1NC

1NC TUnited States is both federal and states. McCurdy & Robinson 10 Director of civil litigation @ Fairfield and Woods & Of Counsel trial attorney focusing on complex commercial and environmental litigation @ Fairfield and Woods [Michael R. McCurdy & Jason B. Robinson, Tort Law in the United States, Fairfield and Woods, P.C., 2010, pg. http://tinyurl.com/pbhmc4v

I. INTRODUCTIONThe United States of America is unique in that it is comprised of a federal district and fifty states. As a result, the legal system in the United States is divided into two separate courts: federal and state courts. The differences between federal and state courts are defined mainly by jurisdiction, which refers to the types of cases a court is allowed to decide.AND, CSA defines US is all places under federal and state jurisdictions United States Code 12 [Title 21 US Code Control Substance Act (2012 Edition) pg. http://tinyurl.com/bwg54pt

(28) The term "United States", when used in a geographic sense, means all places and waters, continental or insular, subject to the jurisdiction of the United States.Legalize means free of all legal sanctions. Mikos 10 - Professor of Law @ Vanderbilt University [Robert A. Mikos (Director of the Program in Law and Government @Vanderbilt University Law School.) On the Limits of Federal Supremacy When States Relax (or Abandon) Marijuana Bans, Cato Institute Policy Analysis, #714, (December 12, 2012)

By legalize, I mean the state government permits some private conduct to occur free of legal sanctions, both civil and criminal. It means something more than decriminalize, which merely removes the threat of criminal sanctions. Pg. 27 Violation Altering the CSA doesnt legalize in all places. Marijuana would still be federally illegal in the 48 states that currently prohibit it Altieri 13 - NORML Communications Director [Erik Altieri, Everything You Wanted to Know About the New Federal Marijuana Legalization Measures, NORML, February 5, 2013, pg. http://tinyurl.com/ajbjpe9

Representative Polis legislation, The Ending Marijuana Prohibition Act of 2013, would remove marijuana from the Controlled Substances Act, transfer the Drug Enforcement Administrations authority to regulate marijuana to a newly renamed Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Marijuana and Firearms, require commercial marijuana producers to purchase a permit, and ensure federal law distinguishes between individuals who grow marijuana for personal use and those involved in commercial sale and distribution.Speaking on the bill, Rep. Polis stated, This legislation doesnt force any state to legalize marijuana, but Colorado and the 18 other jurisdictions that have chosen to allow marijuana for medical or recreational use deserve the certainty of knowing that federal agents wont raid state-legal businesses. Congress should simply allow states to regulate marijuana as they see fit and stop wasting federal tax dollars on the failed drug war.Representative Blumenauers legislation is aimed at creating a federal tax structure which would allow for the federal government to collect excise taxes on marijuana sales and businesses in states that have legalized its use. The Marijuana Tax Equity Act, would impose an excise tax on the first sale of marijuana, from the producer to the next stage of production, usually the processor. These regulations are similar to those that now exist for alcohol and tobacco. The bill will also require the IRS to produce a study of the industry after two years, and every five years after that, and to issue recommendations to Congress to continue improving the administration of the tax. We are in the process of a dramatic shift in the marijuana policy landscape, said Rep. Blumenauer. Public attitude, state law, and established practices are all creating irreconcilable difficulties for public officials at every level of government. We want the federal government to be a responsible partner with the rest of the universe of marijuana interests while we address what federal policy should be regarding drug taxation, classification, and legality.You can use NORMLs Take Action Center here to easily contact your elected officials and urge them to support these measures.These two pieces of legislation are historic in their scope and forward looking nature and it is likely you have many unanswered questions. NORML has compiled the below FAQs to hopefully address many of these inquiries.FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONSQ: Would this make marijuana legal everywhere?A: No, but it would allow states who wish to pursue legalization to do so without federal incursion. Currently, the federal government claims that state laws which have legalized medical and recreational marijuana use are in conflict with federal law. It is under this claim that they raid medical marijuana dispensaries, arrest consumers, etc. If these measures were to pass, marijuana law would be the domain of the states. If a state choses to legalize and regulate its use, it can do so in the way it would any other product and the federal government would issue permits to commercial growers and sellers and collect tax revenue. If a state choses to retain marijuana prohibition, they may as well, and the federal government would assist in stopping flow of marijuana into the states borders, as transporting marijuana from a legalized state into one retaining prohibition would still be illegal under this legislation.

1nc - Reg Spec VOTE NEG. They make the debate pointless by failing to specify a tax regulatory regime. A.) It is impossible to evaluate the cost and benefits B.) It puts us at a competitive disadvantage by restricting our to the most indefensible args in the legalization debateKleiman 13 Professor of public policy @ UCLA [Mark Kleiman, How to Legalize Cannabis, Washington Monthly, December 26, 2013 11:03 AM , pg. http://tinyurl.com/mc82k9y

Debating whether to legalize pot is increasingly pointless. Unless theres an unexpected shock to public opinion, its going to happen, and sooner rather than later. The important debate now is how to legalize it. The results of legalization depend strongly on the details of the post-prohibition tax and regulatory regimes. In the current situation, continued prohibition might be the worst option. Full commercial legalization on the alcohol model might well be the second-worst. But that is the way were heading.Im preparing an essay about designing a post-prohibition regime. After the jump is a set of topic sentences and paragraphs for sections of that essay, not yet in a well-defined order.Substantive comments are welcome. Rant and snark will be ruthlessly zapped.We probably should legalize cannabis. Prohibition is now breaking down. $35B/yr. is a lot of money to give to criminals, and no one has a plausible plan to shrink the illicit market under prohibition. Even where medical marijuana has degenerated into system when anyone can buy a user license from a crooked doctor, the voters still like it. Arguably, prohibition was worth trying. But its time to go home.Everything has advantages and disadvantages. Cannabis legalization will reduce criminal revenue, intrusive enforcement, arrest, incarceration, and disorder around illicit markets, and enhance personal liberty, consumer choice, and respect for the law, and probably reduce bloodshed in Mexico. It might foster safer and more beneficial practices of cannabis use.Legalization will certainly increase drug abuse, including heavy use by minors. Every adult is a potential source of leakage to minors. And if we insist on making minors consume illicitly-produced pot, we reserve 20-25% of the market for criminals. Much better to tolerate leakage and have a grey-market supply to minors like the current system that provides them with alcohol.The polarized nature of the debate means that both sides wind up spending lots of time denying the obvious.Good design tries to get as much of the advantages, and as little of the disadvantages, as possible.The policies most likely to help control increases in drug abuse are taxation and other efforts to keep prices high, rules about consumer information (labeling and marketing), and nudge strategies to enhance consumer mindfulness.It matters a lot whether, under conditions of legality, cannabis turns out to be a substitute for alcohol or instead a complement. Right now, no one knows the answer, which might not be the same for all parts of the population or the same in the long run as in the short run.Analysis can help, but theres no substitute for experience. The trick is not to get locked in to a set of bad policies. We need a process designed to learn from mistakes.Neither cannabis nor legalization names its object with enough specificity. Lots of different things are legalization. Lots of different things are cannabis.

