ADI Big Weed DA

1NC

Economy ShellLegalizing marijuana would cause a corporate takeover of the drug – results in huge harms to public health.Richter and Levy, ‘14

[Kimberly (PhD and Professor at the University of Kansas) and Sharon (MD at Boston Children’s Hospital), “Big Marijuana — Lessons from Big Tobacco”, The New England Journal of Medicine, Perspectives, 6-14-14,

http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMp1406074?query=featured_home&, RSR]

In its current form, smoked marijuana is less deadly than tobacco. Although case–control studies have found increased mortality associated with heavy marijuana use — attributable to vehicle crashes from driving while high, suicide, respiratory cancers, and brain cancers1 — the nonfatal adverse effects of marijuana use are much more prevalent. These include respiratory damage, cardiovascular disease, impaired cognitive development, and mental illness. These harms are very real, though they pale in comparison with those of tobacco, which causes almost 500,000 U.S. deaths annually. Marijuana is also less addictive than tobacco. About 9% of cannabis users meet the criteria for dependence (according to the Diagnostic and

Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders) at some time in their lives, as compared with 32% of tobacco users.2 But tobacco was not always as lethal or addictive as it is today. In the 1880s, few people used tobacco products, only 1% of tobacco was consumed in the form of manufactured cigarettes,3 and few deaths were attributed to tobacco use. By the 1950s, nearly half the population used tobacco, and 80% of tobacco use entailed cigarette smoking; several decades later, lung cancer became the top cause of cancer-related deaths.3 This

transformation was achieved through tobacco-industry innovations in product development, marketing, and lobbying. The deadliness of modern-day tobacco stems from product developments of the early 1900s. Milder tobacco blends and new curing processes enabled smokers to inhale more deeply, facilitated absorption by lung epithelia, and boosted delivery of nicotine to the brain.

Synergistically, these changes enhanced tobacco's addictive potential and increased intake of toxins. In addition, the industry added other ingredients, including toxic substances that enhanced taste and sped absorption — without

regard for safety . When tobacco was a cottage industry, cigarettes were either “roll-your-own” or expensive hand-rolled products with

limited market reach; after industrialization, machines rolled as many as 120,000 low-cost, perfectly packaged cylinders daily. The burgeoning marijuana industry is already following the same successful business strategy by increasing potency and creating new delivery devices. The concentration of tetrahydrocannabinol (THC), marijuana's principal psychoactive constituent, has more than doubled over the past 40 years.4 Producers are manufacturing strains that they claim are less addictive or less harmful to mental health, but no supporting scientific evidence has been published. New vaporizer delivery systems developed by some manufacturers may reduce lung irritation from smoking but may also allow users to consume more THC (the component most closely associated with euphoria, addictive potential, and mental health side effects) by enabling them to inhale more often and more deeply. The business community recognizes these innovations' economic potential: a recent joint venture between a medical-marijuana provider and an electronic-cigarette maker sent stock prices soaring. Marketing strategies go hand

in hand with product innovation. The market for marijuana is currently small , amounting to 7% of Americans 12 years of age or older, just as the tobacco market was small in the early 20th century. Once machines began mass-producing cigarettes, marketing campaigns targeted women, children, and vulnerable groups by associating smoking with images of freedom, sex appeal, cartoon characters, and — in the early days — health benefits. There is reasonable evidence that marijuana reduces nausea and vomiting during cancer treatment, reverses AIDS-related wasting, and holds promise as an antispasmodic and analgesic agent.5

However, marijuana manufacturers and advocates are attributing numerous other health benefits to marijuana use — for

example, effectiveness against anxiety — with no supporting evidence . Furthermore, the marijuana industry will have

unprecedented opportunities for marketing on the Internet, where regulation is minimal and third- party tracking and direct-to-consumer marketing have become extremely lucrative. When applied to a

harmful, addictive commodity, these marketing innovations could be disastrous. This strategy poses a particular threat to

young people. Adolescents are more likely than adults to seek novelty and try new products. The developing adolescent brain is particularly vulnerable to the development of addiction. According to the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA), children who use marijuana are up to four times as likely as adults to

