped-for harvest of roughly 100 million tons cost the world 40 million tons of grain, but a 40 percent
drop in the far larger U.S. grain harvest of 400 million tons would have cost 160 million tons. The world's carryover stocks of grain (the amount
in the bin when the new harvest begins) would have dropped to just 52 days of consumption. This level would have been not only the lowest on
record, but also well below the 62-day carryover that set the stage for the 2007-2008 tripling of world grain prices. Then what? There would
have been chaos in world grain markets. Grain prices would have climbed off the charts. Some grain-exporting countries, trying to hold down
domestic food prices, would have restricted or even banned exports, as they did in 2007 and 2008. The TV news would have been dominated
not by the hundreds of fires in the Russian countryside, but by footage of food riots in low-income grain-importing countries and reports of
governments falling as hunger spread out of control. Oil-exporting countries that import grain would have been trying to barter oil for grain,
and low-income grain importers would have lost out. With governments toppling and confidence in the world grain
market shattered, the global economy could have started to unravel. We may not always be so lucky.
At issue now is whether the world can go beyond focusing on the symptoms of the deteriorating food
situation and instead attack the underlying causes. If we cannot produce higher crop yields with less
water and conserve fertile soils, many agricultural areas will cease to be viable. And this goes far beyond
farmers. If we cannot move at wartime speed to stabilize the climate, we may not be able to avoid runaway food prices. If we cannot
accelerate the shift to smaller families and stabilize the world population sooner rather than later, the
ranks of the hungry will almost certainly continue to expand. The time to act is now -- before the food
crisis of 2011 becomes the new normal.



2AC T
The AFF legalizes all of marihuana thats illegal in the status quothey havent made a
coherent warrant for their violation or why we make more than 2 exceptions

Its in the plan text

No warrant for specification in the 1NCif its in the block we get new answers

Reasonabilitycompetinting interpretations causes a race to the bottom and
substance crowd out which turns their offense
2AC CP

Cooperative enforcement doesnt resolve the chilling effect set in by federal
prohibition
Nelson, former Office of the Comptroller of the Currency enforcement counsel, 2014
(Travis, United States: Legalized Marijuana Guidance Leaves Some Banks Dazed and Confused, 2-22,
http://www.mondaq.com/unitedstates/x/294914/Financial+Services/Legalized+Marijuana+Guidance+Le
aves+Some+Banks+Dazed+and+Confused, ldg)

Despite the above attempts to provide direction and clarity for financial institutions in states where
the sale of marijuana has been legalized, some in the banking industry remain unconvinced. According to a
recent Wall Street Journal report, some of the nation's largest banks have existing policies not to provide banking
services to marijuana businesses. See "Banks to be Allowed to do Business With Marijuana Dispensaries," Andrew Grossman, Wall Street Journal (Feb.
14, 2014). Frank Keating, president of the American Bankers Association, has said that the Guidance "doesn't alter the underlying
challenge for banks," and that: "As it stands, possession or distribution of marijuana violates federal
law, and banks that provide support for those activities face the risk of prosecution and assorted
sanctions." Id. Sen. Charles Grassley of Iowa, the ranking Republican on the Senate Judiciary Committee, has called the Cole Memorandum "encouraging an
improper use of prosecutorial discretion." Id. The American Bankers Association has expressed further skepticism that
mere guidance will give financial institutions the level of comfort required to open themselves up to
marijuana businesses. According to the Association, "Because marijuana is illegal under federal statute, guidance
alone isn't enough. There's a great deal of guidance that banks would want to see in terms of banking with these types of businesses but guidance alone
doesn't change the fundamental prohibition. In order for banks to be comfortable banking marijuana businesses, the
federal statute must be changed by Congress. It's also important to recognize that while guidance for marijuana businesses might help,
guidance also can be changed overnight. Similarly, even though regulatory modifications would be less subject to change,
regulations cannot overturn federal statute only Congress can change the law. The only way to
eliminate the risk of criminal prosecution for banks is if Congress changes federal statute." One possible
legislative remedy is currently pending in Congress the Marijuana Businesses Access to Banking Act of 2013 (H.R. 2652) sponsored by Rep. Perlmutter (CO 7).
This bill would do the following, among other things: (a) prohibit a federal banking regulator from terminating an institution's deposit insurance, or prohibiting,
penalizing, or otherwise discouraging an institution, based on the institution's services to marijuana-related legitimate businesses; (b) prohibit a federal banking
regulator from recommending, motivating, or encouraging a financial institution not to offer services to an operator of a marijuana-related legitimate businesses; (c)
prohibit a federal banking regulator from taking any action on a loan to an owner or operator of a marijuana-related legitimate business or real estate related to
such business; (d) grant immunity from federal prosecution or investigation to an institution providing services to marijuana-related legitimate businesses; and (e)
prohibit the Treasury Department from requiring reporting (e.g., SARs) solely because the transaction involves a marijuana-related legitimate business. These
provisions are designed to prevent federal regulators from interfering with marijuana-related legitimate businesses merely because they are in that industry.
However, the bill would not prevent regulators from taking action based on such businesses' involvement in other criminal activity. Moreover, the bill would not
prevent financial institutions from determining on their own that involvement with such businesses is too risky. The bill has 27 co sponsors, but has not made it out
of committee. In considering whether to provide financial services to marijuana-related businesses in states
where it has been legalized, institutions must consider not only the policies and guidance outlined
above, but also the substantial reputational risk management that involvement with such businesses
carries . While there are strong opinions underlying the marijuana legalization debate, both sides would likely agree that providing banking services to such
businesses carries heightened compliance and reputational risk. Moreover, while the Cole Memorandum and the FinCEN
Guidance have attempted to provide direction for institutions in how to deal with marijuana-related
businesses in a manner that comports with safety and soundness, and complies with the BSA, it also puts
institutions in the potentially awkward and uncertain position of having to apply federal law
enforcement policies and priorities to their customers' activities . Rather than the clarity provided by a policy that absolutely
prohibits involvement with customers engaged in illegal drug activities, the FinCEN Guidance places on institutions the burden of
having to make subjective judgment calls about the nature and risk of its customers' activities in a
decidedly hazy area. While this sort of risk assessment function is nothing new to financial institutions,
when such is being applied against the backdrop of clear anti-drug statutes and a public that is
increasingly scrutinizing financial institutions' activities and third-party relationships many
institutions may find any prospect of serving this new market simply go up in smoke.

This makes the industry small and sporadic by chilling banking and legal participation
Kamin, Denver constitutional rights professor, 2014
(Sam, COOPERATIVE FEDERALISM AND STATE MARIJUANA REGULATION, Fall, University of Colorado
Law Review, lexis, ldg)

But the second Cole memo did not-and no similar memorandum could-remove the ancillary consequences of
marijuana remaining a Schedule I narcotic under the CSA. As marijuana-law reform moves from a focus on medical use to an increasing
emphasis on adult or recreational use, it confronts the consequences of marijuana's continuing federal prohibition. This Part sets forth some of the principal
problems caused by marijuana's continued prohibition before turning to a solution in the next Part. A. Consequences for the Industry 1. Contracting Because
marijuana remains illegal at the federal level, much of the predictability that comes from enforceable
contracts is unavailable to marijuana practitioners. In 2012, for example, an Arizona state court refused to
enforce a loan agreement between two Arizona residents and a Colorado marijuana dispensary on the basis that the
contract was void as against public policy. 33 Although this ruling had the effect of providing a windfall to the illegally-operating dispensary, the court felt itself
without recourse; so long as the trafficking of marijuana remains illegal under federal law, contracts designed to facilitate that conduct remain void. This
result reminds us why the enforceability of contracts is important not just to the parties but to society
more generally. When those who have loaned $500,000 (the amount in issue in the Arizona case) to a
cash business find themselves without recourse to the courts, they might be tempted to engage in
what the law euphemistically refers to as "self-help." Everyone is better off when contracts are enforced by courts rather than by
individuals with an ax to grind. Marijuana businesses are also currently denied one of the most basic of business
needs: access to banking services . As has been widely reported, 34 threats of money-laundering prosecution from the
federal government 35 have made banks gun-shy about lending to marijuana businesses. Currently, in
Colorado, no bank will do business with marijuana businesses. 36 There are many negative
consequences of withholding banking services from marijuana businesses. Principally, the lack of banking services
keeps marijuana businesses operating in the shadows of society. As cash businesses, they are targets
for violent crime. Faced with this ever-present threat, marijuana business operators are left with a
Hobson's choice: they can either remain cash businesses and accept the risk and stigma that comes with that, or
they can attempt to bank surreptitiously, through the use of their personal accounts or holding companies
designed to purge the taint of marijuana transactions. These latter options, of course, open practitioners to the same
threat of money-laundering charges that led to the unavailability of banking services in the first place. The governors of Colorado and
Washington appealed to the federal government for assistance with this problem, 37 and in February of 2014 the Department of Justice and
the Department of Treasury's Financial Crimes Enforcement Network released memos purporting to permit banks to
do business with those in the marijuana industry . 38 However, the banking memos, like the second
Cole memo which preceded it, stopped short of removing the specter of future enforcement actions .
39 One leading bank official was immediately quoted as saying, " We're still not going to bank them."40 The legal minefield
described in the previous Section calls out for experienced legal counsel to help marijuana
practitioners negotiate the complicated, ever-changing web of marijuana rules and regulations.
Marijuana's continuing illegality makes the provision of these legal services particularly fraught , however.
As long as marijuana remains a prohibited substance-and as long as the CSA continues to criminalize
those who aid and abet marijuana distribution or join in a conspiracy to distribute it-lawyers who
assist their marijuana clients in setting up or running marijuana businesses necessarily put themselves
at risk. Although the second Cole memo declares that states decriminalizing marijuana would generally be permitted to enforce marijuana laws themselves,
the specter of federal prosecution of marijuana lawyers for aiding and abetting the illegal conduct of
their clients continues to loom. Model Rule of Professional Conduct 1.2(d)41 and its state analogs prohibit attorneys from knowingly facilitating
criminal conduct. A literal reading of that rule would preclude a lawyer from providing any assistance-e.g., drafting contracts, negotiating leases-to clients whom the
attorney knows are engaged in on-going violations of the CSA. In fact, there is a split of authority among those states that have considered whether providing legal
services to the marijuana industry violates a lawyer's obligations under the rules of professional responsibility. 42 Colorado, having previously found such conduct to
violate its state ethics rules, 43 later amended those rules to explicitly permit lawyers to serve marijuana industry clients. 44 As I have argued elsewhere, I believe
that other, countervailing policy considerations argue against such a literal reading of Rule 1.2(d) and its state-law equivalents. 45 Because states that are legalizing
marijuana-either for medical patients or for adult users-are creating a complex regulatory apparatus, fairness requires the assistance of lawyers in navigating that
system. Without the assistance of competent counsel, a state regulatory regime becomes a trap for the
unwary. Furthermore, denying competent legal counsel to those engaged in the marijuana industry
can have profound distributive effects. Powerful actors will be able either to secure legal assistance or
to proceed without it; those without the same means will necessarily be disadvantaged and subject to
considerable risk. Nonetheless, marijuana's continuing federal illegality means that attorneys may be
unwilling to serve those who are in critical need of legal services.
[Note-federal prohibition means no lawyers which disproportionately impacts small businesses]



Perm do the CP


Illicit markets will exist after the CP AND states will not enforce the waivers
Kleiman, UCLA public policy professor, 2013
(Mark, Marijuana Legalization: Are There Alternatives To State-Federal Conflict?, 4-15,
http://www.brookings.edu/~/media/events/2013/4/15%20marijuana/20130415_marijuana_federalism
_transcript.pdf, ldg)

So Washington as much as Colorado is a threat to become the national supplier of cannabis, as California, somebody is under its quasi-medical marijuana system.
But not because of Initiative 502 which legalized the commercial system, which will be fairly tightly regulated and fairly heavily taxed. Its, in fact, the medical
system which preexisted this legislation thats unregulated and untaxed. And, in fact, one of the issues for the Liquor Control Board is whether the taxed and
regulated system will be able to compete with either the fully illicit system or the untaxed and unregulated medical system. Its an interesting fact about the politics
of cannabis legalization that the advocates of I-502 are now thinking about, whoa, maybe we need some rules. Maybe there needs to be a regulatory authority over
this medical system because, after all, they promised the voters a lot of revenue and theyre not going to get any if you can simply go to your collective garden and
get your cannabis for much less than its likely to sell for in the state stores. So its going to be an interesting journey. And its not fully clear to me
that simply entering into a cooperative enforcement agreement is going to solve the problem unless
the states are prepared to do what their voters were promised they wouldnt have to do. One of the
premises of these legalization issues was lets take law enforcement resources out of the cannabis
sector and start enforcing the laws we really care about. But it seems to me, at least in the first few years, its
going to require more law enforcement to support a taxed and regulated market in the face of
untaxed and unregulated threats to it, then its taken up till now. And whether the states will actually enter into
that agreement seems to me an interesting question. Whether they have the capacity to keep it given
-- its true that most law enforcement is federal -- Im sorry, state and local rather than federal, but most state and local law enforcement is very distinctly local.
Its not obvious to me that the Washington State Police, even if they wanted to, could shut down
what goes on. So if a cooperative enforcement agreement were entered into, and I think its a serious
idea, itd still be somewhat unsatisfactory because it would leave people doing whats legal under
state law committing felonies under federal law. And there could be a published policy that that
particular federal felony is a low enforcement priority, but thats not a legal defense. MR. RAUCH: Is there
a better approach? Whats your first choice? MR. KLEIMAN: Well, the first choice might be to legalize the substance
nationally. I dont think the countrys ready for that, but if I had to guess, Ive been predicting for a couple of years now that wed have full national cannabis
legalization sometime in Hillary Clintons second term. (Laughter) And that still seems to me like about the right guess. Not plausible now. An alternative, again, I
think not plausible now, but the right thing to do now, would be to have statutory authority not merely to enter
into a cooperative enforcement agreement, but to actually legalize at the federal level whats done
under state law for a state which has presented to the federal government a plan for how its going to
keep its cannabis in state rather than becoming a national supplier. So this would be the cannabis equivalent of the welfare
reform waiver policy. MR. RAUCH: And why is that better than doing it through a contract between the AG and the
states? MR. KLEIMAN: Because then the grower and the seller would be legal rather than merely hoping
they didnt get busted. MR. RAUCH: So you have a clear, safe harbor, which gives you a stronger incentive
to stay in the legal market and out of the gray market . MR. KLEIMAN: And then the bank that you want to
deposit your money in wouldnt have to worry about whether its teller was going to get a 20- year
sentence for violating the money laundering laws. MR. RAUCH: And that requires congressional action. MR. KLEIMAN: That
would require congressional action. We have an expert on congressional action here.

CP encourages tax evasion which doesnt solve state revenue
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


Permhave the justice department negotiate the agreement and have nearly all
states comply

The perm has the attorney general offer agreements and nearly all states agree to it
solves the net benefit without severing the USs legalization.