1NC TPATPA will pass---Obama is ratcheting up pressure and Dems will get on board---but political capital is keyInside US Trade 1/16, WHITE HOUSE SETS UP WHIP OPERATION FOR TPA INVOLVING SENIOR OFFICIALS, lexisUnder the leadership of National Economic Council Director Jeff Zients, the White House has set up an operation of senior officials seeking to garner votes for a fast-track or Trade Promotion Authority (TPA) bill, according to informed sources. This operation, which began in December and is ongoing, involves Cabinet officials assigned to reach out to Democratic lawmakers perceived as gettable votes, outside interest groups, and former government officials, they said. U.S. Trade Representative Michael Froman is involved in the effort, but Zients' prominence is necessary because Froman is also focused on closing the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) deal, one source said. According to Sen. John Cornyn (R-TX), Froman has indicated to senators that TPP could be wrapped up in two months (see related story). The administration has acquiesced to Republican demands that a fast-track bill be passed before TPP is concluded, and congressional Republicans hope to release a bill in early February, sources said. Republicans are also setting a target for final congressional passage by the end of March, but some sources caution that this is very ambitious and noted that no firm decision has been made on the timeline. A pro-TPA lobbyist described the activity as a "whip effort" that is targeting Democratic lawmakers who realistically would vote for a TPA bill. In late July, President Obama discussed his trade agenda with a group of 12 pro-trade House Democrats that are seen as gettable TPA votes, the majority of whom are members of the New Democrat Coalition. The source noted that this operation shows the administration really wants to see a fast-track bill approved, particularly since it is a departure from its otherwise hands-off legislative approach. Cabinet-level officials are attending bi-weekly meetings along with White House advisers like Valerie Jarrett, while deputies meet weekly on the TPA effort. Cabinet officials involved in this operation have been assigned certain lawmakers or groups to whom they are to reach out to on TPA. The specific assignment can depend on a given lawmaker's interest in trade, or on an existing relationship between an official and a lawmaker. For instance, Secretary of State John Kerry could reach out to a Democratic lawmaker who has an interest in foreign policy. Multiple sources said the sequencing of which chamber will move first on a TPA bill has not yet been decided, although one informed source said there is a good chance that the Senate Finance Committee will kick off the action with a markup. That would be followed by a House Ways & Means Committee markup, House floor action, and Senate floor action. This scenario, which has long been floated by TPA advocates, would be beneficial to supporters because a fast-track bill is expected to garner more Democratic support in Finance than in Ways & Means. As a result, having Finance go first would build more momentum for passage while also providing political cover for House Democrats to support a TPA bill. One possible scenario would then be for Ways & Means and the House as whole to pass a clean TPA bill that would be amended in the Senate with other trade legislation such as the Generalized System of Preferences and potentially Trade Adjustment Assistance (TAA). Then the House and Senate would hold a conference to hammer out a compromise version, which as a conference report would have to be approved by both chambers in an up-or-down vote. This approach could reduce divisiveness in the House GOP because it would avoid a contentious floor debate over TAA, since the House would never consider TAA in an amendable trade bill, but only as part of a conference report. But it could also cause a backlash from the GOP ranks who might resent not having the chance to amend TAA, sources speculated. The White House push could ratchet up in the near future, such as in Obama's State of the Union address on Jan. 20. One industry source speculated that the administration has kept this operation quiet so as not to preempt a possible announcement on TPA by Obama during the address. "They don't want to steal the president's thunder," he said. He said he expected to hear more about the White House effort publicly after the State of the Union, and that Obama would subsequently ratchet up his public support of TPA. Rep. Kevin Brady (R-TX) said more important than what Obama says in the State of the Union are what actions he takes to lobby Congressional Democrats on TPA. White House Press Secretary Josh Earnest hinted that the administration would be making a bigger push for trade, when asked by a reporter during the Jan. 13 daily press briefing on how hard the president is willing to push Democrats to keep them from blocking an agreement on trade. "The President will make a forceful case to both Democrats and Republicans that what he is doing [on trade] is clearly in the best interest of the American economy," he said. Separately, Brady told Inside U.S. Trade after a Jan. 13 House Ways & Means Committee hearing on U.S. economic growth that he had begun to hear about the Obama administration's efforts to press congressional Democrats in order to pass a TPA bill. "We're hopeful that the president weighs in, and we start to hear some whispers that he is -- with some Democrats both in the House and the Senate," he said. "It's going to require his leadership to get this done. His personal leadership and political capital. But I'm absolutely confident we can get this done." Asked to elaborate on what these whispers were, Brady emphasized that Froman can't advocate for TPA on his own. "I think it's going to take an all-hands-on-deck approach by the president and the Cabinet. And if they do that, there's actually no question that this will succeed," he added. U.S. Chamber of Commerce President Thomas Donohue also pinned his hopes on Obama being "very aggressive" on TPA in the State of the Union address. Speaking at a Jan. 14 press conference, Donohue said the president has "begun to make it clear, first of all, to his own team that he wants the Cabinet and others up there working on this. I'm hopeful that he'll be very aggressive on it at the State of the Union." Donohue called on Obama to "really fight for [TPA], especially before members of his own party" during the Chamber's annual State of American Business address. But he added that Obama will have to "spend some time assuring Republicans of what [TPA] is going to lead to." But Obama's task of wrangling Democrats to support TPA will not be easy, according to Bruce Josten, the Chamber's executive vice president of government affairs. He estimated that there are "200 good Republican votes for this, but you want some balance [in the final vote count]." He added that both House and Senate Republican leaderships are determined to renew TPA. At the same time, however, Donohue insisted during the press conference following his speech that there are enough votes in Congress to get TPA passed. "We believe there are plenty, plenty of votes to get this done. I believe we will get it done," he said.Dems are resistant to legalizing---soft on drugsAdam Nagourney 14, 4/5/2014, Despite Support in Party, Democratic Governors Resist Legalizing Marijuana, http://www.nytimes.com/2014/04/06/us/politics/despite-support-in-party-democratic-governors-resist-legalizing-marijuana.html?_r=0, JMP)Even with Democrats and younger voters leading the wave of the pro-legalization shift, these governors are standing back, supporting much more limited medical-marijuana proposals or invoking the kind of law-and-order and public-health arguments more commonly heard from Republicans. While 17 more states most of them leaning Democratic have seen bills introduced this year to follow Colorado and Washington in approving recreational marijuana, no sitting governor or member of the Senate has offered a full-out endorsement of legalization. Only Gov. Peter Shumlin, a Democrat in Vermont, which is struggling with a heroin problem, said he was open to the idea. Quite frankly, I dont think we are ready, or want to go down that road, Dannel P. Malloy, the Democratic governor of Connecticut, which has legalized medical marijuana and decriminalized possession of small amounts of marijuana, said in an interview. Perhaps the best way to handle this is to watch those experiments that are underway. I dont think its necessary, and I dont think its appropriate. The hesitance expressed by these governors reflects not only governing concerns but also, several analysts said, a historically rooted political wariness of being portrayed as soft on crime by Republicans. In particular, Mr. Brown, who is 75, lived through the culture wars of the 1960s, when Democrats suffered from being seen as permissive on issues like this. Either they dont care about it as passionately or they feel embarrassed or vulnerable. They fear the judgment, said Ethan Nadelmann, the founder of the Drug Policy Alliance, an organization that favors decriminalization of marijuana. The fear of being soft on drugs, soft on marijuana, soft on crime is woven into the DNA of American politicians, especially Democrats. He described that sentiment as, Do not let yourself be outflanked by Republicans when it comes to being tough on crime and tough on drugs. You will lose.Solves global trade collapseKati Suominen 14, Visiting Assistant Adjunct Professor at UCLA Anderson School of Management, Adjunct Fellow at CSIS, Ph.D. Political Economy from UC San Diego, Aug 4 2014, Coming Apart: WTO fiasco highlights urgency for the U.S. to lead the global trading system, katisuominen.wordpress.com/2014/08/04/coming-apartTwo threats are emerging. The first is disintegration of the trading system. The core of the system until the mid-1990s, the WTO is utterly dysfunctional: deals require unanimity among 160 members, making any cantankerous player like India a veto. Aligning interests has been impossible, turning all action in global trade policymaking to free trade agreements (FTAs), first kicked off by the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) in 1994. By now, 400 FTAs are in place or under negotiation. FTAs have been good cholesterol for trade, but the overlapping deals and rules also complicate life for U.S. companies doing global business. One single deal among all countries would be much preferable to the spaghetti bowl of FTAs, but it is but a pie in the sky. So is deeper liberalization by protectionist countries like India. The U.S.-led talks for mega-regional agreements with Europe and Asia-Pacific nations, the Trans-Atlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP) and Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP), are the best solution yet to these problems. They free trade and create uniform rules among countries making up two-thirds of the world economy. Incidentally, they would create a million jobs in America. Yet both hang in balance thanks to inaction on Capitol Hill to pass the Trade Promotion Authority (TPA), the key piece of legislation for approving the mega-deals, now stuck in a bitter political fight as several Democrats and Tea Party line up in opposition. TPA is key for the Obama administration to conclude TPP and TTIP talks: Europeans and Asians are unwilling to negotiate the thorniest topics before they know TPA is in place to constrain U.S. Congress to voting up or down on these deals, rather than amending freshly negotiated texts. The second threat in world trade is the absence of common rules of the game for the 21st century global digital economy. As 3D printing, Internet of Things, and cross-border ecommerce, and other disruptive technologies expand trade in digital goods and services, intellectual property will be fair game why couldnt a company around the world simply replicate 3D printable products and designs Made in the USA? Another problem is data protectionism rules on access and transport of data across borders. Europeans are imposing limits on companies access to consumer data, complicating U.S. businesses customer service and marketing; emerging markets such as Brazil and Vietnam are forcing foreign IT companies to locate servers and build data centers as a condition for market access, measure that costs companies millions in inefficiencies. A growing number of countries claim limits on access to data on the grounds of national security and public safety, familiar code words for protectionism. Digital protectionism risks balkanizing the global virtual economy just as tariffs siloed national markets in the 19th century when countries set out to collect revenue and promote infant industries a self-defeating approach that took well over a century to undo, and is still alive and well in countries like India. The biggest losers of digital protectionism are American small businesses and consumers leveraging their laptops, iPads and smart phones to buy and sell goods and services around the planet. Trade policymakers however lag far behind todays trade, which requires sophisticated rules on IP, piracy, copyrights, patents and trademarks, ecommerce, data flows, virtual currencies, and dispute settlement. The mega-regionals, especially the TTIP, are a perfect venue to start this process. Disintegration of trade policies risk disintegrating world markets. Just as after World War II, the global trading system rests in Americas hands. Three things are needed. The first is the approval of TPA, which unshackles U.S. negotiators to finalize TPP and TTIP. Most interesting for U.S. exporters, TPP and TTIP almost de facto merge into a superdeal: the United States and EU already have bilateral FTAs with several common partners belonging in TPP Peru, Colombia, Chile, Australia, Singapore, Canada, and Mexico to name a few. Whats more, gatekeepers to markets with two-thirds of global spending power, TPP and TTIP will be giant magnetic docking stations to outsiders; China and Brazil, aiming to revive sagging growth, are interested. Once this happens, the TTIP-TPP superdeal will cover 80 percent of worlds output and approximate a multilateral agreement and have cutting-edge common trade rules that could never be agreed in one Big Bang at the WTO. Causes global hotspot escalation---trade solvesMiriam Sapiro 14, Visiting Fellow in the Global Economy and Development program at Brookings, former Deputy US Trade Representative, former Director of European Affairs at the National Security Council, Why Trade Matters, September 2014, http://www.brookings.edu/~/media/research/files/papers/2014/09/why%20trade%20matters/trade%20global%20views_final.pdfThis policy brief explores the economic rationale and strategic imperative of an ambitious domestic and global trade agenda from the perspective of the United States. International trade is often viewed through the relatively narrow prism of trade-offs that might be made among domestic sectors or between trading partners, but it is important to consider also the impact that increased trade has on global growth, development and security. With that context in mind, this paper assesses the implications of the Asia-Pacific and European trade negotiations underway, including for countries that are not participating but aspire to join. It outlines some of the challenges that stand in the way of completion and ways in which they can be addressed. It examines whether the focus on mega-regional trade agreements comes at the expense of broader liberalization or acts as a catalyst to develop higher standards than might otherwise be possible. It concludes with policy recommendations for action by governments, legislators and stakeholders to address concerns that have been raised and create greater domestic support. It is fair to ask whether we should be concerned about the future of international trade policy when dire developments are threatening the security interests of the United States and its partners in the Middle East, Asia, Africa and Europe. In the Middle East, significant areas of Iraq have been overrun by a toxic offshoot of Al-Qaeda, civil war in Syria rages with no end in sight, and the Israeli-Palestinian peace process is in tatters. Nuclear negotiations with Iran have run into trouble, while Libya and Egypt face continuing instability and domestic challenges. In Asia, historic rivalries and disputes over territory have heightened tensions across the region, most acutely by Chinas aggressive moves in the South China Sea towards Vietnam, Japan and the Philippines. Nuclear-armed North Korea remains isolated, reckless and unpredictable. In Africa, countries are struggling with rising terrorism, violence and corruption. In Europe, Russia continues to foment instability and destruction in eastern Ukraine. And within the European Union, lagging economic recovery and the surge in support for extremist parties have left people fearful of increasing violence against immigrants and minority groups and skeptical of further integration. It is tempting to focus solely on these pressing problems and defer less urgent issuessuch as forging new disciplines for international tradeto another day, especially when such issues pose challenges of their own. But that would be a mistake. A key motivation in building greater domestic and international consensus for advancing trade liberalization now is precisely the role that greater economic integration can play in opening up new avenues of opportunity for promoting development and increasing economic prosperity. Such initiatives can help stabilize key regions and strengthen the security of the United States and its partners. The last century provides a powerful example of how expanding trade relations can help reduce global tensions and raise living standards. Following World War II, building stronger economic cooperation was a centerpiece of allied efforts to erase battle scars and embrace former enemies. In defeat, the economies of Germany, Italy and Japan faced ruin and people were on the verge of starvation. The United States led efforts to rebuild Europe and to repair Japans economy. A key element of the Marshall Plan, which established the foundation for unprecedented growth and the level of European integration that exists today, was to revive trade by reducing tariffs.1 Russia, and the eastern part of Europe that it controlled, refused to participate or receive such assistance. Decades later, as the Cold War ended, the United States and Western Europe sought to make up for lost time by providing significant technical and financial assistance to help integrate central and eastern European countries with the rest of Europe and the global economy. There have been subsequent calls for a Marshall Plan for other parts of the world,2 although the confluence of dedicated resources, coordinated support and existing capacity has been difficult to replicate. Nonetheless, important lessons have been learned about the valuable role economic development can play in defusing tensions, and how opening markets can hasten growth. There is again a growing recognition that economic security and national security are two sides of the same coin. General Carter Ham, who stepped down as head of U.S. Africa Command last year, observed the close connection between increasing prosperity and bolstering stability. During his time in Africa he had seen that security and stability in many ways depends a lot more on economic growth and opportunity than it does on military strength.3 Where people have opportunities for themselves and their children, he found, the result was better governance, increased respect for human rights and lower levels of conflict. During his confirmation hearing last year, Secretary John Kerry stressed the link between economic and national security in the context of the competitiveness of the United States but the point also has broader application. Our nation cannot be strong abroad, he argued, if it is not strong at home, including by putting its own fiscal house in order. He assertedrightly sothat more than ever foreign policy is economic policy, particularly in light of increasing competition for global resources and markets. Every day, he said, that goes by where America is uncertain about engaging in that arena, or unwilling to put our best foot forward and win, unwilling to demonstrate our resolve to lead, is a day in which we weaken our nation itself.4 Strengthening Americas economic security by cementing its economic alliances is not simply an option, but an imperative. A strong nation needs a strong economy that can generate growth, spur innovation and create jobs. This is true, of course, not only for the United States but also for its key partners and the rest of the global trading system. Much as the United States led the way in forging strong military alliances after World War II to discourage a resurgence of militant nationalism in Europe or Asia, now is the time to place equal emphasis on shoring up our collective economic security. A failure to act now could undermine international security and place stability in key regions in further jeopardy.

1NC CPThe Food and Drug Administration should reclassify marijuana to allow scientific research. The President of the United States should publicly announce that the official policy of the executive branch is to respect the rights of states to establish marijuana policy. The Treasury Department should eliminates rules that fail to accommodate legal marijuana businessesState governments in the United States other than Oklahoma and Nebraska should legalize and regulate the cultivation, possession, consumption and distribution of marihuana. The Supreme Court should grant Nebraska and Oklahoma permission to sue Colorado on the basis that its laws regulating marihuana are a violation of the Controlled Substance Act. The Supreme Court should issue an expedited ruling on the case and award damages if Nebraska and Oklahoma prevail.

These executive actions solve their federal signal links and set the table for more extensive federal reforms Weiner 1/20/15 Former US Representative [Anthony Weiner, Now Is The Time For Obama To Make A Move On Marijuana, The Business Insider, Jan. 20, 2015, 5:07 PM, pg. http://tinyurl.com/qgpeql6

Some issues advance because of forceful and unifying leadership from politicians, but more often progress happens and politicians take notice. Gay marriage and relations with Cuba had evolved so far in the public debate that eventually courts and elected leaders came around in a way that was unforeseen even a few years ago.Marijuana policy is following a similar arc. Twenty three states and the District of Columbia have now have legalized cannabis for medical or recreational use. Most of these laws have come from citizen referenda and many of the states in question have Republican legislatures.This isn't a fringe issue any more. In fact, a coalition of libertarians, millennials, social liberals, medical experts, patients' rights advocates, economists, and law enforcement officials, have moved marijuana smack in the middle of the mainstream of policy.But the President doesn't have to be pro-pot to take some smart and needed steps to clear up some of the odd disconnections that exist in a country where states have made uses of marijuana legal while the federal government hasn't caught on.Here are three common sense executive actions that the President should announce tonight that would set the table for a more sober pot policy:1. Make it legal for scientists to study the benefits of marijuana:There is now broad consensus in the medical community that there are legitimate and hugely helpful uses of cannabis as treatment for many diseases and ailments. For example, the oils have been shown to reduce seizures in children with epilepsy and the plant is in wide use to help soldiers calm the symptoms of PTSD. But in a bizarre Catch 22, the only way to study marijuana is to be in violation of federal law that still makes it illegal to own the stuff.Cannabis is considered a Class 1 narcotic by the Food and Drug Administration. As such, it is treated as though it has high abuse potential and zero medicinal value (even Cocaine isn't Class 1). Because of this federal regulation, marijuana can't be used in a study or even transported to a clinician's lab. In his address this evening, the President should announce he is asking the FDA to review whether marijuana should be reclassified so we can conduct further scientific research.2. Announce that states rights will be respected on marijuana laws:State legislators and voters have set up regimes in their states with laws, regulations, and taxes for marijuana. However, a law abiding citizen of Connecticut or Alabama could still find themselves at the wrong side of a federal indictment because of the schizophrenia that exists between federal and state law enforcement.For the most part, the Justice Department has taken an unofficial hands off policy. Still, if the President drops a line or two into his speech on Tuesday that makes it clear he respects the rights of the states here, it will calm the concerns of many in those jurisdictions, encourage investment, and also probably get both sides of the aisle clapping at once in a Congress where that rarely happens.3. Deregulate the banking industry for marijuana businesses.Drug-related crime is down in states that have legalized some uses of marijuana. Just as drug reform advocates predicted, when you lift an industry out of the black market, regulate it, and tax it, the criminals move on to other things. However, because of the federal banking regulations, lawful marijuana businesses can't use normal banks. Because of this one crime is on the rise: business having stashes of cash that they can't deposit anywhere stolen.This isn't an easy problem to untangle because of the thicket of anti-money laundering laws that are on the books and the different bank charter rules in the 50 states. Still, the area is ripe for executive action that few could disagree with: order the treasury department to review the laws to accommodate legal marijuana businesses.If we want to encourage a stable and well-regulated industry, the first step may be to loosen the rules that keep the operating cash, profits, and even the collected taxes in shoe boxes rather than checking accounts.