CEA links to politics.
Wenner, Rolling Stone publisher, 2014
(Jann, Obama's Pot Breakthrough, 3-5, http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/obamas-pot-
breakthrough-20140305, ldg)

This support is not unqualified. As Holder made clear last August, states will need to prove that they can manage
the shift to a legal regulatory system without increasing adolescent marijuana use or creating a flood
of illegal exports to jurisdictions that still prohibit pot. The White House's message to foreign governments is likely similar: Reassure
us that legalization will not increase trafficking to other countries or undermine U.S. security interests and we will not object. The president is a
cautious man. Which is why it is all the more remarkable that Obama has stepped forward on this hot-
button social issue before nearly any U.S. senator or sitting governor has had the gumption to do so. In
one sense, Obama is meeting the people where they already are: Fifty-five percent of Americans now support marijuana
legalization. But just because the policy is popular does not mean that Obama's move is easy or cost-
free. Police organizations have protested vigorously; the drug czar and DEA chief are nonplused; and
Republicans in Congress have questioned the administration's legal authority to disregard federal
marijuana law.

States have an incentive to ignore federal prioritiesthis means the waivers get rolled
back.
Taylor, Brooking nonresident senior fellow, 2013
(Stuart, Marijuana Legalization: Are There Alternatives To State-Federal Conflict?, 4-15,
http://www.brookings.edu/~/media/events/2013/4/15%20marijuana/20130415_marijuana_federalism
_transcript.pdf, ldg)

MR. RAUCH: One of the things you and others suggest, well talk about this, is the critical importance of
controlling the flow of marijuana across state lines. Suppose it turns out the states either cannot or
will not do that effectively? Whats the fallback position? Are we back where we started? MR. TAYLOR: I think we may
be back where we started, I mean, unless the legalization surge in public opinion just sweeps aside the
federal restrictions themselves . But the federal government, as the law stands now, has a very legitimate interest in making sure that Colorado
and Washington dont become -- replace, say, Mexico or wherever as medical suppliers to the other states. All of the things -- you know, theyre not -- and nobodys
expecting the federal government to throw up its hands and say were not going to regulate marijuana anymore. So I think its vital that the states,
if they want the federal government to take an accommodating response, its vital for the states to
demonstrate that they can prevent exports. And also, its vital -- you know, theres a certain state
interest in exporting. I mean, itd bring a lot of money into Colorado if Colorado became the central
export point for marijuana across the country, tax money as well as money for marijuana businesses.
And, therefore, you can expect the federal government would look with a skeptical eye on whether the
states were, A, trying hard enough and, B, succeeding well enough at preventing leakage across state
lines. MR. RAUCH: Now, if I understand, you are saying this is not just the federal government giving a free ride to the states. The states very much have to be
very proactive and serious about regulating this. No kidding, guys, is essentially your message to the states. MR. TAYLOR: The only way one can
imagine the federal government doing what Ive suggested it should do is if the states show that they
can be trusted to do their part.


Fresh Water 2AC

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

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

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

Freshwater biodiversity is the over-riding conservation priority during the International Decade for Action Water for Life
2005 to 2015. Fresh water makes up only 0.01% of the Worlds water and approximately 0.8 % of the Earths surface, yet this tiny fraction of global water
supports at least 100 000 species out of approximately 1.8 million almost 6 % of all described species. Inland waters and freshwater
biodiversity constitute a valuable natural resource, in economic, cultural, aesthetic, scientic and educational terms. Their
conservation and management are critical to the interests of all humans, nations and governments. Yet this precious heritage is in crisis. Fresh
waters are experiencing declines in biodiversity far greater than those in the most aected terrestrial ecosystems, and if trends in human demands for water remain unaltered and species losses continue at current rates, the
opportunity to conserve much of the remaining biodiversity in fresh water will vanish before the Water for Life decade ends in 2015. Why is this so, and what is being done about it? This article explores the special features of
freshwater habitats and the biodiversity they support that makes them especially vulnerable to human activities. We document threats to global freshwater biodiversity under ve headings : overexploitation; water pollution ; ow
modication; destruction or degradation of habitat; and invasion by exotic species. Their combined and interacting inuences have resulted in population declines and range reduction of freshwater biodiversity worldwide.
Conservation of biodiversity is complicated by the landscape position of rivers and wetlands as receivers of land-use euents, and the problems posed by endemism and thus non-substitutability. In addition, in many parts of the
world, fresh water is subject to severe competition among multiple human stakeholders. Protection of freshwater biodiversity is perhaps the ultimate conservation challenge because it is inuenced by the upstream drainage
network, the surrounding land, the riparian zone, and in the case of migrating aquatic fauna downstream reaches. Such prerequisites are hardly ever met. Immediate action is needed where opportunities exist to set aside intact
lake and river ecosystems within large protected areas. For most of the global land surface, trade-os between conservation of freshwater biodiversity
and human use of ecosystem goods and services are necessary. We advocate continuing attempts to check species loss but, in many situations, urge adoption of a
compromise position of management for biodiversity conservation, ecosystem functioning and resilience, and human livelihoods in order to provide a viable long-term basis for freshwater conservation. Recognition of this need will
require adoption of a new paradigm for biodiversity protection and freshwater ecosystem management one that has been appropriately termed reconciliation ecology. I. INTRODUCTION In December 2003, the United Nations
General Assembly adopted resolution 58/217 proclaiming 2005 to 2015 as an International Decade for Action Water for Life. The resolution calls for a greater focus on water issues and development eorts, and recommits
countries to achieving the water-related goals of the 2000 Millennium Declaration and of Agenda 21: in particular, to halve by 2015 the proportion of people lacking access to safe drinking water and basic sanitation. These
are vitally important matters, yet their importance should not obscure the fact that the Water for Life resolution comes at a time when the biodiversity and biological resources of inland waters
are facing unprecedented and growing threats from human activities. The general nature of these threats is known, and they are manifest in all non-polar regions of the Earth, although their relative magnitude varies signicantly
from place to place. Identifying threats has done little, however, to mitigate or alleviate them. This article explores why the transfer of knowledge to conservation action has, in the case of freshwater biodiversity, been largely
unsuccessful. The failure is related to the special features of freshwater habitats and the biodiversity they support that makes them especially vulnerable to human activities. We start by elucidating why freshwater biodiversity
is of outstanding global importance, and briey describe instances where humans have caused rapid and signicant declines in freshwater species and habitats. If trends in human demands for water remain unaltered and species
losses continue at current rates, the opportunity to conserve much of the remaining biodiversity in fresh water will vanish before the Water for Life decade ends. Such opportunity costs will be magnied by a signi- cant loss in
option values of species yet unknown for human use. In addition, these vital ecological and potential nancial losses may well be irreversible. Importantly, eective conservation action will require a major change in attitude toward
freshwater biodiversity and ecosystem management, including general recognition of the catchment as the focal management unit, and greater acceptance of the trade-os between species conservation, overall ecosystem
integrity, and the provision of goods and services to humans. At the same time, it is incumbent upon scientists to communicate eectively that
freshwater biodiversity is the over-riding conservation priority during the Water for Life decade and beyond ; after all,
water is the fundamental resource on which our life-support system depends ( Jackson et al., 2001; Postel & Richter,
2003 ; Clark & King, 2004).
2AC Terror Impact H
No ISIS authorization in lame duck-most likely outcome is they will punt.
Weisman, New York Times, 9-18-14
(Jonathan, Congress Gives Final Approval to Aid Rebels in Fight With ISIS,
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/09/19/world/middleeast/senate-approves-isis-bill-avoiding-bigger-war-
debate.html, ldg)
Lawmakers are deeply divided about whether to simply extend the narrow training authorization or
take up a broader authorization of military force against the Islamic State. Some senators are pressing
to quickly add what is tantamount to a declaration of war to an annual defense policy bill still pending
in the Senate. House leaders adamantly oppose that maneuver, and the leaders of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee
could begin drafting their own authorization of force as soon as next week. This is a big war, said Senator James M. Inhofe of Oklahoma, the ranking Republican on
the Senate Armed Services Committee, who has already drafted an authorization of force. Any time you have a group that can reach 35,000 people, having
doubled that in a matter of a month, just project that forward. Its a big deal. Mr. Inhofe was apparently referring to a C.I.A. assessment that there were 20,000 to
31,500 militants fighting for the Islamic State, an increase from a previous assessment of more than 10,000 fighters. For the senators who are
eyeing the White House, the consequences of a wrong vote on war are not abstract. Hillary Rodham Clintons
vote for the invasion of Iraq when she was a senator opened a lane for the 2008 candidacy of Barack Obama. When Mr. Obama was in the Senate, his antiwar views
helped him shape a distinctive public persona. John Kerrys 2004 campaign for president was crippled by the accusation that he waffled on his vote for the Iraq
invasion with his later criticism of it. In their speeches on Thursday, senators like Mr. Paul and Marco Rubio of Florida, who voted for the measure and is another
possible 2016 contender, were looking far beyond the vote. Amid the interventionists disjointed and frankly incoherent rhetoric, said Mr. Paul, the only
consistent theme is war. These barnacled enablers have never met a war they didnt like. Mr. Rubio, a fiscal hawk who has al ways voted against short-term
spending bills because he says they are the wrong way to fund the government, found himself squeezed between that principle and his position as the leader of the
2016 interventionist wing. We are asked to decide things in this chamber that are in the best interest of our country, he said, even if they did not work out the
way we wanted them to. Democrats touted as possible presidential candidates who voted no included Senator Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts and Senator
Kirsten E. Gillibrand of New York. The issue of military intervention in Syria is likely to resurface shortly after the
midterms. Members of both parties are calling for a vote then on a use-of-force resolution that would
have far broader implications than the one approved on Thursday. Many liberal Democrats and conservative Republicans
agree that the administrations justification for using force today the congressional authorization for using force granted after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks is
specious. We are living on borrowed time and we are traveling on vapors, said Senator Richard J. Durbin of Illinois, the No. 2-ranking Democrat, arguing on
Thursday that the old authorization had long expired. Neither Senator Robert Menendez, chairman of the Senate Foreign
Relations Committee, nor Representative Ed Royce of California, chairman of House Foreign Affairs
Committee, appeared ready to rush an authorization of force through their panels . If Republicans
take control of the Senate in November, wounded Democrats will be in no mood to take on such a
weighty issue, and triumphant Republicans will not want to bind the coming Republican Congress
with a lame-duck resolution. House members in both parties will oppose efforts to add a use-of-force
authorization to the Senate defense bill, arguing they would be given no chance to amend it or debate
it as an issue separate from the broader military policy measure. Instead, Congress is likely to tuck an
extension of the Syrian rebel training authority into the defense policy bill, said Representative Adam Smith of
Washington, the ranking Democrat on the House Armed Services Committee. If that cannot be completed, Congress might simply
pass another stopgap spending bill that automatically carried the training resolution forward.

Nothing happens in the lame duck
Sherman 9/10 (Jake, Politico, The lamest lame-duck session, http://www.politico.com/story/2014/09/congress-lame-duck-session-
110780.html)
December will be the lamest lame-duck session in a long time. Senate Democrats and House
Republicans are privately saying that the post-election work period will be completely uneventful, a
marked shift from the past two lame-duck sessions, which resulted in a pair of major fiscal deals. Aside from
renewing government funding in the beginning of the month, Republican and Democratic sources
privately say nothing else major such as immigration, tax or entitlement reform will happen. Both sides arent
even pretending a big legislative push is in the offing. The most recent attempt to ensure that the lame duck lives up to
its name came Tuesday when House Republicans said they will extend the Export-Import Banks charter until 2015, avoiding a December fight
over what many conservatives call corporate welfare. Rather than *have it+ be until the CR expires in December, it will be June 30 for Ex-Im
reauthorization, Appropriations Chairman Hal Rogers (R-Ky.) said Tuesday. Theres sure to be hemming and hawing from
commentators that Washington is, again, punting and missing a good opportunity to make progress on
vital national issues. But theres good news for lawmakers and their staff: It looks like D.C. will get its Christmas and
New Years back after several lame-duck sessions that went until the last minute. That Washington is
expecting a near silent winter is a result of the uncertainty about the power structure in the next
Congress . If Republicans take the Senate, they wont likely want to cooperate in December. If
Democrats maintain control of the chamber, the political gridlock will remain frozen. There is only one deadline
and it is in the beginning of the month. The incentives simply arent in place to make December big and bold. (Full
2014 election results) Intricate political calculations are being made behind the scenes. For example, House Republicans are being
careful not to place any legislative fights in the opening months of 2015 they dont want
Republicans to have a rocky start if they snatch the Senate majority. There isnt much talk about the post-election
period in closed House Republican Conference strategy sessions. In fact, House Republicans who know they will remain in power
come January are so bullish on their party controlling the Senate, most of their internal planning is
predicated on Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) becoming the majority leader in January. There have even been private
conversations about a closed-door Senate-House policy retreat to develop an agenda if the party grabs control from Harry Reid (D-Nev.). They
are privately fretting that Reid will push through a number of nominations if he loses the Senate. The lame-duck plans or lack
thereof were laid out by several top-level sources in both parties, and preview a December very different than in
2012 and 2010. In 2010, after Republicans pummeled Democrats to take control of the House, President Barack Obama and congressional
leaders cut a deal to extend the Bush-era tax rates for all Americans. And in 2012, shortly after Mitt Romney and Rep. Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) lost
the presidency, Congress narrowly averted the so-called fiscal cliff of steep tax increases and a government shutdown. Republicans agreed to
raise taxes on wealthy Americans just before midnight on New Years Eve.


Obama is angering both supporters and opponents of legalization now by towing the
linethe plan resolves this.
Hotakainen, the Olympian, 2014
(Rob, Lawmakers rankled by Obamas weed waffling, 2-9,
http://www.theolympian.com/2014/02/09/2974120_lawmakers-rankled-by-obamas-weed.html?rh=1,
ldg)

But while the Justice Department promotes the plan, the Obama team is making it clear that it has no
interest in changing the federal law that sends many nonviolent drug offenders to prison in the first
place: the one that outlaws marijuana. On Tuesday, the presidents deputy drug czar, Michael Botticelli, told the House Subcommittee on
Government Operations that while the administration wants to help more marijuana offenders get treatment, it wont move to legalize the drug. This opposition is
driven by medical science and research, he said. For critics, its another example of the confusion thats passing for
marijuana policy these days in Washington. Its increasing pressure on Obama and his advisers to
deliver a consistent message. Legalization opponents say the president should listen to his drug and
science experts, who warn that marijuana is highly addictive and a threat to the developing brains of teenagers. Pro-pot
backers want the president to cancel marijuanas classification as a Schedule 1 narcotic the same category as
heroin and LSD. They note that 20 states and the District of Columbia have approved the use of marijuana as medicine and that many studies have shown that
marijuana is far less addictive and unhealthy than other drugs, including alcohol and tobacco. It is ludicrous, absurd, crazy to have marijuana at the same level as
heroin, Democratic Rep. Steve Cohen of Tennessee told Botticelli. Ask the late Philip Seymour Hoffman the actor who died of an apparent heroin overdose
Sunday in New York if you could. Nobody dies from marijuana; people die from heroin. Democrats and Republicans alike are getting
impatient with the mixed messages. Republican Rep. John Mica of Florida, the chairman of the subcommittee, complained that the president
and his team are going in different directions. Unfortunately, theres chaos as it relates to where were going and
what our policy is. I call it a schizophrenic approach, said Mica, whod called the hearing. He said Congress wanted answers because 50 federal
agencies administered 76 programs aimed at drug abuse and prevention.