However, preserving the inconsistency between Amendment 64 and the CSA forms the foundation for the Nebraska/Oklahoma suit against Colorado. Federal legalization eliminates the constitutional justification the Court would use to rule in favor of Nebraska/Oklahoma Rivkin & Foley 12/28/14 Constitutional litigator who served in the Justice Department and White House Counsels Office in the Reagan and George H.W. Bush administrations & professor of constitutional law @ Florida International University College of Law [David B. Rivkin Jr. & Elizabeth Price Foley Federal Antidrug Law Goes Up in Smoke, Wall Street Journal, Dec. 28, 2014 6:52 p.m. ET, http://tinyurl.com/nfmufvu

The Controlled Substances Act can be amended or repealed. Congress has taken a step in this direction by providing in its recent omnibus spending bill that the Justice Department cannot use appropriated funds to prevent states from implementing laws that authorize the use, distribution or cultivation of medicinal marijuana. This development may lead the Supreme Court to take another look at the CSAs constitutionality, something that could occur in the context of the Oklahoma and Nebraska lawsuit against Colorado. Alternatively, Attorney General Eric Holder could use his authority under the Controlled Substances Act to remove marijuana from Schedule I. But Coloradansor the citizens of any other statelack the power in our constitutional regime to enact a law that conflicts with the CSA. When federal power has been legitimately invoked, states may not go rogue. When they do, sister states that can demonstrate concrete injury are entitled to obtain a court declaration that state laws in conflict with federal law are unconstitutional. Normally such lawsuits wouldnt be necessary because the federal government would enforce its superior law against rogue states. But these arent ordinary constitutional times, and it isnt fair-weather federalism to defend these core constitutional principles. Their victory will create an affirmative obligation to control GHG emissions Adler 12/19/14 - Professor of constitutional, administrative, and environmental law @ Case Western University School of Law [Jonathan H. Adler (Johan Verheij Memorial Professor of Law and Director of the Center for Business Law and Regulation), Are Nebraska and Oklahoma just fair-weather federalists?, Washington Post, December 19, 2014, pg. http://tinyurl.com/ktuugho

Accept for theargument that Colorados legalization of marijuana under state law imposes costs on Nebraska and Oklahoma that are tantamount to an interstate nuisance. Now think about what happens if the plaintiff states are successful. If Colorados laws regulating marijuana are preempted, marijuana will remain legal in Colorado federal law cannot force Colorado to implement federal preferences on marijuana policy and Colorado law enforcement will still have no obligation to enforce federal law. So marijuana sale, use, and possession would becomelessregulated and subject toless control in Colorado. This will make it more difficult for federal officials to police interstate trafficking, and the nuisance about which Oklahoma and Nebraska are complaining would likely get worse.Perhaps Nebraska and Oklahoma would argue that Colorado has an affirmative duty to control marijuana within its state. This would be an astounding argument for these states to make, particularly given the positions they have take against commandeering of state officials in other areas. One could perhaps argue that the anti-commandeering rule only applies to Congress, and does not prohibit courts from ordering affirmative relief, but any such argument made here still boils down to the claim that Colorado has an affirmative obligation to regulate a product because the federal government and neighboring states have [has] chosen to make it illegal.Indeed, given the efforts by Nebraska and Oklahoma to resist federal environmental initiatives where similar nuisance arguments and prayers for relief in court could be made a victory here (however unlikely) would dramatically increase federal regulatory authority. Were Nebraska and Oklahoma able to convince the Supreme Court that Colorado has an affirmative duty to control marijuana use within the state, it wont be long before New York, Connecticut and other northeastern states are in federal court arguing that Oklahoma, Nebraska, and other states have an affirmative obligation to control greenhouse gas emissions and other pollutants. Is that really what the plaintiff states are trying to accomplish? (Note thatthe two scenarios cant be distinguished on displacement grounds, as if the CAA displaces such claims over emissions, the CSA must displace those involving marijuana.)Successful litigation will halt climate change. Litigation forces Congressional reforms Flynn 13 JD Candidate @ Georgia State University College of Law [James Flynn, Climate of Confusion: Climate Change Litigation in the wake of American Electric Power v. Connecticut, Georgia State University Law Review, Spring, 2013, 29 Ga. St. U.L. Rev. 823, pg. lexis

1. Monitoring Current EnforcementIn light of the EPA's authority to regulate greenhouse gas emissions and the Court's decision in American Electric, global warming activists must ask themselves whether litigation is still a useful way to spur governmental action. Indeed, it may be that such litigation is becoming counterproductive. Is it time to "call off the dogs" and let the federal government work? The answer is a resounding no. n255 Concerned advocates and states must continue to litigate climate change issues.[*860] Climate change is an issue that requires action sooner rather than later. n256 While the EPA, as an expert agency, may be in the best position to deal with the issue, as the American Electric Court suggests, it would be unwise for advocates to postpone litigation for two reasons: first, the EPA's ability and authority to regulate greenhouse gases are subject to change; and second, even if the EPA regulates those emissions, the process may be delayed. The EPA, an administrative agency, is subject to policy changes with each new president. n257 Future policy changes may undermine any regulatory action the EPA takes on greenhouse gas emissions. n258 Moreover, the agency is subject to the whim of Congressional funding. Hostile Republican legislators in 2011 threatened the EPA's ability to enforce any of its regulations. n259 Congressional rhetoric portrays the agency as a job-killing behemoth. n260 Precious time will be lost if advocates refrain from litigating the issue and Congress manages to limit or repeal the agency's ability to regulate greenhouse gas emissions.Even if Congressional threats to the EPA do not succeed, American Electric suggests that the EPA's authority to regulate greenhouse gas emissions displaces federal common law nuisance claims, even if the EPA refuses to regulate greenhouse gas emissions from existing power plants. n261 Delays in the rulemaking process [*861] could postpone any actual regulation of those emissions. n262 Furthermore, the EPA's authority to regulate and the regulations themselves are often challenged in court, n263 which could lead to further delay in implementing new regulations. Thus, advocates must use litigation to put pressure on the EPA to ensure it complies with its duty to regulate greenhouse gases. That pressure should be shifted to fossil fuel companies if the EPA fails to issue regulations that are sufficient to make an impact on global warming.2. Turning Up the Heat on Congress: Litigating to LegislateThe only solution to anthropogenic global warming is a concerted global effort. n264 Such an effort cannot succeed without the leadership, or at least support, of the United States. n265 Real change in the United States requires comprehensive legislation that covers all facets of global warming: greenhouse gas emissions, land use, efficiency, and sustainable growth. In addition to maximizing time until the EPA either issues regulations or is prevented from doing so by Congress, litigation advances the goal of such comprehensive legislation in three ways.First, litigation keeps the pressure on fossil fuel companies and other large emitters. Comprehensive legislation is a near impossibility as long as the largest contributors to global greenhouse gas emissions are able to exert powerful control over the nation's [*862]energy policy and the climate change discussion. n266 While the companies have the financial resources to battle in court, it is imperative that advocates and states make them do so. One need only look at the tobacco litigation of the 1960s through the 1990s to understand that success against a major industry is possible. n267 Here, though, the stakes are even higher. The chances of obtaining a largescale settlement from the fossil fuel industry is likely smaller now that the Court has ruled that some federal common law nuisance claims are displaced, because lower courts may hold that nuisance claims for money damages are also displaced. n268 However, advocates of climate change legislation should keep trying to obtain such a settlement through other tort remedies. A substantially damaging settlement may encourage fossil fuel companies to reposition their assets into more sustainable technologies to avoid more settlements, thus minimizing future emissions. Alternatively, if the fossil fuel companies feel threatened enough, they may begin to use their clout to persuade Congress to pass comprehensive legislation to protect their industry from such wide-ranging suits. n269Second, litigation keeps the issue in the public consciousness during a time when the media is failing at its responsibilities to the public. n270 The media's coverage of climate change has been both inadequate and misleading. n271 Indeed, some polls suggest Americans [*863] believe less in climate change now than just a few years ago. n272 Litigation, especially high-profile litigation, forces the issue into the public sphere, even though it may receive a negative connotation in the media. The more the public hears about the issue, the greater chance that people will demand their local and state politicians take action.Finally, litigation sends a clear message to Congress that simple appeasements will not suffice. n273 Comprehensive legislation is needed--legislation that mandates consistently declining emissions levels while simultaneously propping up replacement sources of energy. n274 Fill-in measures, like the EPA's authority to regulate emissions from power plants, are not sufficient. Humans need energy, and there can be no doubt that we must strike a balance between energy needs and risks to the environment. Catastrophic climate change, however, is simply a risk that we cannot take; it overwhelms the short-term benefits we receive from the burning of fossil fuels. n275 Advocates and states must demonstrate to Congress [*864] through continuing litigation that the issue is critical and that plaintiffs like those in Kivalina and Comer are suffering genuine losses that demand redress that current statutes do not currently provide.CONCLUSIONAmerican Electric proved less important for the precedent it set than for the questions it left unanswered. While courts wrestled over standing, the political question doctrine, and displacement in climate change nuisance cases in the years preceding American Electric, the Supreme Court relied only on the clear displacement path illuminated by its earlier decision in Massachusetts. While the decision in American Electric narrowed the litigation options that climate change advocates have at their disposal, it subtly sent a message to Congress that greater federal action is needed. In writing such a narrow ruling, Justice Ginsburg also sent a message to states and advocates--whether intentionally or not--that climate change litigation is not dead. Until Congress enacts comprehensive climate change legislation, global warming lawsuits will, and must, continue.Failure risks extinctionCribb 14 - Canberra science writer [Julian Cribb, Human extinction: it is possible?, Sydney Morning Herald, Published: April 2, 2014 - 12:28PM, Pg. http://www.smh.com.au/comment/human-extinction-it-is-possible-20140402-zqpln.html However our own behaviour is liable to be a far more immediate determinant of human survival or extinction. Above two degrees which we have already locked in the worlds food harvest is going to become increasingly unreliable, as the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change warned this week. That means mid-century famines in places like India, China, the Middle East and Africa. But what scientists cannot predict is how humans living in the tropics and subtropics will respond to this form of stress. So let us turn to the strategic and military think tanks, who like to explore such scenarios, instead.The Age of Consequences study by the US Centre for Strategic and International Studies says that under a 2.6 degree rise nations around the world will be overwhelmed by the scale of change and pernicious challenges, such as pandemic disease. The internal cohesion of nations will be under great stressas a result of a dramatic rise in migration and changes in agricultural patterns and water availability. The flooding of coastal communities around the world has the potential to challenge regional and even national identities. Armed conflict between nations over resources is likely and nuclear war is possible. The social consequences range from increased religious fervour to outright chaos. Of five degrees which the world is on course for by 2100 if present carbon emissions continue it simply says the consequences are "inconceivable".Eighteen nations currently have nuclear weapons technology or access to it, raising the stakes on nuclear conflict to the highest level since the end of the Cold War. At the same time, with more than 4 billion people living in the worlds most vulnerable regions, scope for refugee tsunamis and pandemic disease is also large. It is on the basis of scenarios such as these that scientists like Peter Schellnhuber science advisor to German President Angela Merkel and Canadian author Gwynne Dyer have warned of the potential loss of most of the human population in the conflicts, famines and pandemics spinning out of climate impacts. Whether that adds up to extinction or not rather depends on how many of the worlds 20,000 nukes are let off in the process. These issues all involve assumptions about human, national and religious behaviour and are thus beyond the remit of scientific bodies like the IPCC, which can only hint at what they truly think will happen. So you are not getting the full picture from them.However in a classic case of improvident human behaviour, a global energy stampede is taking place as oil, gas, coal, tar sands and other miners (who, being technical folk, understand quite clearly what they are doing to the planet) rush to release as much carbon as possible as profitably as possible before society takes the inevitable decision to ban it altogether. Thanks to them, humanity isnt sleep-walking to disaster so much as racing headlong to embrace it. Do the rest of us have the foresight, and the guts, to stop them? Our ultimate survival will be predicated entirely on our behaviour not only on how well we adapt to unavoidable change, but also how quickly we apply the brakes.Which form of human behaviour prevails will probably settle the extinction argument, one way or the other. Its our call.

EnvironmentHegNPS has a role in envt diplomacywont collapse w/o theminternal link is several years old, empirically deniesKey to leadership Walter, 02 [Norbert, Chief Economist Deutsche Bank Group, NYT, 8-28, Lexis] At present there is much talk about the unparalleled strength of the United States on the world stage. Yet at this very moment the most powerful country in the world stands to forfeit much political capital, moral authority and international good will by dragging its feet on the next great global issue: the environment. Before long, the administration's apparent unwillingness to take a leadership role -- or, at the very least, to stop acting as a brake -- in fighting global environmental degradation will threaten the very basis of the American supremacy that many now seem to assume will last forever. American authority is already in some danger as a result of the Bush administration's decision to send a low-level delegation to the World Summit on Sustainable Development in Johannesburg -- low-level, that is, relative to America's share of both the world economy and global pollution. The absence of President Bush from Johannesburg symbolizes this decline in authority. In recent weeks, newspapers around the world have been dominated by environmental headlines: In central Europe, flooding killed dozens, displaced tens of thousands and caused billions of dollars in damages. In South Asia, the United Nations reports a brown cloud of pollution that is responsible for hundreds of thousands of deaths a year from respiratory disease. The pollution (80 percent man-made) also cuts sunlight penetration, thus reducing rainfall, affecting agriculture and otherwise altering the climate. Many other examples of environmental degradation, often related to the warming of the atmosphere, could be cited. What they all have in common is that they severely affect countries around the world and are fast becoming a chief concern for people everywhere. Nobody is suggesting that these disasters are directly linked to anything the United States is doing. But when a country that emits 25 percent of the world's greenhouse gases acts as an uninterested, sometimes hostile bystander in the environmental debate, it looks like unbearable arrogance to many people abroad. The administration seems to believe it is merely an observer -- that environmental issues are not its issues. But not doing anything amounts to ignoring a key source of world tension, and no superpower that wants to preserve its status can go on dismissing such a pivotal dimension of political and economic -- if not existential -- conflict. In my view, there is a clear-cut price to be paid for ignoring the views of just about every other country in the world today. The United States is jettisoning its hard-won moral and intellectual authority and perhaps the strategic advantages that come with being a good steward of the international political order. The United States may no longer be viewed as a leader or reliable partner in policymaking: necessary, perhaps inevitable, but not desirable, as it has been for decades. All of this because America's current leaders are not willing to acknowledge the very real concerns of many people about global environmental issues.

AT: AmazonTakas impact is from 1996empirically denied

Internal link about drugs = about intl trafficking

Amazon deforestation went up by 29% last year due to things totally unrelated to the affThe Guardian 9-11 ("Amazon deforestation jumps 29%," www.theguardian.com/environment/2014/sep/11/amazon-deforestation-jumps)The destruction of the worlds largest rainforest accelerated last year with a 29% spike in deforestation, according to final figures released by the Brazilian government on Wednesday that confirmed a reversal in gains seen since 2009. Satellite data for the 12 months through the end of July 2013 showed that 5,891 sq km of forest were cleared in the Brazilian Amazon, an area half the size of Puerto Rico. Fighting the destruction of the Amazon is considered crucial for reducing global warming because deforestation worldwide accounts for 15% of annual emissions of heat-trapping gases, more than the entire transportation sector. Besides being a giant carbon sink, the Amazon is a biodiversity sanctuary, holding billions of species yet to be studied. Preliminary data released late last year by Brazils space research center INPE had indicated deforestation was on the rise again, as conservationist groups had warned. The largest increases in deforestation were seen in the states of Para and Mato Grosso, where the bulk of Brazils agricultural expansion is taking place. More than 1,000 sq km has been cleared in each state. Other reasons for the rebound in deforestation include illegal logging and the invasion of public lands adjacent to big infrastructure projects in the Amazon, such as roads and hydroelectric dams.