No backlash
Sterling, Criminal Justice Policy Foundation president, 2014
(Eric, Republican-Controlled House Backs Obama Rules Enabling Marijuana Banking, 7-16,
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/eric-e-sterling/republican-controlled-hou_b_5593055.html, ldg)
The Obama Administration, realizing that this increased the risk of robbery and undermined effective
accounting practices, issued "guidance" on Feb. 14, 2014, to enable banks to start taking deposits of cash
from marijuana businesses, even recreational marijuana businesses. The Treasury Department guidance can be found here. But the banks remained
very leery of breaking federal law. U. S. Rep. John Fleming (R-Louisiana) was outraged by the Obama initiative. He offered an
amendment that would block the Obama Administration's guidance to the banks. But on Wednesday afternoon,
the Republican-controlled U.S. House of Representatives voted to uphold the Obama Administration
regulations to let marijuana growers and sellers deposit their revenue in federally regulated banks. The 186 Yes -- 236 NO
vote defeated Fleming's amendment. This is HUGE. Even though most Republicans (179) voted yes with Dr. Fleming, the Republican
leadership allowed this vote to support the Obama Administration. Obama, many Republicans (46)
and the House Democrats (190 out of 199) are united that where marijuana growers and sellers are
legally operating under state medical marijuana and recreational marijuana laws, they can use the
banking system they have been excluded from since 1986. In 1986, when I was counsel to the House Judiciary Committee, I played a major role in
developing the Money Laundering Control Act of 1986. That law provided that anyone who engaged in a transaction like making a bank deposit of more than
$10,000 from an illegal business, like a marijuana store, could go to prison for up to 10 years (Section 1352 of the Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 1986, P.L. 99-570, Oct. 27,
1986 (18 U.S.C. 1957)). That was then! Today's vote to allow marijuana businesses to use banks was by a bigger
margin of victory than the June 30 vote barring the DEA from interfering with medical marijuana in
states where it is legal, and this vote included recreational marijuana.


Regional support is key to beating ISIS, but unsustainable and unlikely
Kaye 9/15 (Dalia, Center for Middle East Public Policy at the RAND Corporation, The U.S. Cant Count on Regional Support in the Fight
Against ISIS, http://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2014/09/15/does-the-us-have-allies-it-needs-to-fight-isis/the-us-cant-count-on-
regional-support-in-the-fight-against-isis)
Sunni regional support is essential to confront ISIS, delegitimize its extremist ideology and drain its
reservoirs of support . But, short-term pledges aside, a sustainable regional coalition in support of U.S.
military and political objectives is unlikely. The Arab states could pay a severe price if expanded
military action further exacerbates instability and displacement in the region. Within the regions
majority Sunni population, resentment of perceived Iranian and Shiite gains since the 2003 Iraq war still lingers.
Unsurprisingly, the Arab states view the ISIS challenges to Iranian-supported governments in Baghdad and
Damascus ambivalently: they recognize ISIS ultimately poses a threat to their own authority, but they also
welcome anything that diminishes Irans regional influence. It will not be easy to convince Sunni-led
governments, already wary of U.S. interventions and intentions, to commit to a long-term fight
against one of the few groups seen as capable of inflicting blows on Iran and its partners. Internal
constraints will also limit how far allies can go in supporting the anti-ISIS coalition. Turkey, always
concerned about growing Kurdish autonomy, also has to weigh the fate of its hostages held by ISIS
likely a central reason why it has denied the United States access to its airbases. In Jordan, King Abdullah II
will need to balance the countrys assistance of intelligence efforts that can help thwart domestic ISIS
threats with public sentiment that is largely hostile to U.S. regional policy. He is also focused on efforts to rebuild
Gaza. Egypt has indicated limited support because of its need to focus on its own internal challenges,
not to mention broader regional contests playing out in places like Libya where Sunni states are supporting
opposing sides. And all of Syria's neighbors face the daunting challenge of hosting over 3 million Syrian
refugees , an influx that has created unprecedented socio-economic pressures and increased the potential
for further radicalization among vulnerable populations. These countries could pay a severe price if expanded
military action further exacerbates instability and displacement. Regional governments may put some of
their differences aside to help fight ISIS. But in a region rife with turmoil and multiple internal fissures, Washington
cannot count on its confrontation with ISIS as its partners overriding priority.

No real terrorist capabilities cant attack US
Benjamin, 8-17 (Daniel, Hawks exaggerate Islamic State threat to the United States, Boston Globe,
http://www.bostonglobe.com/opinion/2014/08/17/hawks-exaggerate-isis-threat-united-states/yICJ0bpzRhoK88GtauyHLO/story.html)
To judge by the doom-laden prophecies cascading in from Washington, the United States faces a
towering and imminent threat in the form of the militant group calling itself the Islamic State, or ISIS.
They are coming here, Republican Senator Lindsey Graham of South Carolina intoned on Fox News Sunday. I think of an American city in
flames because of the terrorists ability to operate in Syria and Iraq. Senator Grahams friend Senator John McCain is no less alarmist. Calling
for immediate air strikes in Iraq and Syria, he declared, They are getting stronger all the time . . . And their goal . . . is destruction of the United
States of America. Stoking the panic has been a very excitable press. On CNN last week, I was asked if Islamic State fighters represented an
existential threat to the United States. Set aside that absurdity; no terrorist group threatens our existence.
(America has faced one existential threat in modern times the Soviet nuclear arsenal and that is it.) But is the Islamic State (IS) a
huge and menacing terrorist threat? Certainly not to the United States today. The danger to Iraq and its
neighbors is real. The Islamic State has shown itself to be a formidable insurgency. Its focus is on ripping apart Iraq and Syria, sowing sectarian
conflict, and creating in its midst a new jihadist state or caliphate. (That very word seems to incite fearmongers: Every day that goes by, ISIS
builds up its caliphate, and it becomes a direct threat to the United States, said New York Representative Peter King, conjuring an image of a
new Golden Horde with nuclear-tipped scimitars.) If the insurgency grows, and the threat to Jordan or Lebanon increases, we may have to act.
But, for now, its important to understand that even if marauding operatives in Land Cruisers may be humiliating
Iraqs hollowed-out military, that doesnt mean they have genuine terrorist skills. Consider the details: The
Islamic State has never carried out a significant attack outside of its neighborhood. In 2005, when its
operatives were still part of Al Qaeda in Iraq, operatives carried out hotel bombings in Jordan and tried and failed to attack an American
warship in the Red Sea. More recently, four people were killed in an apparent lone-wolf attack at the Jewish museum in Brussels by a young
man trained in Syria. In other words, weve seen no demonstrated ability to carry out the kind of complex
international strike that kills dozens or hundreds, let alone engulfs a US city in flames.

No demand retaliation.
Smith et al., Oklahoma political science professor, 2005
(Hank, United States Public Response to Terrorism: Fault Lines or Bedrock?, January,
http://works.bepress.com/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1000&context=hjsmith, ldg)

Our nal contrasting set of expectations relates to the degree to which the public will support or demand retribution against terrorists and supporting states.
Here our data show that support for using conventional United States military force to retaliate against
terrorists initially averaged above midscale, but did not reach a high level of demand for military action.
Initial support declined signicantly across all demographic and belief categories by the time of our
survey in 2002. Furthermore, panelists both in 2001 and 2002 preferred that high levels of certainty
about culpability (above 8.5 on a scale from zero to ten) be established before taking military action. Again, we nd the weight
of evidence supporting revisionist expectations of public opinion. Overall, these results are inconsistent with the contention that
highly charged events will result in volatile and unstructured responses among mass publics that prove
problematic for policy processes. The initial response to the terrorist strikes demonstrated a broad and consistent shift in public assessments
toward a greater perceived threat from terrorism, and greater willingness to support policies to reduce that threat. But even in the highly charged
context of such a serious attack on the American homeland, the overall public response was quite
measured. On average, the public showed very little propensity to undermine speech protections, and initial willingness to engage in military retaliation
moderated signicantly over the following year. Perhaps most interesting is that the greatest propensity to change beliefs between 2001 and 2002 was evident
among the best-educated and wealthiest of our respondentshardly the expected source of volatility, but in this case they may have represented the leading edge
of belief constraints reasserting their inuence in the rst year following 9/11. This post-9/11 change also reected an increasing delineation of policy preferences
by ideological and partisan positions. Put differently, those whose beliefs changed the most in the year between
surveys also were those with the greatest access to and facility with information (the richest, best educated), and
the nature of the changes was entirely consistent with a structured and coherent pattern of public
beliefs. Overall, we nd these patterns to be quite reassuring, and consistent with the general ndings
of the revisionist theorists of public opinion. Our data suggest that while United States public opinion
may exhibit some fault lines in times of crises, it remains securely anchored in bedrock beliefs


Afghanistan 2AC

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

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

Instabiltiy spreads and causes great power war
Hooman Peimani 2, Senior Research Fellow at the Centre for International Cooperation and Security, Senior International
Relations consultant with the United Nations in Geneva, PhD in International Relations, Failed Transition, Bleak Future?, p. 122-
7
In the short run, the prospect for peace is not very great for the countries of the Caucasus and Central Asia. Many influences have
paved the way for the rise of wars in different forms, ranging from civil wars to regional wars. The situation is ripe, and will
remain so, for instability and war for a predictably long period of time. Only a drastic change in the state of affairs in the two regions could
remove the possibility of such destructive developments, which is a highly unrealistic scenario in the near future. The outbreak of any type of
military conflict for any length of time will be disastrous for the Caucasians and Central Asians, who have experienced sharp
declines in their living standards since independence. Their limited resources and insignificant foreign assistance have
prolonged the transitional period from the old Soviet social and economic system to a form of free-
enterprise economy with its corresponding social system. Apart from the tragic cost of any military
conflict in human lives, such an event will deplete their scarce resources and perpetuate the existing agonizing limbo
between the two economic and social systems. In the absence of adequate resources to complete the already long transitional process, this limbo may well
become their own economic and social system for an unpredictable period of time. The impact of war and instability in the Caucasus or
Central Asia will not be confined to the countries immediately affected. Any local conflict could
escalate and expand to its neighboring countries, only to destabilize its entire respective region.
Furthermore, certain countries with stakes in the stability of Central Asia and/or the Caucasus could well be dragged into such a
conflict, intentionally or unintentionally. Regardless of the form or extent of their intervention in a future major
war, the sheer act of intervention could further escalate the war, increase the human suffering, and plant
the seeds for its further escalation. Needless to say, this could only further contribute to the devastation of all
parties involved and especially of the hosting CA or Caucasian countries. In fact, certain factors could even kindle a military
confrontation between and among the five regional and nonregional states with long-term interests in Central Asia and the Caucasus.
This scenario could potentially destabilize large parts of Asia and Europe. The geographical location of the two
regions as a link between Asia and Europe shared to different extents by Iran, Turkey, and Russia creates a natural geographical
context for the expansion of any regional war involving those states to other parts of Asia and
Europe. Added to this, Iran, China, Turkey, Russia, and the United States all have ties and influence in
parts of Asia and Europe. They are also members of regional organizations such as the Economic Cooperation Organization (Iran and Turkey) or
military organizations such as NATO (Turkey and the United States). These geographical, political, economic and military ties could help expand
any conflict in which they are involved.

2AC K
The case outweighs the K:

1. Warmingit results in ocean acidification and hydrogen sulfide which will result in
planetary extinctiongeological history proves the risk is high-thats Bushnell

Extinction impacts must be prioritized-any alternative frame fails in the context of
public policy
Isaac, political science professor Indiana University, 2002
(Jeffrey, Ends, Means, and Politics, Dissent Magazine, Spring 2002)

Power is not a dirty word or an unfortunate feature of the world. It is the core of politics. Power is the ability to effect outcomes in the world. Politics, in large part,
involves contests over the distribution and use of power. To accomplish anything in the political world, one must attend to
the means that are necessary to bring it about. And to develop such means is to develop, and to exercise, power. To say this is not to say
that power is beyond moral- ity. It is to say that power is not reducible to morality. As writers such as Niccolo Machiavelli, Max Weber, Reinhold Niebuhr, and
Hannah Arendt have taught, an unyielding concern with moral goodness undercuts political responsibility. The concern
may be morally laudable, reflecting a kind of personal integrity, but it suffers from three fatal flaws: (1) It fails to see that the purity of ones
intention does not ensure the achievement of what one intends. Abjuring violence or refusing to make
common cause with morally compromised parties may seem like the right thing; but if such tactics entail
impotence, then it is hard to view them as serving any moral good beyond the clean con- science of their
supporters; (2) it fails to see that in a world of real violence and injustice, moral purity is not simply a
form of powerless- ness; it is often a form of complicity in injustice. This is why, from the standpoint of politicsas opposed to
religionpacifism is always a potentially immoral stand. In categorically repudiating violence, it refuses in principle to
oppose certain violent injustices with any effect; and (3) it fails to see that politics is as much about
unintended consequences as it is about intentions; it is the effects of action, rather than the motives of
action, that is most significant. Just as the alignment with good may engender impotence, it is often
the pursuit of good that generates evil. This is the lesson of communism in the twentieth century: it is
not enough that ones goals be sincere or idealistic; it is equally important, always, to ask about the
effects of pursuing these goals and to judge these effects in pragmatic and historically contextualized
ways. Moral absolutism inhibits this judgment. It alienates those who are not true believers. It promotes
arrogance. And it undermines political effectiveness.

2. Food spikes-they overwhelm normal checks on conflict and collapse the functioning
of states-desperations leads to aggression and miscalculationmultiple regions are on
the brink-thats Klare

FW 2AC

Only evaluate arguments based off the plan text-any alternatives are self-serving and
regressive which makes 2AC predictability and offense impossible-evaluate the
consequences of the AFF and alternative because it is the only wholistic way to
evaluate prior questions.