Brownfield1NC TreatiesUS cant dictate global drug policy. States are acting independentlySerrano 12 - Senior Editor @ TIME.com [Alfonso Serrano, How Latin America May Lead the World in Decriminalizing Drug Use, Time, Oct. 09, 2012, pg. http://tinyurl.com/967gbw4

In the past few months, Latin American Presidents across the political spectrum have joined Prez in spearheading a hemispheric debate on drug legalization unprecedented for sitting heads of state. Traditional drug policy focused solely on prohibition a method dictated by the U.S. since Richard Nixon created the Drug Enforcement Administration 40 years ago has run its course, they argue. In its place, Latin America has proposed a series of measures focusing on alternative strategies, emerging as the key player in the global reform movement.The genie has escaped from the bottle and it isnt going away, Hannah Hetzer tells TIME. Hetzer, Latin America coordinator for the U.S.-based Drug Policy Alliance, recently returned from Uruguay, where she addressed members of parliament on the drug-legalization movement in the U.S. More and more countries in Latin America are following their own diverse set of drug-policy reforms.While no Latin American nation has legalized drugs yet, several have taken steps to decriminalize narcotics. Argentina introduced a measure in Congress this year that would decriminalize the possession of all drugs for personal use. Chiles Congress, meanwhile, is contemplating a bill that would decriminalize the cultivation of marijuana for personal use. And a Colombian court recently upheld a law that decriminalizes the possession of small amounts of cocaine. Like Mexico, Colombia has also decriminalized the possession of small amounts of marijuana.But no country has proposed more drastic reform than Uruguay. President Jos Mujicas center-left Broad Front party introduced a measure this summer that would not only legalize marijuana consumption but also place the government at the helm of production and distribution. The bill, which would allow citizens to purchase up to 40 g of cannabis per month, materialized as the tiny nation of 3.5 million inhabitants scrambles to battle drug-related violence.Our central concern is how narcotics trafficking is progressively altering certain aspects of Uruguayan culture and society, Julio Calzada, secretary general of Uruguays National Committee on Drugs, tells TIME. The proposal aspires to regulate the marijuana market with strict state control, which would allow us to guarantee users marijuana access without being in contact with the criminal world.The measure, which would permit the government to regulate the estimated $40 million marijuana market, will be debated in Uruguays Congress for the next six months. Although party divisions exist, Calzada believes there is enough political support to approve some form of the bill next spring. Most opposition to the bill, Calzada points out, has come from marijuana users who worry about excessive government control and from physicians who fear increased rates of drug addiction.The U.S., meanwhile, has resisted any alternatives to its prohibitionist drug policy. But signs of a possible shift are starting to bubble. Earlier this year at the Summit of the Americas in Colombia, the Obama Administration said that legalization was worthy of debate. And during a visit to Mexico in March, Vice President Joe Biden called the debate over drug legalization legitimate, but he underlined that the Administration would not alter its stance opposing legislation.

Drug money laundering is necessary to insulate banks from crisis in the future our evidence cites the head of UN office on drugs and crimeSyal 12/12/14 (Rajeev, The Guardian, Drug money saved banks in global crisis, claims UN advisor, http://www.theguardian.com/global/2009/dec/13/drug-money-banks-saved-un-cfief-claims)Drugs money worth billions of dollars kept the financial system afloat at the height of the global crisis, the United Nations' drugs and crime tsar has told the Observer.Antonio Maria Costa, head of the UN Office on Drugs and Crime, said he has seen evidence that the proceeds of organised crime were "the only liquid investment capital" available to some banks on the brink of collapse last year. He said that a majority of the $352bn (216bn) of drugs profits was absorbed into the economic system as a result.This will raise questions about crime's influence on the economic system at times of crisis. It will also prompt further examination of the banking sector as world leaders, including Barack Obama and Gordon Brown, call for new International Monetary Fund regulations. Speaking from his office in Vienna, Costa said evidence that illegal money was being absorbed into the financial system was first drawn to his attention by intelligence agencies and prosecutors around 18 months ago. "In many instances, the money from drugs was the only liquid investment capital. In the second half of 2008, liquidity was the banking system's main problem and hence liquid capital became an important factor," he said.Some of the evidence put before his office indicated that gang money was used to save some banks from collapse when lending seized up, he said."Inter-bank loans were funded by money that originated from the drugs trade and other illegal activities... There were signs that some banks were rescued that way." Costa declined to identify countries or banks that may have received any drugs money, saying that would be inappropriate because his office is supposed to address the problem, not apportion blame. But he said the money is now a part of the official system and had been effectively laundered."That was the moment [last year] when the system was basically [stopped] paralysed because of the unwillingness of banks to lend money to one another. The progressive liquidisation to the system and the progressive improvement by some banks of their share values [has meant that] the problem [of illegal money] has become much less serious than it was," he said.The IMF estimated that large US and European banks lost more than $1tn on toxic assets and from bad loans from January 2007 to September 2009 and more than 200 mortgage lenders went bankrupt. Many major institutions either failed, were acquired under duress, or were subject to government takeover.Gangs are now believed to make most of their profits from the drugs trade and are estimated to be worth 352bn, the UN says. They have traditionally kept proceeds in cash or moved it offshore to hide it from the authorities. It is understood that evidence that drug money has flowed into banks came from officials in Britain, Switzerland, Italy and the US.Liquidity shock crushes global economyEvans-Pritchard 10/14/14 http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/economics/11162217/BIS-warns-on-violent-reversal-of-global-markets.html, International Business Editor, Uk Telegrpah- well known investigative reporter for the Economist as well, The global financial markets are dangerously stretched and may unwind with shock force as liquidity dries up, the Bank of International Settlements has warned. Guy Debelle, head of the BISs market committee, said investors have become far too complacent, wrongly believing that central banks can protect them, many staking bets that are bound to blow up as the first sign of stress. In a speech in Sydney, Mr Debelle said: The sell-off, particularly in fixed income, could be relatively violent when it comes. There are a number of investors buying assets on the presumption of a level of liquidity which is not there. This is not evident when positions are being put on, but will become readily apparent when investors attempt to exit their positions. The exits tend to get jammed unexpectedly and rapidly. Mr Debelle, who is also chief of financial markets at Australias Reserve Bank, said any sell-off could be amplified because nominal interest rates are already zero across most of the industrial world. That is a point we havent started from before. There are undoubtedly positions out there which are dependent on (close to) zero funding costs. When funding costs are no longer close to zero, these positions will blow up, he said. An employee of Christie's auction house manoeuvres a Lehman Brothers corporate logo, which is estimated to sell for 1500 GBP and is featured in the sale of art owned by the collapsed investment bank Lehman Brothers The BIS warned earlier this summer that the world economy is in many respects more vulnerable to a financial crisis than it was in 2007. Debt ratios are now far higher, and emerging markets have also been drawn into the fire over the last five years. The world as whole has never been more leveraged. Debt ratios in the developed economies have risen by 20 percentage points to 275pc of GDP since the Lehman Brothers crash. The new twist is that emerging markets have also been on a debt spree, partly as a spill-over from quantitative easing in the West. This has caused a flood of dollar liquidity into these countries that they have struggled to control. It has pushed up their debt ratios by 20 percentage points to 175pc, and much of the borrowing has been at an average real rate of 1pc that is unlikely to last. China was able to act as a stabilizing force during the global downturn of 2009, letting rip with an immense burst of credit. These buffers are now largely exhausted. All of the BRICS (Brazil, Russia, India, China, South Africa) countries have hit structural limits, and face difficulties of one form or another. Mr Debelle said the markets may at any time start to question whether the global authorities have matters under control, or whether their pledge to hold down rates through forward guidance can be believed. I find it somewhat surprising that the market is willing to accept the central banks at their word, and not think so much for themselves, he said.Erosion of economic checks causes nuclear conflict Harold James 14, Professor of history at Princeton Universitys Woodrow Wilson School who specializes in European economic history, 7/2/14, Debate: Is 2014, like 1914, a prelude to world war?, http://www.theglobeandmail.com/globe-debate/read-and-vote-is-2014-like-1914-a-prelude-to-world-war/article19325504/As we get closer to the centenary of Gavrilo Princips act of terrorism in Sarajevo, there is an ever more vivid fear: it could happen again. The approach of the hundredth anniversary of 1914 has put a spotlight on the fragility of the worlds political and economic security systems. At the beginning of 2013, Luxembourgs Prime Minister Jean-Claude Juncker was widely ridiculed for evoking the shades of 1913. By now he is looking like a prophet. By 2014, as the security situation in the South China Sea deteriorated, Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe cast China as the equivalent to Kaiser Wilhelms Germany; and the fighting in Ukraine and in Iraq is a sharp reminder of the dangers of escalation. Lessons of 1914 are about more than simply the dangers of national and sectarian animosities. The main story of today as then is the precariousness of financial globalization, and the consequences that political leaders draw from it. In the influential view of Norman Angell in his 1910 book The Great Illusion, the interdependency of the increasingly complex global economy made war impossible. But a quite opposite conclusion was possible and equally plausible and proved to be the case. Given the extent of fragility, a clever twist to the control levers might make war easily winnable by the economic hegemon. In the wake of an epochal financial crisis that almost brought a complete global collapse, in 1907, several countries started to think of finance as primarily an instrument of raw power, one that could and should be turned to national advantage. The 1907 panic emanated from the United States but affected the rest of the world and demonstrated the fragility of the whole international financial order. The aftermath of the 1907 crash drove the then hegemonic power Great Britain - to reflect on how it could use its financial power. Between 1905 and 1908, the British Admiralty evolved the broad outlines of a plan for financial and economic warfare that would wreck the financial system of its major European rival, Germany, and destroy its fighting capacity. Britain used its extensive networks to gather information about opponents. London banks financed most of the worlds trade. Lloyds provided insurance for the shipping not just of Britain, but of the world. Financial networks provided the information that allowed the British government to find the sensitive strategic vulnerabilities of the opposing alliance.What pre-1914 Britain did anticipated the private-public partnership that today links technology giants such as Google, Apple or Verizon to U.S. intelligence gathering. Since last year, the Edward Snowden leaks about the NSA have shed a light on the way that global networks are used as a source of intelligence and power.For Britains rivals, the financial panic of 1907 showed the necessity of mobilizing financial powers themselves. The United States realized that it needed a central bank analogous to the Bank of England. American financiers thought that New York needed to develop its own commercial trading system that could handle bills of exchange in the same way as the London market. Some of the dynamics of the pre-1914 financial world are now re-emerging. Then an economically declining power, Britain, wanted to use finance as a weapon against its larger and faster growing competitors, Germany and the United States. Now America is in turn obsessed by being overtaken by China according to some calculations, set to become the worlds largest economy in 2014. In the aftermath of the 2008 financial crisis, financial institutions appear both as dangerous weapons of mass destruction, but also as potential instruments for the application of national power. In managing the 2008 crisis, the dependence of foreign banks on U.S. dollar funding constituted a major weakness, and required the provision of large swap lines by the Federal Reserve. The United States provided that support to some countries, but not others, on the basis of an explicitly political logic, as Eswar Prasad demonstrates in his new book on the Dollar Trap. Geo-politics is intruding into banking practice elsewhere. Before the Ukraine crisis, Russian banks were trying to acquire assets in Central and Eastern Europe. European and U.S. banks are playing a much reduced role in Asian trade finance. Chinese banks are being pushed to expand their role in global commerce. After the financial crisis, China started to build up the renminbi as a major international currency. Russia and China have just proposed to create a new credit rating agency to avoid what they regard as the political bias of the existing (American-based) agencies. The next stage in this logic is to think about how financial power can be directed to national advantage in the case of a diplomatic tussle. Sanctions are a routine (and not terribly successful) part of the pressure applied to rogue states such as Iran and North Korea. But financial pressure can be much more powerfully applied to countries that are deeply embedded in the world economy. The test is in the Western imposition of sanctions after the Russian annexation of Crimea. President Vladimir Putins calculation in response is that the European Union and the United States cannot possibly be serious about the financial war. It would turn into a boomerang: Russia would be less affected than the more developed and complex financial markets of Europe and America. The threat of systemic disruption generates a new sort of uncertainty, one that mirrors the decisive feature of the crisis of the summer of 1914. At that time, no one could really know whether clashes would escalate or not. That feature contrasts remarkably with almost the entirety of the Cold War, especially since the 1960s, when the strategic doctrine of Mutually Assured Destruction left no doubt that any superpower conflict would inevitably escalate. The idea of network disruption relies on the ability to achieve advantage by surprise, and to win at no or low cost. But it is inevitably a gamble, and raises prospect that others might, but also might not be able to, mount the same sort of operation. Just as in 1914, there is an enhanced temptation to roll the dice, even though the game may be fatal.