Concrete Action Key 2AC


Rejection alt will never lead to change
McCormack, Leicester international politics lecturer, 2010
(Tara, Critique, Security and Power: The Political Limits to Emancipatory Approaches, pg 58)

Contemporary critical and emancipatory approaches reject the possibility of reaching an objective evaluation of
the world or social reality because they reject the possibility of differentiating between facts and values.
For the contemporary critical theorists, theory can only ever be for someone and for some purpose. As this is so then quite
logically critical theorists elevate their own values to be the most important aspect of critical theory. As a result of the rejection of the
fact/value distinction we see within the work of contemporary critical theorists a highly unreflective
certainty about the power of their moral position. Critical theorists argue that all theory is normative,
they offer in its place better norms: ones, as we have seen, that will lead to emancipation and will help the marginalised.
The claims made for the central role of the values of the theorist reveal the theoretical limits of critical
and emancipatory theory today. Yet even good or critical theory has no agency, and only political action can
lead to change. Theory does of course play an important role in political change. This must be the first step towards a critical engagement with
contemporary power structures and discourses. In this sense, we can see that it is critical theory that really has the potential to solve problems, unlike problem-
solving theory which seeks only to ensure the smooth functioning of the existing order. Through substantive analysis the critical theorist can transcend the narrow
and conservative boundaries of problem-solving theory by explaining how the problematic arises. Unlike problem-solving theory, critical theory makes claims to be
able to explain why and how the social world functions as it does, it can go beyond the given framework for action. The critical theorist must
therefore be able to differentiate between facts (or social reality) and values , this ability is what marks the critical
theorist apart from the traditional or problem-solving theorists, who cannot, because of their values and commitment to the existing social world, go beyond the
given framework for action. If we cannot differentiate between our desires or values or norms (or our perspective, to put it in Coxs
terms) and actually occurring social and political and historical processes and relationships, it is hard to
see how we can have a critical perspective (Jahn, 1998: 614). Rather, through abolishing this division we can
no longer draw the line between what we would like and everything else, and thereby contemporary
critical theories are as much of a dogma as problem-solving theories. Contemporary critical theorists
are like modern-day alchemists, believing that they can transform the base metal of the unjust
international order into a golden realm of equality and justice through their own words. For contemporary
critical theorists, all that seems that the crucial step towards progress to a better world order is for the
theorist to state that their theory is for the purposes of emancipation and a just world order.
Individual Alts Fail 2AC

Individual rethinking fails -governments obey institutional logics that exist
independently of individuals and constrain decision making
Wight, Sydney IR professor, 2006
(Colin, Agents, Structures and International Relations: Politics as Ontology, pg 48-50)

One important aspect of this relational ontology is that these relations constitute our identity as social actors. According to
this relational model of societies, one is what one is, by virtue of the relations within which one is embedded. A
worker is only a worker by virtue of his/her relationship to his/her employer and vice versa. Our social being is constituted by relations and our social acts
presuppose them. At any particular moment in time an individual may be implicated in all manner of
relations, each exerting its own peculiar causal effects. This lattice-work of relations constitutes the
structure of particular societies and endures despite changes in the individuals occupying them. Thus,
the relations, the structures, are ontologically distinct from the individuals who enter into them. At a minimum, the
social sciences are concerned with two distinct, although mutually interdependent, strata. There is an ontological difference between people and structures:
people are not relations, societies are not conscious agents. Any attempt to explain one in terms of the other should be
rejected. If there is an ontological difference between society and people, however, we need to elaborate on the relationship
between them. Bhaskar argues that we need a system of mediating concepts, encompassing both aspects of the duality of praxis into which active subjects
must fit in order to reproduce it: that is, a system of concepts designating the point of contact between human
agency and social structures. This is known as a positioned practice system. In many respects, the idea of positioned
practice is very similar to Pierre Bourdieus notion of habitus. Bourdieu is primarily concerned with what individuals do in their daily lives. He is keen to
refute the idea that social activity can be understood solely in terms of individual decision-making, or
as determined by surpa-individual objective structures. Bourdieus notion of the habitus can be viewed as a bridge-building exercise across the explanatory gap
between two extremes. Importantly, the notion of a habitus can only be understood in relation to the concept of a social
field. According to Bourdieu, a social field is a network, or a configuration, of objective relations between positions
objectively defined. A social field, then, refers to a structured system of social positions occupied by
individuals and/or institutions the nature of which defines the situation for their occupants. This is a social
field whose form is constituted in terms of the relations which define it as a field of a certain type. A habitus (positioned practices) is a mediating link between
individuals subjective worlds and the socio-cultural world into which they are born and which they share with others. The power of the habitus
derives from the thoughtlessness of habit and habituation, rather than consciously learned rules. The habitus
is imprinted and encoded in a socializing process that commences during early childhood. It is inculcated
more by experience than by explicit teaching. Socially competent performances are produced as a
matter of routine, without explicit reference to a body of codified knowledge, and without the actors necessarily
knowing what they are doing (in the sense of being able adequately to explain what they are doing). As such, the habitus can be seen as the site of internalization
of reality and the externalization of internality. Thus social practices are produced in, and by, the encounter between: (1) the
habitus and its dispositions; (2) the constraints and demands of the socio-cultural field to which the habitus is
appropriate or within; and (3) the dispositions of the individual agents located within both the socio-cultural field and the habitus. When placed within
Bhaskars stratified complex social ontology the model we have is as depicted in Figure 1. The explanation of practices will require all three levels. Society, as
field of relations, exists prior to, and is independent of, individual and collective understandings at any
particular moment in time; that is, social action requires the conditions for action. Likewise, given that behavior is seemingly
recurrent, patterned, ordered, institutionalised, and displays a degree of stability over time, there must be sets of
relations and rules that govern it. Contrary to individualist theory, these relations, rules and roles are not
dependent upon either knowledge of them by particular individuals, or the existence of actions by
particular individuals; that is, their explanation cannot be reduced to consciousness or to the attributes of
individuals. These emergent social forms must possess emergent powers. This leads on to arguments for the reality of society based on a causal criterion.
Society, as opposed to the individuals that constitute it, is, as Foucault has put it, a complex and independent reality
that has its own laws and mechanisms of reaction, its regulations as well as its possibility of disturbance. This new
reality is societyIt becomes necessary to reflect upon it, upon its specific characteristics, its constants and its variables.

A2: Methodology

Method focus causes scholarly gridlock
Jackson, American University School of International Service IR associate professor, 2011
(Patrick Thadeus, The Conduct of Inquiry in International Relations, p. 57-59)

Perhaps the greatest irony of this instrumental, decontextualized importation of falsification and its critics into IR is
the way that an entire line of thought that privileged disconfirmation and refutationno matter how complicated that disconfirmation and
refutation was in practicehas been transformed into a license to worry endlessly about foundational
assumptions. At the very beginning of the effort to bring terms such as paradigm to bear on the study of
politics, Albert O. Hirschman (1970b, 338) noted this very danger, suggesting that without a little more reverence for life
and a little less straightjacketing of the future, the focus on producing internally consistent packages of assumptions
instead of actually examining complex empirical situations would result in scholarly paralysis. Here as elsewhere,
Hirschman appears to have been quite prescient, inasmuch as the major effect of paradigm and research
programme language in IR seems to have been a series of debates and discussions about whether the
fundamentals of a given school of thought were sufficiently scientific in their construction. Thus we have debates about
how to evaluate scientific progress, and attempts to propose one or another set of research design principles
as uniquely scientific, and inventive, reconstructions of IR schools, such as Patrick James elaborated structural realism, supposedly for the
purpose of placing them on a firmer scientific footing by making sure that they have all of the required
elements of a basically Lakatosian19 model of science (James 2002, 67, 98103). The bet with all of this scholarly activity seems to be that if
we can just get the fundamentals right, then scientific progress will inevitably ensue . . . even though this is the precise opposite of what
Popper and Kuhn and Lakatos argued! In fact, all of this obsessive interest in foundations and starting-points is, in form
if not in content, a lot closer to logical positivism than it is to the concerns of the falsificationist
philosophers, despite the prominence of language about hypothesis testing and the concern to
formulate testable hypotheses among IR scholars engaged in these endeavors. That, above all, is why I have
labeled this methodology of scholarship neopositivist. While it takes much of its self justification as a science
from criticisms of logical positivism, in overall sensibility it still operates in a visibly positivist way, attempting to construct
knowledge from the ground up by getting its foundations in logical order before concentrating on how
claims encounter the world in terms of their theoretical implications. This is by no means to say that neopositivism is not interested in hypothesis testing; on
the contrary, neopositivists are extremely concerned with testing hypotheses, but only after the fundamentals
have been soundly established. Certainty, not conjectural provisionality, seems to be the goala goal that, ironically, Popper and Kuhn
and Lakatos would all reject.

We control UQstate violence decreasing now because of the state
Beauchamp 13
Zack Beauchamp, Editor of TP Ideasa Think Progress project, Reporter for Think Progress, former
writer for Andrew Sullivans The Dish at Newsweek/Daily Beast, has written for Foreign Policy and Tablet
magazines, holds an M.S. in International Relations from the London School of Economics and B.A.s in
Philosophy and Political Science from Brown University, 2013, 5 Reasons Why 2013 Was The Best Year
In Human History, Think Progressthe Center for American Progress blog, December 11,
http://thinkprogress.org/security/2013/12/11/3036671/2013-certainly-year-human-history/
Between the brutal civil war in Syria, the government shutdown and all of the deadly dysfunction it represents, the NSA spying revelations, and
massive inequality, itd be easy to for you to enter 2014 thinking the last year has been an awful one. But youd
be wrong. We have every reason to believe that 2013 was , in fact, the best year on the planet for
humankind. Contrary to what you might have heard, virtually all of the most important forces that determine
what make peoples lives good the things that determine how long they live, and whether they
live happily and freely are trending in an extremely happy direction. While its possible that this
progress could be reversed by something like runaway climate change, the effects will have to be dramatic to
overcome the extraordinary and growing progress weve made in making the world a better place.
Heres the five big reasons why. 1. Fewer people are dying young, and more are living longer. The greatest story
in recent human history is the simplest: were winning the fight against death. There is not a single
country in the world where infant or child mortality today is not lower than it was in 1950, writes Angus
Deaton, a Princeton economist who works on global health issues. The most up-to-date numbers on global health, the 2013
World Health Organization (WHO) statistical compendium, confirm Deatons estimation. Between 1990 and 2010, the percentage of children
who died before their fifth birthday dropped by almost half. Measles deaths declined by 71 percent, and both tuberculosis and maternal deaths
by half again. HIV, that modern plague, is also being held back, with deaths from AIDS-related illnesses down by 24 percent since 2005. In
short, fewer people are dying untimely deaths . And thats not only true in rich countries: life
expectancy has gone up between 1990 and 2011 in every WHO income bracket. The gains are even more dramatic if you
take the long view: global life expectancy was 47 in the early 1950s, but had risen to 70 a 50 percent jump by 2011. For even more
perspective, the average Briton in 1850 when the British Empire had reached its apex was 40. The average person today
should expect to live almost twice as long as the average citizen of the worlds wealthiest and most
powerful country in 1850. In real terms, this means millions of fewer dead adults and children a year ,
millions fewer people who spend their lives suffering the pains and unfreedoms imposed by illness ,
and millions more people spending their twilight years with loved ones. And the trends are all
positive progress has accelerated in recent years in many countries with the highest rates of mortality, as the WHO rather bloodlessly
put it. Whats going on? Obviously, its fairly complicated, but the most important drivers have been technological
and political innovation. The Enlightenment-era advances in the scientific method got people doing
high-quality research, which brought us modern medicine and the information technologies that
allow us to spread medical breakthroughs around the world at increasingly faster rates . Scientific
discoveries also fueled the Industrial Revolution and the birth of modern capitalism, giving us more
resources to devote to large-scale application of live-saving technologies . And the global spread of
liberal democracy made governments accountable to citizens , forcing them to attend to their health
needs or pay the electoral price. Well see the enormously beneficial impact of these two forces, technology
and democracy, repeatedly throughout this list, which should tell you something about the foundations of
human progress. But when talking about improvements in health, we shouldnt neglect foreign aid. Nations donating huge amounts of
money out of an altruistic interest in the welfare of foreigners is historically unprecedented, and while not all aid has been helpful, health aid
has been a huge boon. Even Deaton, who wrote one of 2013s harshest assessments of foreign aid, believes the case for assistance to fight
disease such as HIV/AIDS or smallpox is strong. Thats because these programs have demonstrably saved lives the Presidents Emergency
Plan for AIDS Relief (PEPFAR), a 2003 program pushed by President Bush, paid for anti-retroviral treatment for over 5.1 million people in the
poor countries hardest-hit by the AIDS epidemic. So were outracing the Four Horseman, extending our lives faster
than pestilence, war, famine, and death can take them. That alone should be enough to say the
world is getting better .



1ar
Kritik
Impact
The alternative means we dont legalize marihuana because it focuses instead on
abolition strategies that means we cannot reorient the relationship the U.S. has with
Latin America which is critical to global energy governance and preventing global
warming that results in extinction, mass death, starvation, sea level rice, and
structural violence that you shouldnt ethically allow to happen This turns their
impact- warming reproduces ecoracism
Wilson, University of Massachusetts at Amherst Doctoral Student, Dept. of Economics, 12
(Adrian e-, Jacqui Patterson, NAACP Katie Fink, NAACP Kimberly Wasserman, LVEJO Amanda Starbuck
and Annie Sartor, Rainforest Action Network Judy Hatcher John Fleming, NAACP, Indigenous
Environmental Network, Little Village Environmental Justice Organization, Coal Blooded Putting Profits
Before People, http://naacp.3cdn.net/5b9898474035b7c5b3_t4bm6iv20.pdf)

Communities of color have been forced to contend with land appropriation, toxic working
conditions, polluted neighborhoods and other conditions that have a detrimental effect on their
environments and socioeconomic opportunities. It was in the 1960s and 1970s, mainstream audiences who were
galvanized into action by the publication of Silent Spring, and who responded with not in my backyard when faced with
environmental hazards that would impact public health and private property. While white middle-class communities were
often successful in combating these threats, the path of least resistance became an expressway
leading to the one remaining toxic frontier--people of color communities.1However, in 1982, a community battle
against a controversial polychlorinated biphenyl (PCB) disposal landfill, in rural Warren County, North Carolina, mobilized hundreds of African Americans in civil
disobedience and led to over 500 arrests.2 The fight was widely cited as the spark which ignited the Environmental Justice (EJ) Movement. Pioneering work by
Bunyan Bryant, Pau Mohai, Robert Bullard and others, along with groundbreaking reports, most notably in 1983, by the U.S.
Government Accounting Office and in 1987, by the Commission for Racial Justice of the United Church of Christ, confirmed that
there was a direct correlation between race and toxic waste sites: Although socioeconomic status
appeared to play an important role in the location of commercial hazardous waste facilities, race still
proved to be more significant.3
Global energy governance is critical to dismantling racism
Behles-prof law Golden Gate-13 58 Vill. L. Rev. 25
Article: FROM DIRTY TO GREEN: INCREASING ENERGY EFFICIENCY AND RENEWABLE ENERGY IN
ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE COMMUNITIES

THE stifling summer heat that raged across the nation was difficult for everyone, but one group had a more difficult time than others - those
who could not afford to cool their homes. Disparities like these will likely only get worse. Poor communities of color that are
already vulnerable and disproportionately impacted by pollution will shoulder a larger burden of
climate change impacts . These neighborhoods, often called environmental justice communities , have fewer
resources to adapt to the effects of climate change. More measures should be taken to increase the
development of renewable energy and energy efficiency in environmental justice communities
before the gap becomes worse. A myriad of policies promote the development of renewable energy and energy efficiency
resources throughout the United States. These measures are justified by reasons ranging from energy security and job creation to
environmental mitigation. Many of these measures are not targeted towards any particular community, but rather are general measures
designed to encourage the development of these resources in a particular state or area of a state. A limited number of policies have strayed
from this general approach and are designed to target sectors of the population that are more vulnerable to rising energy prices. These policies
are often focused on lowering a person's energy bill rather than reducing a person's energy needs and environmental burdens. Most recently,
the federal government authorized some funding to encourage energy efficiency and renewable energy development in low-income
communities in the recovery fund. These funds, however, were limited and are unlikely to reoccur. New policies are needed to increase
renewable energy development and energy efficiency in environmental justice communities. Current measures are insufficient to help these
communities when energy prices and temperatures rise, as they are expected to. The right policies could reduce pollution in
areas that are already overburdened and would provide these vulnerable communities with new
economic opportunities. To [*26] develop new policies, innovative renewable energy structures including on-bill financing and a
feed-in tariff should be explored. In addition, policymakers should examine the environmental tools used in settlements, mitigation measures,
and pollution fees as potential areas for innovation. Finally, policymakers need to consider: how to assure benefits help the targeted
community, gentrification issues, whether a separate entity can administer the program, and the potential legal implications. II. Current
Programs Are Not Enough A decade ago, the environmental justice movement recognized the need to
improve the environmental sustainability of poor communities and communities of color by
encouraging the development of renewable energy and energy efficiency: A just transition is about making sure no group
of people shoulders a disproportionate burden when it comes to transitioning to a renewable resource economy. Effective climate policy will
not only phase out fossil fuels in favor of renewables, but it will also make the transition as fair as possible. To ensure equity and self-
sufficiency, policies must engage and empower communities with the information and resources to transition a resource economy. 1
Transitioning environmental justice communities to greener economies has continued to be a focus
of organizations in the environmental justice movement . 2 Meanwhile, government entities have also acknowledged
the value of renewable development in environmental justice communities, along with the barriers that these communities face. 3 [*27]
Despite that recognition, few policy measures have been enacted to encourage green development in the areas of the country that need it
most. Two main federal programs are focused on helping members of low-income communities ease their energy burdens: the Low-Income
Home Energy Assistance Program ("LIHEAP") and the Weatherization Assistance Program ("WAP"). LIHEAP, the larger program, provides
financial support to low-income households to pay energy bills, and WAP provides funding to assist low-income families with energy efficiency
upgrades. In addition to these programs, some states have also created programs through mechanisms such as public benefit charges that
assist low-income communities with energy needs. Although these programs are beneficial for low-income households, and should be
continued, additional programs are needed to adequately assist environmental justice communities. The focus of the existing programs is direct
subsidies to lower current energy bills. These programs, although admirable, are merely bandages over a larger problem. There is evidence that
these programs already have difficulty serving the portion of the population most in need. 4 Moreover, if energy prices increase, as they are
expected to, the energy burden on these low-income communities will also rise, making these temporary fixes increasingly difficult to sustain. 5
Another approach needs to be taken. A. Federal Programs In 1981, Congress passed the LIHEAP, with the goal of assisting low-income
households. The LIHEAP particularly targets those households that spend the largest portion of their income on energy, and assists them in
meeting their immediate home energy needs. 6 To give some perspective on size and trends, LIHEAP had a $ 5.1 billion grant in 2010, a $ 4.7
billion grant in 2011, and a $ 3.5 billion grant in 2012. 7 These programs [*28] are available in all fifty states, five territories, and about 140
tribal organizations. 8 The amount of federal funding available in a particular state depends on its weather and the size of its low-income
population. 9 Some states supplement the federal funding with state funding through different measures such as public benefit charges. 10 To
be eligible, the household's income cannot exceed 150% of the poverty level. 11 In the past, much of the grant money has been utilized to
lower the energy bill for qualifying residents for a particular month. 12 Some of the states limit this funding to only cover heating assistance,
and not cooling assistance. This includes states that recently had high heat levels such as Colorado, Iowa, Kansas, and Maryland. 13 Some states
have also included limited weatherization components within the constructs of the LIHEAP. 14 For example, Wisconsin has a public benefits
fund, supported partly by the federal government, 15 which provides low-income energy assistance and low-income energy efficiency
programs. 16 More recently, extreme heat waves have led some states to announce plans to grant certain [*29] low-income families funds to
purchase air conditioners or fans to help alleviate the heat. 17 LIHEAP funding has also been used sparingly to help develop renewable
resources. For example, California has a "Solar for All California" program, which receives funding through the state's LIHEAP. 18 This program
was created with the recognition that a low-income household can spend over fifteen percent of its income on energy. 19 It had a goal of
installing 1,000 new solar photovoltaic systems that would produce 1.5 megawatts (MW) of renewable energy. 20 Over half of the approved
projects are planned for multi-family residences. 21 In addition to LIHEAP, the Department of Energy runs a program called the WAP, which was
created in 1976 during the oil crisis, with the goal of reducing the energy burden for low-income homes. 22 This program employs energy audits
to determine the most cost-effective energy [*30] efficiency projects for homes. 23 Weatherization can include a variety of projects that help a
home more efficiently adapt to changing weather. 24 The WAP recently received $ 5 billion in funding from the American Recovery and
Reinvestment Act of 2009 ("Recovery Act"). 25 The Department of Energy has used a small portion of that Recovery Act funding to launch a
program called Sustainable Energy Resources for Consumers. 26 This program allows agencies administering the WAP to increase energy
efficiency and renewable energy above what can be installed under the WAP. However, it is estimated that only approximately $ 11 million, out
of the total $ 5 billion, will be spent on 1,000 solar photovoltaic installations. 27 These programs generally assist households that have high-
energy burdens relative to income. They do not take into account environmental burdens and other factors that should be considered if these
programs are to target the population with the greatest need. Another significant problem with these programs is that the majority of the
funding will be needed year after year because it is used to help pay energy bills. 28 Only a small percentage of the total funding for these
federal programs has focused on trying to prevent homeowners from continuing to face the same energy burdens in the future. An additional
issue with these programs is that they only help a small fraction of the population in need. 29 In many states, only around one-third of the
population that falls below 75% of the poverty line receives assistance. 30 Finally, as shown by the shrinking budget of [*31] LIHEAP, these
programs are often subject to budget cuts. As the population expands, the climate gets hotter, and energy prices rise, these federal programs
will not be adequate to meet the needs of environmental justice communities. New, innovative policies need to be developed. B. State Policies
Several states and cities have developed programs and policies to reduce low-income communities' energy burdens. As discussed above,
several states use the LIHEAP funds in conjunction with other funding mechanisms to run energy assistance programs. 31 In addition, some
states and cities have started direct grant programs to fund renewable development in environmental justice communities. For example, from
2001 through 2006, San Francisco spent approximately $ 1 million in an environmental justice grant program that resulted in forty-two solar
units being installed. 32 An independent audit estimated that the program served 350 people, which included the training and employment of
sixteen people. 33 These direct grant programs are often instituted alongside other forms of asistance. 34 Grant programs are funded in a
number of ways. For example, pursuant to California's plan to develop one million solar roofs under the California Solar Initiative ("CSI"),
California sets aside ten percent of the total budget for two programs that are reserved for low-income residential solar development. 35 One
of the CSI programs, called Multifamily Affordable Solar Housing ("MASH"), provides incentives for the installation of solar photovoltaic
generating systems on low-income multifamily housing structures. 36 The other CSI program, called the Single-Family Affordable Solar [*32]
Homes ("SASH") program, offers incentives for photovoltaic installation. 37 Both of these programs "substantially subsidize" solar development
in low-income neighborhoods. 38 In addition to these incentives, the SASH program also promotes energy efficiency, workforce development,
and green jobs training. 39 These other aspects of the SASH program have been found useful for helping a community transition to renewable
energy. 40 Another California Solar Initiative program directly targets solar water heating systems for low-income, multifamily residences by
providing direct financial incentives to install solar water heating systems. 41 Although these programs have done well on recent evaluations, a
common theme is the need to obtain more funding. 42 Part of the problem is that these programs were originally envisioned as surviving on
community financing, but that has not proven feasible. 43 Another approach has been the creation of loan programs for qualifying individuals.
For instance, Connecticut has a program called the Housing Investment Fund that offers loans for energy conservation. 44 In particular, it helps
finance loans to undertake projects such as upgrading heating and cooling systems or improving hot water equipment with low, [*33]
affordable rates. 45 Another approach that has been taken is combining loans and grants for eligible residents. For instance, New York has an
Assisted Home Performance Program, which grants up to 50% of the cost of energy efficiency improvements to eligible families and then loans
money at a subsidized rate. 46 The average homeowner under this program saves $ 910 per year on energy costs. 47 Unfortunately, some of
the funds for these programs have been disappearing recently. For example, Michigan used to have an approximately $ 85 million Low-Income
and Energy Efficiency Fund ("LIEEF") that helped finance energy efficiency and renewable energy projects to assist low-income communities.
After the initial funding mechanism ran out, the Michigan Public Service Commission ("PSC") attempted to fund the program through ratepayer
funding, but a state court determined that the "administration of a LIEEF does not fall within the scope of the PSC's general statutory powers."
48 Later, the Michigan Legislature replaced LIEEF with the Vulnerable Household Warmth Fund, which was financed with a much smaller one-
time grant of $ 23 million. 49 III. Why Distributed Renewable Energy and Energy Efficiency Should Be Increased for Vulnerable Communities
Federal and state programs need to be reengineered to prevent energy and pollution disparities from getting worse. 50 To that end, small-scale
distributed renewable generation projects and energy efficiency measures should be encouraged in environmental justice communities. Several
reasons support an increased focus on such projects generally, as well [*34] as in the specific context of environmental justice communities.
Importantly, these projects will not only improve the environment, but will also create economic opportunities for these communities. 51
Finally, reducing pollution and cleaning up contaminated areas in low-income communities may have health benefits for the people who live
and work in those communities. 52 A. Distributed Renewable Generation and Energy Efficiency Have Advantages Over Other Types of Energy
Resources Distributed generation ("DG") is generally defined as small-scale electricity generation resources located close to the demand. 53
Renewable resources that can be scaled down and sited near load requirements include wind and solar facilities. 54 Most DG is solar because it
can be readily sited on roofs and in other available urban areas such as parking lots and transportation infrastructure. 55 Some DG, such as
most types of fuel cells, still use fossil fuel. 56 Distributed renewable generation, as used in this paper, is not intended to include sources that
use fossil fuels or emit air pollution, such as biomass. [*35] Distributed renewable generation projects should be the
focus of policies that encourage green development in environmental justice communities. Distributed
generation projects have several benefits over large-scale renewable projects. They are deployed more easily than large-scale renewable
resources because "these facilities can be located close to load without the need for transmission additions, and may face fewer environmental
barriers and public opposition than larger scale projects." 57 Consequently, "it is reasonable to conclude that development of smaller projects
can be accomplished more quickly and with less risk than larger facilities." 58 Thus, a major benefit of a decentralized system is that the
electricity is generated close to the load center, thereby reducing, or even eliminating, the need for reliance on transmission lines. For example,
in Germany, one solar developer is constructing solar panels on a highway tunnel, which is located close to a load center. 59 Distributed
generation can eliminate the need for dirty energy generation resources. Solar photovoltaic distributed generation
has been recognized as a viable replacement for natural gas peaker plants because PV "provides power at a time when demand is likely to be
high - on hot, sunny days." 60 Another significant benefit of the most widely distributed technology, solar photovoltaic systems, is that the
panels have dropped greatly in price, making deployment more economical. Large-scale integration of PV for the urban grid is now both
technically and economically feasible. Prices for solar PV have dropped drastically in the last few years, and projections estimate that PV will
further drop to a price point of $ 2.60 per watt installed. 61 These prices will likely drop further as deployment of PV systems increases. 62
Large-scale solar facilities confront many issues. The subsidies to large renewable projects have come under political fire after large companies
have declared bankruptcy. 63 In addition, some large-scale facilities [*36] have been developed quickly without careful, thoughtful planning.
For instance, the Genesis Solar Energy Project, a 225-MW project planned for the California dessert, has been delayed due to impacts on foxes
in the area and the discovery of a possible Native American historic site. 64 Large-scale projects also have transmission problems because they
are located far away from the need. In fact, regulators have been concerned with the possibility of stranded development, and entire projects
have been delayed due to issues related to transmission. 65 Further, transmission costs often exceed initial estimates. 66 For all these reasons,
programs to assist environmental justice communities should focus on small, distributed renewable energy projects. A program designed to
encourage green development should also include energy efficiency measures. Such programs will face significant challenges, because
members of low-income communities often lack the capital to install new technology and a great many do not own their homes. 67
Nevertheless, there are many advantages to promoting energy efficiency. Energy efficiency is generally less politically charged than alternative
energy generation, and therefore easier to implement. 68 Energy efficiency has been seen as an essential measure for decreasing emissions. 69
As the U.S. Secretary of Energy commented, energy efficiency is more important now than ever for a clean energy economy. 70 The easiest
[*37] way to meet climate change related goals is to reduce energy consumption. 71 Indeed, the Pew Center has stated that that the United
States needs to focus on improving "the efficiency of energy conversion and utilization so as to reduce the demand for energy" to mitigate for
climate change. 72 New policies are important because previous programs to incentivize renewable development are likely to disappear in
coming years. 73 The United States has already realized significant reductions in energy usage due to energy efficiency measures. For example,
Vermont has been able to effectively reduce load by a couple of percentage points each year over the last few years. 74 Several other states
have also implemented energy efficiency programs that have resulted in significant savings. 75 For instance, a weatherization program in New
York has significantly reduced energy bills for consumers. 76 Although significant reductions have been realized, new specifications related to
energy efficiency will continue to reduce energy requirements. One area requiring further improvement is home appliance maintenance.
"Major consumer equipment, such as refrigerators and air conditioning units, are often not properly commissioned when first installed." 77
Similarly, new requirements for light bulbs in the United States are expected to reduce energy usage by seventy-five percent compared to
standard light bulbs. 78 Another new standard requires that residential [*38] dishwashers use fifteen percent less energy, and that top-loading
clothes washers use thirty-three percent less energy. 79 In addition, new innovative types of energy efficient technologies are constantly being
developed. For example, a company developed a new thin window material that makes windows up to thirty percent more energy efficient
during hotter months. 80 Through the Energy Star program, the Environmental Protection Agency will continue to update its standards for
various types of appliances and technologies to reflect these advancements. 81 More recently, the federal government appears to have
become more serious about energy efficiency. The Department of Energy ruled that states must review and update their energy efficiency
codes for residential and commercial buildings. 82 The Department of Energy also recently issued a rule that includes efficiency standards for
furnaces, air conditioners, and heat pumps. 83 This rule interestingly also focuses on specific regions recognizing that efficiency goals may need
to be designed differently in diverse climates. 84 With that in mind, energy efficiency improvements can be a significant tool for helping
environmental justice communities transition to a cleaner energy future. B. Increased Distributed Renewable Generation and Energy Efficiency
Helps Mitigate Climate Change A policy encouraging increased development of distributed renewable energy
and energy efficiency measures can also help mitigate the effects of climate change. Scientists have found
that significant reductions of greenhouse gases are necessary to avoid the likely devastating impacts of climate change. 85 In fact, reputable
scientists have found that we are [*39] nearing a tipping point, at which the impact of climate change will become irreversible. 86 Other news
related to climate change is similarly dire. Recent years were among the warmest on record, and studies continue to link the warm
temperatures to extreme weather events. 87 Federal, state, and local governments are currently evaluating many different options to reduce
greenhouse gases. 88 Many of these efforts are focused on the electrical generation industry because approximately forty percent of carbon
dioxide emissions in the United States are created from burning fossil fuels to create electricity. 89 To reduce the levels of greenhouse gases
produced by the electrical generation industry, many plans would require increased generation of electricity through renewable resources, as
well as conservation of resources. 90 [*40] While plans for requiring the development of renewable energy are progressing, other responses to
climate change have come under attack. 91 International efforts to secure a global treaty, and domestic efforts for a climate change law, have
been largely unsuccessful. 92 Not surprisingly, a recent United Nations report found that the best way to achieve climate reduction is in a
"bottom-up process rather than in response to a comprehensive global treaty." 93 Consistent with a bottom-up approach,
the United States has increased efforts to transition to renewable energy as a way to mitigate climate
change. 94 Policymakers in the United States and throughout the world are starting to see the substantial benefit of distributed generation.
95 This increased development of renewable energy and energy efficiency measures can help
communities transition away from fossil fuel dependence, which in turn can help mitigate climate
change impacts. C. Reduce Pollution Burden of Environmental Justice Communities A policy encouraging renewable
energy development and energy efficiency measures could help reduce harmful air pollution in
environmental justice communities . Numerous studies have shown that low-income and minority
communities that often live in urban areas bear more of the [*41] cumulative burden of pollution. 96
Minority and low-income communities disproportionately bear the adverse environmental and health
impacts from fossil fuel exploration, extraction, production, consumption, and disposal. 97 These
communities are often located near many different industries creating different types of pollution and the cumulative impact of all those types
of pollution is unknown. 98 These activities produce and lead to several criteria pollutants including fine
particulate matter and nitrous oxides, which are harmful to human health. 99 For example, in the San Francisco
Bay Area, urban neighborhoods with high populations of minorities such as Southeast San Francisco, called the Bayview Hunters Point
neighborhood, and Richmond have been designated as high impact areas for air pollution. 100 These overburdened communities
often experience higher incidences of respiratory health effects, which have been linked to criteria pollutants, than
other communities. 101 Several studies have demonstrated [*42] that asthma rates are higher among minorities. 102 Other studies have
found that asthma rates are higher in low-income areas. One study found that children living in a low socioeconomic
status community had a seventy percent higher risk of acquiring asthma than children living in a higher socioeconomic status neighborhood.
103 The disparities associated with a higher cumulative burden of pollution will continue to increase
due to climate change. 104 Environmental justice communities have less access to the resources
necessary to adapt to climate change such as air conditioning and medical care. 105 In addition, cap and trade
regimes, such as the scheme created in California, can create hot spots in areas already experiencing high levels of pollution, which in turn leads
to a greater cumulative health risk. 106 Greenhouse gas levels [*43] are directly related to the environmental burden these communities
currently face, partly because fossil fuel stationary sources emit greenhouse gases and other harmful air pollutants including particulate matter,
nitrogen oxides, sulfur dioxide, and mercury. 107 In addition to heat-related impacts, increased temperatures are tied to increased smog, and
thus deterioration of air quality. 108 As temperatures increase, nitrogen oxides will react with volatile organic compounds and sunlight at an
increased rate, which will increase the atmospheric concentrations of ozone in urban areas. 109 This predicted air quality
deterioration in urban areas will most severely impact low-income and minority communities that
live in these areas, which are already overburdened by pollution. 110 D. Green Development Has Economic Benefits
for Communities Environmental justice communities that bear a disproportionate impact of environmental
pollution also generally have a higher energy burden. 111 Low-income communities pay a larger
amount of their income, which makes them more vulnerable to fluctuating energy prices. 112 This is
especially problematic when energy prices and needs are expected to rise due to climate change. 113
The energy burden for low-income communities varies. One report estimates that energy bills can be
up to thirty percent of a low-income family's monthly income. 114 Low-income households are estimated to represent
[*44] over ninety-five percent of those households that are considered to have a high energy burden. 115 Studies have also shown that the
level of energy burden can vary depending on race. In particular, a greater proportion of low-income African American
households have a high energy burden than low-income households of other races. 116 Not only will
renewable energy and energy efficiency resources reduce the bills of the residences where they are
installed, but introduction of more green energy on the grid could reduce electricity bills . 117 Green
development could also create jobs in environmental justice communities. 118 For instance, the Los Angeles Business Council has estimated
that 4,500 job-years could be created with a 300 MW program focused on multi-family housing. 119 Development of green economy resources
can also provide income to communities. If accompanied by the right policies, the development of renewable energy in neighborhoods could
potentially create a revenue stream. For example, a utility provider in Virginia has offered to pay premium rates for solar power sold back to it.
120 A feed-in tariff is an instrument that pays an entity that sells power to the grid a certain, pre-determined amount. One organization
estimated that a payment of twenty-four to twenty-six cents per kilowatt-hour would ensure a sufficient rate of return on the initial capital
costs. 121 Investment [*45] in green resources has been shown to create more jobs than investment in the fossil fuel resources from the old
urban grid. 122 There may also be other benefits to installing renewable energy in environmental justice communities. Studies have shown
significant solar potential in low-income urban communities. 123 Additionally, installing solar panels on multi-family rooftops can also be less
expensive that installing them on individual homes. 124