Reject their media spin experts conclude Afghanistan will remain stable.Karp and OHanlon 1/7, Candace: PhD, Senior Program Officer at US Institute for Peace, Michael: PhD, director of research for the Foreign Policy program at the Brookings Institution, Adjunct Professor at Johns Hopkins, 2015, Protecting the Gains in Afghanistan, http://www.brookings.edu/research/opinions/2015/01/07-protecting-afghanistan-gains-ohanlon, Accessed 1/20/15By most U.S. media accounts, Afghanistan is at best a largely forgotten cause; at worst, lost. Even apart from the recent attacks on Kabul and Taliban gains, costs have been higher and accomplishments less solid than they should have been.But measured against core standards, the mission is far from a failure. Two imperative goals have been preventing future extremist attacks against the West from Afghan soil and giving Afghans a solid stake in their future so they will not turn again to the Taliban or be vulnerable to a takeover. By both metrics, success is much closer than failurethat is, if we stay the course and avoid a complete departure in two years, as President Barack Obama and the international community intend.Here is why those plans for premature departure should be revised.Among the successes achieved since 2001:*Life expectancy had increased to 61 years in 2012 from 51 years in 2001.*Infant mortality had declined, in 2012, to 72 deaths before age 1 per 1,000 live births, from 93 deaths in 2001.*As of 2014, 50% of Afghans had access to basic health care.*Fifty-six percent of the rural population had access to clean water in 2012, up from 44% in 2008.*Primary school enrollment (including overage, underage, and repeating students) is up severalfold from 21% in 2001.But all of these gains are not the main point. Less easily quantifiable, yet even more important, is the shift in Afghans view of government. Many are no longer willing to perceive central government as little more than an abstract irritation. There is an expectation, even in outlying areas, that government must respond to the interests of all Afghans and deliver a modicum of services to justify its presence and the demands made of citizens. For the most part, the Taliban are widely disdained.Islamic State extremists have been on the march in Iraq and Syria, and bombing plots from Yemen in recent years have produced major near-misses in the U.S. homeland, but Afghanistan has not produced another major attack. To the contrary, it has provided bases that have helped coalition forces significantly diminish the al-Qaeda threat in Pakistan.The greatest threat to Afghan gains is political uncertainty. Last years presidential election process was flawedinvolving an initial vote in April, a runoff in June, and lengthy negotiations before, finally, a new president in September. Yet Afghans, aided by Secretary of State John Kerry and United Nations Special Representative Jn Kubi, found their way to a power-sharing compromise. President Ashraf Ghani and his rival Abdullah Abdullah struggle to form a cabinet, but fears of all-out ethnic competition or civil war have ebbed.While the Taliban have taken back some rural areas, and have killed about 10,000 Afghan soldiers and police over the past two years, they are not winning. Afghan cities and major roads are in government hands, and last years voter turnout shows that Afghans overwhelmingly support their new national project. Recruits continue to join the army and police. The Afghan people remain 90% opposed to the Taliban, the Brookings Institutions Afghanistan index has found.

Drug revenues causing Afghan stability now the plan causes instability.--employment stops them joining the insurgency. --alternative is collapse of the state because 50% of the illicit GDP comes from opium--small farmers dont matter whats needed is strong government support, political instability comes from Speri 5/21/14 (Alice,Alice Speri is an Italian-born journalist for VICE based in New York city. She has lived in many countries including Italy, India, Benin, Egypt, Palestine, Haiti and the United Kingdom. She is currently working on her PhD in Comparative Literature, https://news.vice.com/article/afghanistans-opium-economy-is-doing-better-than-ever)Afghanistans opium economy is bad news to the countrys growing population of drug addicts up to 1.5 million, according to the UN, and as all illicit trades, it is vulnerable to violence and abuse.But it may not be such bad news for the country's economy and political stability, as things in Afghanistan might actually be worse without it.For one, opium employs a lot of people. And at least until the end of harvesting season, it keeps them too busy to join the insurgency.'The alternative right now would be huge political instability and it would also be huge unemployment.'Theres no legal economy in Afghanistan that can match the profits and the amount of people opium can employ, Vanda Felbab-Brown, a senior fellow at the Brookings Institute and expert on counter-narcotic efforts in Afghanistan, told VICE News.Opium is both profitable and labor-intensive, an important combination in a country with some 400,000 people entering the workforce every year. To put things in perspective, if the 806 square miles Afghans cultivated with opium last year were to grow wheat instead, they would employ about 20 percent of the people currently working on opium fields, Felbab-Brown said.What we really need to ask ourselves is, is it bad to have this illicit economy? It probably is bad, but is it much worse than the alternative? The alternative right now would be huge political instability and it would also be huge unemployment, she said. So yes, its undesirable that there is a major illicit economy that constitutes so much of the countrys GDP, but theres just no way to walk away from that.Is an Illicit Economy Better than no Economy?But if the opium economy is illicit and fraught with potential for violence and devastating public health implications, it is an economy nonetheless, and a thriving one at that.Afghanistan produced 75 percent of the worlds heroin supply in 2013, and its on its way to produce as much as 90 percent this year. The country is also one of the world's top exporters of cannabis mostly hashish.You have a sector, the poppy cultivation, which provides employment for more than 200,000 families in Afghanistan and accounts for 73 million hours of labor annually," Ashita Mittal, acting country director for the UN Office on Drugs and Crime in Kabul told VICE News. "Those are huge numbers we are talking about.'Right now, growing opium makes more money than anything else for Afghan farmers so its going to be very hard to stomp out.'In the early 2000s, the $18 billion-worth trade accounted for as much as 50 percent of Afghanistans GDP, she noted, and was down to about 15 percent of it last year. But Afghanistan which doomsayers have dubbed a "narcostate" years ago lacks the determination to do away from such profits, despite massive financial incentives to do so, including some $7.5 billion from the US alone."The US has put three times more money on counter-narcotics in Afghanistan than it did in Colombia, but what distinguishes Colombia from Afghanistan is the political will that was demonstrated by the ruling parties there," Mittal said. "Unless there's a firm commitment from the top, it's not going to change. Perhaps the new government will be an opportunity to place this on the agenda."The profits of the opium trade, she added, are not exactly enriching the country's most destitute. While the economic impact trickles down somewhat, the largely poor farmers harvesting the white and pink poppy blooms are not the ones reaping the profits.Local warlords and the Taliban often have their hands in the trade, but it is wealthy elites with deep ties to the countrys government that have no interest in seeing the opium cultivation stop.