1ar a2: genocide impact
Jennifer Mitzen 11, PhD, University of Chicago, Associate Professor of Political Science at Ohio State
University, Michael E. Newell, Crisis Authority, the War on Terror and the Future of Constitutional
Democracy, PDF
But what Agamben has potentially overlooked is the conversation between the government, public
and media concerning the state of exception. Waevers desecuritization theory tells us that it is possible for continued debate and media
coverage to desecuritize a threat in whole or in part (Waever, 1995). As the War on Terror progressed, more academics and
government officials began to speak out against the usefulness of interrogations, the reality of the terrorist threat and the morality of
the administrations policies . Some critics suggested that the terrorist threat was not as imminent as the Administration made it appear, and that
fears of the omnipotent terroristmay have been overblown, the threat presented within the United States by al Qaeda greatly exaggerated (Mueller, 2006).
Indeed, as Mueller points out, there have been no terrorist attacks in the United States five years prior and five years after September 11th. The resignation of
administration officials, such as Jack Goldsmith, who, it was later learned, sparred with the administration over Yoos torture memos, their wiretapping program and
their trial of suspected terrorists also contributed to this shift in sentiment (Rosen, 2007). The use of the terms torture, and prisoner abuse, that began to
surface in critical media coverage of the War on Terror framed policies as immoral. As the public gradually learned more from media
coverage, academic discourse, and protests from government officials, the administration and its
policies saw plummeting popularity in the polls. Two-thirds of the country did not approve of Bushs handling of the War on Terror by
the end of his presidency (Harris Poll) and as of February 2009 two-thirds of the country wanted some form of investigation into torture and wiretapping policies
(USA Today Poll, 2009). In November 2008 a Democratic President was elected and Democrats gained
substantial ground in Congress partly on promises of changing the policies in the War on Terror.
Republican presidential nominees, such as Mitt Romney, who argued for the continuance of many of the Bush
administrations policies in the War on Terror, did not see success at the polls. Indeed, this could be
regarded as Waevers speech-act failure which constitutes the moment of desecuritization (Waever,
1995). In this sense, Agambens warning of pure de-facto rule in the War on Terror rings hollow because of
one single important fact: the Bush administration peacefully transferred power to their political rivals after the 2008
elections. The terrorist threat still lingers in the far reaches of the globe, and a strictly Agamben-centric analysis
would suggest that the persistence of this threat would allow for the continuance of the state of
exception. If Agamben was correct that the United States was under pure de-facto rule then arguably
its rulers could decide to stay in office and to use the military to protect their position. Instead, Bush
and his administration left, suggesting that popular sovereignty remained intact.

They are right about the state of the law but that is not a reason to reject it that
only causes nihilistic violence and conservative cooption we should try to make it
effective even if thats impossible
Ristroph 9
Alice, Associate Professor of Law, Seton Hall University School of Law, Is Law? Constitutional Crisis and
Existential Anxiety, Constitutional Commentary Vol. 25, 431-459.
http://scholarship.law.georgetown.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1457&context=facpub
One reason to care whether law is in crisis concerns our own expectations of the function of law. A possible achievement is to offer an alternative
to violenceas we saw in Levinson and Balkins account of the Constitution as enabling nonviolent dispute resolution.66 This might be cal led the anti-
Thrasymachus view of law. Early in Platos Republic (before Socrates has tamed him), a young man called Thrasymachus describes justice as the advantage of the
stronger.67 The claim is that might makes right, and Western political and legal thought has produced many efforts to prove Thrasymachus and his heirs wrong. If
law distinguishes right from might , then it becomes important to say what law is, and to show that it
exists . Hence, many ongoing jurisprudential debates about the criteria for a valid and functional system
of law (including worries about legal indeterminancy) are motivated by worries about arbitrary power and violence.68 To
show Thrasymachus to be mistaken, we want to show that the rule of law is really different from the
rule of (the strongest) men.
In legal theory, we could view John Austins positivism law as commands backed by threats of punishmentas a descendant of
Thrasymachuss claim.69 Here, I want to examine briefly one of the most influential, and most plausible, efforts to show that law is something
more and different from the commands of a gunman: H. L. A. Harts response to Austin. Hart framed his discussion around the question, What
is law?.70 But perhaps, as the Stoppard passage that opened this essay suggests, beginning with this question led us to conjure an image of
law with various predicates that do not, as it turns out, include existence. A second form of existential anxiety, one that I suspect shapes
present talk of crisis, is the anxiety thast Thrasymachus and Austin were right and law, if it is anything more than command and force, does not
exist.
For my purposes here, the critical features of Harts account are the rule of recognition and the internal point of view. Since, in most of The Concept of Law, Hart takes laws existence for
granted, it is helpful to look at the passages where laws existence, or at least the existence of a particular form of law, is up for grabs. In his classic discussion of the question, Is international
law really law?, H. L. A. Hart deployed the concepts of a rule of recognition and the internal point of view to conclude that international law was at most in a state of transition toward fully
legal law, moving toward law properly so called but certainly not yet there.71 At the time he wrote The Concept of Law, Hart believed that international law departed from domestic (or
municipal) law in that it lacked a widely accepted rule of recognition and in that states could not be said to take the internal point of view toward international obligations. (Harts argument
has been challenged by many contemporary scholars of international law, but that particular dispute need not occupy us here.72) For law qua law to exist, Hart argued, there must be a rule of
recognition under which the authoritative status of other rules was accepted or denied, and the officials who would apply the rule of recognition must themselves take the internal point of
view toward it. That is, the officials needed to view the rule of recognition as a binding, authoritative guide to their own decisions.
Suppose Hart was right and the rule of recognition and the internal point of view are conditions for the existence of law. Two questions arise: what is the rule of recognition for constitutional
law, and who must hold the internal standpoint toward that rule? The Constitution itself initially seems a candidate for the rule of recognition, though the fact that the Constitution must itself
be interpreted leads some theorists to amend this account and say that the rule of recognition must include authoritative statements of the meaning of the Constitution, under prevailing
interpretive standards.73 As for the internal point of view, we might hope that all state officials would take this point of view toward constitutional rules.74 In other words, we might hope that
every state actor would comply with the U.S. Constitution because it is the Constitution, not simply to avoid injunctions, or judicial invalidation of legislative action, or liability under 42 U.S.C.
1983. But Harts theory does not demand universal adherence to an internal point of view. Even if legislators and other public officials complied with First or Fourth or Fourteenth Amendment
doctrine only to avoid invalidation or 1983 liability even if these public officials were the equivalent of Holmess bad manHart might find that constitutional law still existed in a
meaningful sense so long as the judges applying constitutional rules believed themselves to be bound by a constitutional rule of recognition.75
Here is a possibility, one I believe we must take seriously and one that prompts anxiety about the existence of constitutional law itself: there is no common rule of recognition toward which
judges and other officials take an internal point of view.76 Individual judges may adhere to their particular understandings of the rule of recognition the Constitution as interpreted by
proper originalist methods, for example, or the Constitution as elucidated by popular understandings. But the fact that individual state actors follow their own rules of recognition in good faith
does not satisfy Harts account of law, and it does not provide a satisfying alternative to Thrasymachus. (There is no reason, on the might-makes-right account, that the mighty cannot hold the
good faith belief that they are pursuing a common good or acting pursuant to rule-governed authority. What matters is that their power is in fact traceable to their superior strength.)
There is reason for academic observers to doubt the existence of a single rule of recognition in American constitutional law. There are too many core interpretive disputes, as discussed in Part
I, and it is now widely accepted that constitutional rules are at least underdeterminatc. Should there be doubt about this claim, consider this feature of constitutional law textbooks: they
include majority and dissenting opinions, and questions after each case frequently ask the reader which opinion was more persuasive. Those questions are not posed as rhetorical. For most
constitutional decisions, we can say, it could have been otherwise. With a few votes switched, with a different line-up of Justices, the same precedents (and in some cases, the same
interpretive methodology) could have produced a different outcome. Moreover, these suspicions of indeterminancy or underdetermi-nancy are not the unique province of the academy. Think
of the discussions of Supreme Court appointments in presidential elections. Many voters, law professors or not, understand their vote for president to be also a vote for a certain kind of
Justice and for certain kinds of constitutional outcomes. Discussions of Supreme Court appointments are often framed in terms of judicial methodology I will appoint judges who are faithful
to the text of the Constitution but that language may be more a matter of decorum than of real constitutional faith.
Judges, of course, are not ignorant of the charges of indeterminancy or of the politicization of judicial appointments. And it seems possible that the erosion of constitutional faith has reached
the judiciary itself.771 claim no special insight into judicial psychology, but it seems implausible that the reasons for constitutional skepticismthe discussions of underdetermined rules, the
contingency of outcomes based on 5-4 votes, and the great attention to swing justices such as Sandra Day OConnor or Anthony Kennedyhave not influenced judges themselves. Here again
it seems worthwhile to consider dissenting opinions. Justice Scalias polemics come to mind immediately; he has often accused his colleagues of acting lawlessly.78 Yet he keeps his post and
continues to participate in a system that treats as law the determinations of five (potentially lawless) Justices. It is possible, I suppose, that Justice Scalias dissents express earnest outrage, that
he is shocked (shocked) by decisions like Lawrence v. Texas79 and Boumediene. It is possible that he believes himself to be the last best hope of constitutional law properly so called. But it
seems more likely that he shares the skepticism of academic observers of the Court.
Though one cant help but wonder whether judges are still constitutionally devout, I should emphasize here that my argument does not turn on a claim that judges
are acting in good or bad faith. Individual judges may well take the internal point of view, in Harts terms, and strive faithfully to apply the principles they recognize
as law. But it seems clear that American judges do not all hold the internal point of view toward a single,
shared rule of recognition, given the nature of disagreements among judges themselves. If there are
multiple rules of recognition, varying from judge to judge, then legal outcomes will depend on which
judge is empowered to make the critical decision, and Thrasymachus is not so far off the mark.
Contemporary judicial disagreement is profound, and it is not just a matter of Justice Scalias flair for colorful rhetoric. Consider Scott v. Harris,
the recent decision granting summary judgment (on the basis of qualified immunity) to a police officer who had rammed a passenger car during
a high-speed chase, causing an accident that left the driver a quadriplegic.80 Like most use-of-force opinions, the decision applies a deferential
Fourth Amendment standard that gives police officers wide leeway. What is unusual about Harris is that, because the case arose as a civil suit
under 42 U.S.C. 1983, the critical question (whether the driver, Victor Harris, posed a sufficient threat to others bodily safety such that the
use of deadly force was reasonable) was nominally a jury question, and at summary judgment, the court should have taken the facts in the light
most favorable to the non-moving partythe injured driver. Thus, in earlier use-of-force cases that reached the Court as 1983 claims, the
Court articulated the Fourth Amendment standard and then remanded the case to the trial court.81 But in Harris, the Court had access to
videotapes of the chase recorded by cameras on the dashboards of the police vehicles involved.82 In the view of the eight-Justice majority, the
videotape spoke for itself: it made Harriss threat to the public so clear that no reasonable juror could conclude that the officers use of force
was unreasonable.83 Accordingly, the Supreme Court found the officer to be entitled to summary judgment.84
Doubtless there are many instances in which a court grants summary judgment to one party though non-judicial observers believe a reasonable
juror could find for the other party. Harris is of particular interest, though, because the reasonable juror who might have found in favor of
Victor Harris was clearly visible to the majorityin fact, this juror had a spokesman on the Court. Justice Stevens, the lone dissenter in Scott v.
Harris, viewed the same videotape and found it to confirm the factual findings of the district court (which had denied the police offic-ers
motion for summary judgment).85 Though Justice Stevens was careful not to base his argument on an actual determination of the substantive
Fourth Amendment question (chiding his colleagues for doing just that and thereby acting as jurors rather than judges),86 he viewed the
video evidence and explained how one might conclude, perfectly reasonably, that Scott had used excessive force.87 In order for the eight
Justices in the Harris majority to believe their own opinion, they would have to conclude that Justice Stevens lived outside the realm of reason.
Harris is nominally a dispute about what reasonable jurors could conclude, rather than a direct argument about the meaning of a particular
constitutional provision. But the two reactions to the videotape should call to mind Larry Tribes worry that American constitutional law is
plagued by deep and thus far intractable divisions between wholly different ways of assessing truth and experiencing reality.88 It is not just
abortion and assisted suicide that reveal profound disagreement about what is true and real. A videotape that speaks for itself in the eyes of
eight Justices says something entirely different to the ninth.
Looking beyond the judiciary, consider the consequences of constitutional disagreement and constitutional indeterminancy for other
government officials and for would-be critics of those officials. Earlier I noted that with sufficient constitutional indeterminancy, theres no such
thing as an unconstitutional president. A more extreme version of this argument is that with sufficient legal indeterminancy, theres no such
thing as illegality. When John Yoo wrote the Office of Legal Counsel memos that defend practices formerly known as
torture, he was simply doing to bans on torture what critics had long argued it was possible to do for
any law: he was trashing them.89 This was the spawn of CLS put to work in the OLC; deconstructions
on the left are now deconstructions on the right .90
And that, of course, is cause for anxiety among those who would like to argue that George W. Bush or members of his administration acted
illegally. As I suggested in the Introduction, this may be the Pyrrhic victory of critical legal studies: If the crits were correct, then there is no
distinctively legal form of critique. About torture, indefinite detention, warrantless wiretapping, and so on, we can say I don't like it or it doesnt
correspond to my vision of the good, but we cannot say its illegal. To argue that the Bush administration violated the
rule of law, we need to believe that the rule of law exists. But for 30 years or more, we have found reasons to doubt that
it does.91
Perhaps it will seem that I am overstating the influence of legal realism and critical legal studies, or the doubts about laws existence. Im willing to entertain those
possibilities, but I do want to emphasize that the focus is on constitutional law. Its easy enough to believe in law when we see it applied and enforced by figures of
authority in a recognized hierarchy. That is, the sentencing judge or the prison warden can believe in lawhe has applied it himself. And the criminal should believe
in law he has felt its force. But these examples illustrate Austinian law: commands backed by force. What remains elusive, on my account, are laws that are truly
laws given to oneself, and especially law given by a state to itself.92 That is why, in Part I of this essay, I suggested that brute force is a poor
candidate to distinguish ordinary politics, or ordinary legal decisions, from extraordinary moments of
crisis. What would be truly extraordinary is not the use of force, but its absence: a system of law truly based on consent and independent of sanction.
The Constitution, in theory, is a law given unto oneself. By this I mean not simply that the Founders gave the Constitution to future generations, but that each
successive generation must give the Constitution to itself: each generation must adopt the internal
point of view toward the Constitution in order for it to be effective. Even once we have accepted the written text as
authoritative, all but the strictest constructionists acknowledge that many meanings can plausibly be extracted from that text. (And even the strict constructionists
must acknowledge that as a factual matter many meanings have been extracted; they deny only the plausibility of those varied readings.) Any law given unto
oneself requires what Hart called the internal point of view, and what one more cynical might describe as self-delusion: it requires a belief that one is bound though
one could at any minute walk away. It is possible, I think, that we have outwitted the Constitution: that we have become too clever, too quick
to notice indeterminancy, even too post-modern to believe ourselves bound.
A third possible explanation for contemporary references to crisis is professional malaise. It could be, as I suggested earlier, that after too many
years of chewing what judges had for breakfast, professors have lost their appetites. It could be that the problems of originalists and historicists
and popular constitutionalists dont amount to a hill of beans in this crazy world. And if these possibilities have not crossed the law professors
mind, they probably should.
We might consider again Larry Tribes explanation of his decision to stop work on his treatise of American constitutional law. There are two
questions of meaning there, one of which Tribe confronts directly and the other which he brushes off quickly. Most obviously, there is the
search for constitutional meaning, as Tribe acknowledges, a search that cannot be concluded within the Constitutions own text. I see no
escape from adopting some perspective... external to the constitution itself from which to decide questions not indisputably resolved one
way or the other by the text and structure--------9* Tribe goes on
to wonder where these extra-constitutional criteria come from, and who ratified the meta-constitution that such external criteria would
comprise?.94 Supreme Court Justices (and other judges) must struggle with these questions, given the public authority that they have the
enormous responsibility and privilege to wield.95 But Tribe need not. He can simply decline to finish the treatise.
If he declines to finish the treatise, though, we cant help asking ourselves what was at stake, and what remains at stake. If the law professor
lacks the responsibility of a judge, is his constitutional theory just an amusing hobby? What was the point of the constitutional law treatise, or
of other efforts to discern coherent principles of constitutional law? The significance of a treatise is the question of meaning that Tribe brushes
off quickly: he says a treatise is an attempt at a synthesis of some enduring value and insists that his decision is not based on doubts about
whether constitutional treatises arc ever worthwhile.96 But Tribes letter leaves the enduring value of a treatise rather underspecified, and it
is possible that current references to constitutional crisis in the academy stem from uncertainty about such questions of value.
Is constitutional theory good for absolutely nothing? Only if we believe that the effort to resist
Thrasymachus is futile or pointless. Constitutional theory is a species of legal and political theory, and the most intriguing forms of such theory
are produced by worries that law and violence are too closely intertwined.97 Thus I suggested at the outset of this essay that existential anxiety is not always to be
regretted, cured, or mocked. Such anxiety may be an important indication that we have noticed the ways in which
Thrasymachus seems right, and we still care enough to try to prove him wrong.98
After so much talk of crisis and anxiety, consider an illustration from the dramatic genre. Tom Stoppards play Jumpers features a troupe
of philosophy professors who double as acrobats: Logical positivists, mainly, with a linguistic analyst or two, a couple of Benthamite utilitarians . .. lapsed
Kantians and empiricists generally... and of course the usual Behaviorists... a mixture of the more philosophical members of the university gymnastics team and the
more gymnastic members of the Philosophy School.99 The Jumpers seem to practice what we would now identify as post-modern
nihilism: One shoots and kills another, then conceals the murder with cheerful aplomb. Against these
intellectually and physically adroit colleagues, the clumsy and old-fashioned Professor George Moore struggles to defend the irreducible fact of goodness,100 the
possibility of a moral conscience, and the claim that there is more in me than meets the microscope.101 Is God? Moore wonders. He can neither
shake nor defend his faith.
Law schools, I think, are filled with moral sympathizers to Professor Moore who possess the skills of modern-day Jumpers.102 The current discourse of crisis is the
latest manifestation of an old struggle between faith and doubt, and it is not one that we will resolve. On one hand, we have observed too much to believe (in law)
unquestioningly. And on the other hand, we are determined to have law, even if we must make it ourselves. There was at
least a smidgen of truth in John Finniss claim that scholars of critical legal studies were disappointed ... absolutists.103 But it is not just crits that
are disappointed when they look for law and see nothing. Few scholars of any stripe want to vindicate
Thrasymachus. All of this is just to reiterate the difficulty, and perhaps the necessity, of giving a law
unto oneself. If constitutional law did not exist, it would be necessary to invent it.

1ar framework
No prior questions
Owen, Southampton political theory reader, 2002
(David, Re-orienting International Relations: On Pragmatism, Pluralism and Practical Reasoning,
Millennium 31.3, SAGE)

Commenting on the philosophical turn in IR, Wver remarks that *a+ frenzy for words like epistemology and ontology
often signals this philosophical turn, although he goes on to comment that these terms are often used loosely.4 However, loosely deployed or
not, it is clear that debates concerning ontology and epistemology play a central role in the contemporary IR theory wars. In one respect, this is unsurprising since it
is a characteristic feature of the social sciences that periods of disciplinary disorientation involve recourse to reflection on the philosophical commitments of
different theoretical approaches, and there is no doubt that such reflection can play a valuable role in making explicit the commitments that characterise (and help
individuate) diverse theoretical positions. Yet, such a philosophical turn is not without its dangers and I will briefly mention three before
turning to consider a confusion that has, I will suggest, helped to promote the IR theory wars by motivating this philosophical turn. The first danger with
the philosophical turn is that it has an inbuilt tendency to prioritise issues of ontology and
epistemology over explanatory and/or interpretive power as if the latter two were merely a simple
function of the former. But while the explanatory and/or interpretive power of a theoretical account
is not wholly independent of its ontological and/or epistemological commitments (otherwise criticism of these features would not be a criticism that had any
value), it is by no means clear that it is, in contrast, wholly dependent on these philosophical commitments. Thus, for
example, one need not be sympathetic to rational choice theory to recognise that it can provide
powerful accounts of certain kinds of problems, such as the tragedy of the commons in which
dilemmas of collective action are foregrounded. It may, of course, be the case that the advocates of
rational choice theory cannot give a good account of why this type of theory is powerful in accounting for
this class of problems (i.e., how it is that the relevant actors come to exhibit features in these circumstances
that approximate the assumptions of rational choice theory) and, if this is the case, it is a philosophical
weaknessbut this does not undermine the point that, for a certain class of problems, rational choice
theory may provide the best account available to us. In other words, while the critical judgement of
theoretical accounts in terms of their ontological and/or epistemological sophistication is one kind of
critical judgement, it is not the only or even necessarily the most important kind. The second danger run by the
philosophical turn is that because prioritisation of ontology and epistemology promotes theory-construction
from philosophical first principles, it cultivates a theory-driven rather than problem-driven approach
to IR. Paraphrasing Ian Shapiro, the point can be put like this: since it is the case that there is always a plurality of possible true
descriptions of a given action, event or phenomenon, the challenge is to decide which is the most apt in terms of
getting a perspicuous grip on the action, event or phenomenon in question given the purposes of the inquiry; yet, from this standpoint,
theory-driven work is part of a reductionist program in that it dictates always opting for the
description that calls for the explanation that flows from the preferred model or theory.5 The
justification offered for this strategy rests on the mistaken belief that it is necessary for social science because
general explanations are required to characterise the classes of phenomena studied in similar terms.
However, as Shapiro points out, this is to misunderstand the enterprise of science since whether there are
general explanations for classes of phenomena is a question for social-scientific inquiry, not to be
prejudged before conducting that inquiry.6 Moreover, this strategy easily slips into the promotion of the
pursuit of generality over that of empirical validity. The third danger is that the preceding two combine
to encourage the formation of a particular image of disciplinary debate in IRwhat might be called (only slightly tongue in cheek) the
Highlander viewnamely, an image of warring theoretical approaches with each, despite occasional temporary tactical
alliances, dedicated to the strategic achievement of sovereignty over the disciplinary field. It encourages this view
because the turn to, and prioritisation of, ontology and epistemology stimulates the idea that there can only
be one theoretical approach which gets things right, namely, the theoretical approach that gets its ontology and epistemology right.
This image feeds back into IR exacerbating the first and second dangers, and so a potentially vicious
circle arises.
IF we win framework it justifies the permutation our arguments are contingent on
disevaluating links of omission and silence SILENCE cannot be a link in our
framework because you evaluate the plan over justifications and silence

And if its true that form matters in that abolition has to be the entire focus of the 1ac,
then the 1NC also links because it focused on issues outside abolition this proves the
ineffectiveness of their strategy and the regressiveness of their framework arguments

They ceded that the way we debate spills over into the real world only a question of
abolution vs. reform

If their pedogagy fails in the context of the alternative then you should disevaluate it
1ar a2: Explanatory Power/Root Cause
The K doesnt have explanatory power or solve the root ause of our advantages
none of their Oses evidence says that prison abolution would resolve marihuana
legalization, cartel profits, latin American relations, or biotech innovation your
threshold for root cause and epistemological framing arguments should be high.