2NC LaunderingImpactsStrategic fluidity turns every impactChas W. Freeman 14, served in the United States Foreign Service, the State and Defense Departments in many different capacities over the course of thirty years, past president of the Middle East Policy Council, co-chair of the U.S. China Policy Foundation and a Lifetime Director of the Atlantic Council, 9/13/14, A New Set of Great Power Relationships, http://chasfreeman.net/a-new-set-of-great-power-relationships/We live in a time of great strategic fluidity. Borders are shifting. Lines of control are blurring. Long-established spheres of influence are fading away. Some states are decaying and dissolving as others germinate and take root. The global economic order is precarious. New economic and geopolitical fault lines are emerging. The great powers of North and South America are barely on speaking terms. Europe is again riven by geopolitical antagonisms. Ukraine should be a prosperous, independent borderland between the European Union and Russia. It has instead become a cockpit of strategic contention. The United States and Russia have relapsed into hostility. The post-Ottoman borders of West Asia and North Africa are being erased. Neither Europeans, nor Russians, nor Americans can now protect or direct their longstanding clients in the Middle East. Brazil, China, and India are peacefully competing for the favor of Africa. But, in the Indo-Pacific, China and Japan are at daggers drawn and striving to ostracize each other. Sino-American relations seem to be following US-Russian relations into mutual exasperation and intransigence.No one surveying this scene could disagree that the world would benefit from recrafting the relationships between its great powers. As President Xi Jinping has proposed, new types of relations might enable the great powers to manage their interactions to the common advantage while lowering the risk of armed conflict. This is, after all, the nuclear age. A war could end in the annihilation of all who take part in it. Short of that, unbridled animosity and contention between great powers and their allies and friends have high opportunity costs and foster the tensions inherent in military posturing, arms races, instability, and impoverishment.Liquidity solves adaptation turns bioDSustainable Business Institute, 11 [UNEP Finance Intiative, Sponsored by the Federal Ministry of Education and Research, http://www.unepfi.org/fileadmin/documents/advancing_adaptation.pdf, Advancing adaptation through climate information services, Accessed July 20,]

Shifting to climate-change resilient economies will not be achieved only by governments building dams, improved water systems, and similar large-scale infrastructure. As with the move to a green economy, effective adaptation, in a systemic sense, will only occur if the millions of dispersed business decisions taken every day start to account for climate change factors and impacts. Within the group of private sector decision-makers, representatives of the financial services sector banks, investors and insurers stand out in the commercial landscape essentially because of their ability to effectively influence business practice and emerging trends in the real economy: Their daily engagement with clients and investees of all types and sizes and across virtually all sectors of the economy shapes the current and future reality of production processes and services. As such, the financial services sector can be a powerful conduit towards economic systems that are better prepared for the challenges of climate change. A financial services sector that understands climate change and pro-actively drives adaptation is not only in the highest interest of broader economic stability and the societal well-being it underpins; it is clear that it will increasingly be in the very interest of financial institutions themselves. Banks, investors, and insurers that get ahead of the curve in understanding and managing the risks linked with the physical impacts of climate change will build a strong competitive advantage relative to lagging competitors. The central role of financial institutions in advancing the climate resilience of societies is not only a matter of leverage and necessity, but also a matter of ability and expertise. Adapting to climate change boils down to identifying, quantifying, pricing, and mitigating the financial risks linked with climate change impacts: Risk management is and has always been core to the business of all financial institutions. The key point is that effective risk management requires appropriate information input on all parameters that are relevant for business as well as forecasts of the future development of such factors. 2NCUQSquo is goldilocks were risking a collapse of the US financial architecture. Tracy 12/2/14 (WSJ Citing the office of financial research report, U.S. Watchdog Sees Risk of Repeated Liquidity Crunches Office of Financial Research Cites Less Liquidity as One Increasing Risk to U.S. Financial System, http://www.wsj.com/articles/u-s-watchdog-sees-risk-of-repeated-liquidity-crunches-1417554001) WASHINGTONThe U.S. financial system is growing more vulnerable to debilitating shocks as new regulations and market forces change trading habits and make some market participants less willing to smooth out volatility, a government watchdog warned.The Office of Financial Research, a new arm of the Treasury Department created by the 2010 Dodd-Frank law, said the system is vulnerable to repeats of what occurred in October, when tumult in the trading of U.S. Treasury securities spread broadly to futures, swaps and options markets.Although the dislocation that peaked in mid-October was fleeting, we believe there is a risk of a repeat occurrence, the office said in its third annual report, adding that such volatility raises a host of financial stability concerns.The report highlights concerns that have been simmering for more than a year related to a decline in liquidity, or the ability of market participants to buy or sell securities quickly at a given price. The worry is that without enough liquidity, price swings could become more severe across financial markets, raising the cost of credit on Wall Street and Main Street. The report said such swings could be exacerbated by computerized trading and algorithms, as high volumes of transactions are executed automatically, deepening instability.One reason for the decline in liquidity is that banks are less willing to facilitate trading as new regulations make lending cash and securities more expensive. Regulators have said the rules are necessary and will reduce the kinds of excess borrowing that fueled the 2008 financial crisis.A reduction in securities that are available to lend against in financial marketssuch as Treasury bonds and asset-backed securitiesalso is fueling the volatility. The securitization markets have shrunk since the financial crisis and the Federal Reserve has further reduced the amount of available securities by snapping up trillions of dollars in bonds in recent years.While the report cites the potential for financial instability, it said the financial system is safer than it was six years ago. Compared with the period just before the financial crisis, threats to financial stability are moderate, Office of Financial Research Director Richard Berner wrote in a letter that accompanied the report. But that relatively benign backdrop is no cause for complacency.Squo liquidation is goldilocksNed Pagliarulo, 5/31/2014. Works for a Japanese press company, reporting on economics and government statistics. US Decline Series: Financial sector health makes US a sound investment, Global Risk Insights, http://globalriskinsights.com/2014/05/us-decline-series-financial-sector-health-makes-us-a-sound-investment/.

Despite being half a decade removed from the global financial crisis, concerns remain about the health of financial systems in advanced countries. A closer look at the US, however, reveals a financial sector, which has rebounded strongly with a robust regulatory framework. Banks have deleveraged and are better capitalized than before the crisis. The Dodd-Frank Act has given regulators better tools to measure systemic risk and boosted bank resilience. Taken together, the US looks like a safer investment than other advanced economies.Clean Bill of HealthThe IMF recently published its biannualGlobal Financial Stability Monitor,and the US financial sector compares very favorably internationally. Financial institutions gross debt in the US measures 83% of GDP, while the EU remains high at 153% and Japan even higher at 196%. With regard tothe amount of bank capital to assets, the US also checks in with a ratio of 12.0% compared to the UKs 5.0%.By other measures, US banks position has strengthened as the economy has recovered. For example, the ratio of non-performing loans to total loanshas fallen sharplyby more than half to 2.68%. This improvement can be tied not only to individual bank actions but to the broader and more stringent regulatory focus.Regulatory ResponseInrecent testimonyto Congress, Federal Reserve Chair Janet Yellen expressed strong confidence that US regulators had made good progress. Regulatory and supervisory actions, including thos