1ar a2: extinction inevitable
Extinction isnt coming now and the world is getting better
Beauchamp 13
Zack Beauchamp, Editor of TP Ideasa Think Progress project, Reporter for Think Progress, former
writer for Andrew Sullivans The Dish at Newsweek/Daily Beast, has written for Foreign Policy and Tablet
magazines, holds an M.S. in International Relations from the London School of Economics and B.A.s in
Philosophy and Political Science from Brown University, 2013, 5 Reasons Why 2013 Was The Best Year
In Human History, Think Progressthe Center for American Progress blog, December 11,
http://thinkprogress.org/security/2013/12/11/3036671/2013-certainly-year-human-history/
Between the brutal civil war in Syria, the government shutdown and all of the deadly dysfunction it represents, the NSA spying revelations, and
massive inequality, itd be easy to for you to enter 2014 thinking the last year has been an awful one. But youd
be wrong. We have every reason to believe that 2013 was , in fact, the best year on the planet for
humankind. Contrary to what you might have heard, virtually all of the most important forces that determine
what make peoples lives good the things that determine how long they live, and whether they
live happily and freely are trending in an extremely happy direction. While its possible that this
progress could be reversed by something like runaway climate change, the effects will have to be dramatic to
overcome the extraordinary and growing progress weve made in making the world a better place.
Heres the five big reasons why. 1. Fewer people are dying young, and more are living longer. The greatest story
in recent human history is the simplest: were winning the fight against death. There is not a single
country in the world where infant or child mortality today is not lower than it was in 1950, writes Angus
Deaton, a Princeton economist who works on global health issues. The most up-to-date numbers on global health, the 2013
World Health Organization (WHO) statistical compendium, confirm Deatons estimation. Between 1990 and 2010, the percentage of children
who died before their fifth birthday dropped by almost half. Measles deaths declined by 71 percent, and both tuberculosis and maternal deaths
by half again. HIV, that modern plague, is also being held back, with deaths from AIDS-related illnesses down by 24 percent since 2005. In
short, fewer people are dying untimely deaths . And thats not only true in rich countries: life
expectancy has gone up between 1990 and 2011 in every WHO income bracket. The gains are even more dramatic if you
take the long view: global life expectancy was 47 in the early 1950s, but had risen to 70 a 50 percent jump by 2011. For even more
perspective, the average Briton in 1850 when the British Empire had reached its apex was 40. The average person today
should expect to live almost twice as long as the average citizen of the worlds wealthiest and most
powerful country in 1850. In real terms, this means millions of fewer dead adults and children a year ,
millions fewer people who spend their lives suffering the pains and unfreedoms imposed by illness ,
and millions more people spending their twilight years with loved ones. And the trends are all
positive progress has accelerated in recent years in many countries with the highest rates of mortality, as the WHO rather bloodlessly
put it. Whats going on? Obviously, its fairly complicated, but the most important drivers have been technological
and political innovation. The Enlightenment-era advances in the scientific method got people doing
high-quality research, which brought us modern medicine and the information technologies that
allow us to spread medical breakthroughs around the world at increasingly faster rates . Scientific
discoveries also fueled the Industrial Revolution and the birth of modern capitalism, giving us more
resources to devote to large-scale application of live-saving technologies . And the global spread of
liberal democracy made governments accountable to citizens , forcing them to attend to their health
needs or pay the electoral price. Well see the enormously beneficial impact of these two forces, technology
and democracy, repeatedly throughout this list, which should tell you something about the foundations of
human progress. But when talking about improvements in health, we shouldnt neglect foreign aid. Nations donating huge amounts of
money out of an altruistic interest in the welfare of foreigners is historically unprecedented, and while not all aid has been helpful, health aid
has been a huge boon. Even Deaton, who wrote one of 2013s harshest assessments of foreign aid, believes the case for assistance to fight
disease such as HIV/AIDS or smallpox is strong. Thats because these programs have demonstrably saved lives the Presidents Emergency
Plan for AIDS Relief (PEPFAR), a 2003 program pushed by President Bush, paid for anti-retroviral treatment for over 5.1 million people in the
poor countries hardest-hit by the AIDS epidemic. So were outracing the Four Horseman, extending our lives faster
than pestilence, war, famine, and death can take them. That alone should be enough to say the
world is getting better .

1ar alt fails
The alternative fails

A. Extra-legal co-option rejection of normative legal options in favor of personal
discussion that is extricated from institutional structures cedes legal interpretation to
conservative elites that reinforce the same mechanisms of hegemonic control they
seek to dismantle this is especially true since their Loyd evidence says that the
sustainability of the prison industrial context is contingent on hiearchal institutions

B. Individual action fails 2 arguments
First, no threshold there is already criticism that exists outside of the round either
means the status quo solves the impact or the alternative fails because it is only one
speech act.
Second, personal discussion precludes macro-level interventions predicated off of pre-
existing institutional apparatuses of power that are heavily situated thats Wight

The alternative also cant solve our offense if they are antithetical to the state then
the alternative is decriminalization, not legalization that means Latin American
relations is offense because Latin America wants a comprehensive legal strategy to
undercut cartels and decriminalization still maintains U.S. market

Ending prisons doesn't address the underlying conditions that enabled them to begin
with their lack of an alternative reproduces the same oppressions they attempt to
break down
Ben-Moshe, Syracuse sociology PhD, 2013
(Liat, The Tension between Abolition and Reform," The End of Prisons. Reflections from the
Decarceration Movement, 84-5)

Closure of repressive institutions, such us mental hospitals and prisons, can he conceptualized as a necessary but not
sufficient action on the road to abolition. The most important element in institutional closure is to
ensure that people do not end up re-incarcerated in other formats such as group homes or other institutional placements
(Blutt el al.. 1977). In this sense the effective- ness of deinstitutionalization as a movement is in ensuring
community living, with all needed supports, not merely in the closure of the institution, which is only
a first step. This ideological stance may create a dilemma. Should proponents of deinstitutionalization wail until there are sufficient community placements
before advocating for institutional closure? Or. should they go ahead regardless, on the principle that no one should live in an institution at any time? This is the
very dilemma posed by Mathiesen in regards to abolition in general. Taylor (1995'6) suggests that in such cases one should ask
which path would lead to the least harm done to the fewest people, Such questioning, he believes,
would lead one to realize that institutional living is unjustifiable under any circumstances, even if community
settings arc imperfect al the present lime. The mere closure of prisons and large stale psychiatric institutions does not
necessarily entail a radical change in policy, attitudes, or the lived experiences of those incarcerated.
Penal abolitionist Ruth Morris reflects on her experiences within the prison abolition movement in Canada and the United States: My objection to
prisons is to something much more oppressive than closed buildings, or even locks and keys. It's
important to think this out, because otherwise we delude ourselves about building alternatives when
actually we are creating their very spirit in the community, destroying people just as effectively as any building with locks can
possibly do. (1989. p. 141) In this light, closure in itself is still embedded within (lie same circuits of power that
created such institutions, unless there is an episiemic shift in the way community, punishment,
disability and segregation arc conceptualized. I 'here fore, closure of prisons and institutions is only
one step on the way to achieve a shift in perspective. Closure of large institutions has not led to
freedom for all disabled people, nor has it resulted in the radical acceptance of the fact of difference
amongst us.
Alt fails without a blueprint to rearticulate systems
Mouffe, Westminster political theory professor, 2013
(Chantal, Space, Hegemony and Radical Critique,
http://media.johnwiley.com.au/product_data/excerpt/07/14443383/1444338307-72.pdf)

It is clear that, once we envisage social reality in terms of hegemonic practices, the process of social
critique characteristic of radical politics cannot consist any longer in a withdrawal from the existing
institutions, but in an engagement with them in order to disarticulate the existing discourses and practices
through which the current hegemony is established and reproduced, with the aim of constructing a different one. Such a process, I want to stress,
cannot merely consist in separating the different elements whose discursive articulation is at the
origin of those practices and institutions, or for that matter in deserting them. The second moment, the
moment of rearticulation, is crucial . Otherwise we will be faced with a chaotic situation of pure
dissemination, leaving the door open for attempts at rearticulation by non-progressive forces . Indeed,
we have many historical examples of situations in which the crisis of the dominant order led to right-
wing solutions. It is therefore important that the moment of de-identification be accompanied by a moment of re-identification, and that the critique
and disarticulation of the existing hegemony goes hand in hand with a process of rearticulation. This is something that is missed by all
approaches in terms of reification or false consciousness which believe that it is enough to lift the
weight of the dominant ideology in order to bring about a new order, free from oppression and
power. It is also missed, albeit in a different way, by the theorists of the Multitude who believe that its
oppositional consciousness does not require political articulation. For the hegemonic approach, social reality is discursively
constructed and identities are always the result of processes of identification. It is through insertion in a manifold of practices and language games that specific
forms of individualities are constructed. The political has a primary structuring role because social relations are ultimatel y contingent and any prevailing articulation
results from an antagonistic confrontation whose outcome is not decided in advance. What is needed is therefore a strategy whose objective is, through a set of
counterhegemonic interventions, to disarticulate the existing hegemony and to establish a more progressive one thanks to a process of rearticulation of new and
old elements into a different configuration of power. The hegemonic strategy of war of position that I am advocating is clearly informed by a conception of space
which, like the one advocated by Massey, acknowledges its dimension of multiplicity (see Massey, 2005 ). By asserting that space and multiplicity are co-constitutive
and that our constitutive interrelatedness implies spatiality, Masseys conception allows us to scrutinise the nature of spatiality and to see it as a field of political
engagement. Her notion of power-geometries brings to the fore the spatial character of the hegemonic articulations which constitute the nodal points around
which a given hegemony is established. The globalised space appears as always striated, with a diversity of sites where relations of power are articulated in specific
local, regional and national configurations. This reveals the crucial spatial dimension of the strategy of war of position which has to take place in many different
social spaces. Indeed, the multiplicity of nodal points which configure different geometries of power call for a variety of strategies and the struggle cannot simply be
envisaged at the global level or in terms of desertion. It is important to realise that, besides relying on different conceptions of spatiality, the disagreements
between the two approaches that I have presented also stem from the very different ontologies that provide their theoretical framework. The strategy of
exodus, based on an ontology of immanence, supposes the possibility of a redemptive leap into a
society, beyond politics and sovereignty, where the Multitude would be able to immediately rule
itself and act in concert, without the need of law or the state and where antagonism would have
disappeared. The hegemonic strategy, in contrast, recognises that antagonism is irreducible and that, as a consequence,
social objectivity can never be fully constituted. Therefore, a fully inclusive consensus or an absolute democracy is never
available. In all its versions the problem with this immanentist view is its incapacity to give account of the
role of radical negativity, that is, antagonism. No doubt, negation is present in those theorists, and they even use the term antagonism, but this
negation is not envisaged as radical negativity. It is either conceived in the mode of dialectical contradiction or simply as a real opposition. As we have shown in
Hegemony and Socialist Strategy , to be able to envisage negation in the mode of antagonism requires a different ontological approach, where the primary
ontological terrain is one of division, of failed unicity . Antagonism is not graspable in a problematic that sees society as a
homogeneous space because this is incompatible with the recognition of radical negativity. In order to
make room for radical negativity, we need to abandon the immanentist idea of a homogeneous
saturated social space and acknowledge the role of heterogeneity. This requires relinquishing the idea
of a society beyond division and power, without any need for law or the state and where in fact
politics would have disappeared. In fact, the strategy of exodus can be seen as the reformulation in a different vocabulary of the idea of
communism as it was found in Marx. Indeed, there are many points in common between the views of the post-operaists and the traditional Marxist conception. To
be sure, for them it is not any longer the proletariat but the Multitude that is the privileged political subject; however, in both cases, the state is seen a monolithic
apparatus of domination that cannot be transformed. It has to wither away in order to leave room for a reconciled society beyond law, power and sovereignty. If
our approach has been called post-Marxist, it is precisely because we have challenged the type of ontology subjacent to such a conception. By bringing to
the fore the dimension of negativity which impedes the full totalisation of society, we have put into
question the very possibility of such a reconciled society. To acknowledge the ineradicability of
antagonism implies recognising that every form of order is necessarily a spatialised hegemonic one,
that it constitutes a geometry of power, to use Masseys vocabulary. Heterogeneity can never be eliminated and
antagonistic heterogeneity points to the limits of constitution of social objectivity. As far as politics is concerned,
this points to the need to envisage it in terms of a hegemonic struggle between conflicting hegemonic projects attempting to incarnate the universal and to define
the symbolic parameters of social life. Hegemony, as I have argued, is obtained through the construction of nodal points which discursively fix the meaning of
institutions and social practices and articulate the common sense through which a given conception of reality is established. Such a result will always be contingent
and precarious and susceptible of being challenged by counter-hegemonic interventions. Politics always takes place in a field
crisscrossed by antagonisms, and to envisage it exclusively as acting in concert leads to erasing the
ontological dimension of antagonism (which I have proposed calling the political) which provides its
quasi-transcendental condition of possibility. A properly political intervention is always one that
engages with a certain aspect of the existing hegemony with the objective of
disarticulating/rearticulating its constitutive elements. It can never be merely oppositional or
conceived as desertion because it aims at rearticulating the situation in a new configuration. Another
important aspect of a hegemonic politics lies in establishing a chain of equivalences between various demands, so as to transform them into claims that will
challenge the existing structure of power relations. It is clear that the ensemble of democratic demands that exist in our societies do not necessarily converge and
they can even be in conflict with each other. This is why they need to be articulated politically. This is missed by the various advocates of the Multitude, who seem
to believe that it possesses a natural unity which does not need political articulation because it already has something in common: the general intellect. What is at
stake is the creation of a we, a People, and this requires the determination of a they. Virnos rejection (shared by Hardt and Negri) of the notion of the People as
being homogeneous and expressed in a unitary general will which does not leave room for multiplicity is totally misplaced when directed to the construction of the
People through a chain of equivalence. As we have repeatedly emphasised, in this case we are dealing with a form of unity that respects diversity and does not
eliminate differences, otherwise it would not be a relation of equivalence but a simple identity. It is only as far as democratic differences are opposed to forces or
discourses that negate all of them that these differences can be substituted for each other. This is the reason why the construction of a People requires defining an
adversary. Such an adversary cannot be defined in broad general terms like Empire or subsumed under
an homogeneous label such as capitalism, but in terms of nodal points of power that need to be
targeted and transformed in order to create the conditions for a new hegemony. It is a war of
position (Gramsci, 1971 ) that needs to be launched in a multiplicity of sites. This can only be done by
establishing links between social movements, political parties and trade unions, as Doreen Masseys
own political interventions have strived to do. To create, through the construction of a chain of
equivalence, a collective will aiming at the transformation of a wide range of institutions so as to
establish new geometries of power is, in my view, the kind of critique suited to a radical politics.