become chronic, heavy users — the type that would generate consistent sales for the marijuana industry. Today, nearly one in five U.S. adults still smokes, despite extensive public health campaigns focused on reducing uptake and increasing cessation. The tobacco industry has provided a detailed road map for marijuana: deny addiction potential, downplay known adverse health effects, create as large a market as possible as quickly as possible, and protect that market through lobbying, campaign contributions, and other advocacy efforts. The tobacco industry, bolstered by enormous profits, successfully lobbied to be exempted from every major piece of consumer-protection legislation even after the deadly consequences of tobacco were established. With nothing to sell or profit from, health

advocates had difficulty fighting a battle that was clearly in the best interest of the public. The marijuana industry has already formed its own advocacy organization — the National Cannabis Industry Association — to protect and advance its corporate interests. It took the medical and public health communities 50 years, millions of lives, and billions of dollars

to identify the wake of illness and death left by legal, industrialized cigarettes. The free-market approach to tobacco clearly failed to protect the public's welfare and the common good: in spite of recent federal regulation, tobacco use remains the leading cause of death in the United States. Addictive substances with

known harms may merit completely new policy approaches . For example, the government of Uruguay's marijuana program will restrict sales to government-produced strains, limit prices in order to undercut illicit markets, and closely monitor individual consumption. The effects and side effects of this approach, however, remain to be seen. At present, we should accelerate collaboration among the Food and Drug Administration, the National Institutes of Health, SAMHSA, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, and other agencies to fully understand current harms and forecast the effects of industrialization. In theory, any revenues from sales of marijuana products should pay for all regulation and harms so that society will not have to pick up the tab for damage done by the product. However, we know from the history of tobacco that this is hard to implement in

practice. History and current evidence suggest that simply legalizing marijuana, and giving free rein to the resulting industry, is not the answer . To do so would be to once again entrust private industry

with safeguarding the health of the public — a role that it is not designed to handle .

Increased public health harms massively harm the US economy – we’re on the brink now. CNBC, ’10 [“Legalizing Marijuana Not Worth the Costs”, 4-20-10, http://www.cnbc.com/id/36267217#, RSR]

With the U nited S tates still struggling through the recession, state governments are exploring convenient fixes for overcoming massive debts burdening their states. After years of heavy spending, California, for example, is facing a $42 billion deficit. To address this staggering shortfall, some legislators are proposing the legalization of marijuana to boost tax revenue. Certainly some states are in dire economic straits; however, we cannot allow social and law enforcement policy to be determined simply by revenue needs. Put plainly,

marijuana was made illegal because it is harmful; citing revenue gain as reason to legalize the drug emphasizes money over health and ignores the significant cost burdens that will inevitably arise as a result. As former head of theU.S. Drug Enforcement Administration, I am intimately familiar with the many challenges marijuana legalization

poses, and from my experience, the best economic policy for dealing with marijuana is to discourage use by enforcement and education rather than legalization and taxation. Legalizing the drug will swell societal ills, and this outweighs the monetary benefits that might be achieved from its lawful sale . This is

not the first time legalization has come to the fore. In the 1970s, Alaska legalized the drug—only to recriminalize it in

1990 after Alaskan teen marijuana use jumped to twice the national average. This is clear evidence that if

legalized, marijuana use will increase (even among children). There are significant cost burdens that come along with

increased marijuana use . For example, there will be a greater social cost from decline in worker productivity and school performance. Legalization will also lead to a greater need for drug education, rehabilitation and treatment. And there will be costs associated with selling the drug. Do we really want our governments to sell substances known to betoxic to the body, and which has no medical value that is recognized by the medical community, for the sake of sheer profit? If this were a corporation proposing such a thing, it would be taken to court. Consider these findings from a white paper by the California Police Chiefs Association’s Task Force on Marijuana Dispensaries: California legalized “medical” marijuana in 1996, and dispensaries where the drug is handed out – to pretty much whoever comes in with a doctor’s note – have become catalysts for serious crime.

According to the white paper, dispensary operators have been attacked, robbed and murdered. Also, “drug dealing, sales to minors, loitering, heavy vehicle and foot traffic in retail areas, increased noise and robberies of customers just outside dispensaries” are all criminal byproducts resulting from California’s medical marijuana distribution. We can expect similar problems—but on a far grander scale—from full legalization. Given these cost burdens—not to mention health and societal burdens—we should continue to focus efforts to discourage drug use. We can do this in a variety of ways. On alcohol and cigarettes, we require warnings and education. With methamphetamine, cocaine and other harmful drugs, we prohibit and

criminalize their sale and use. While marijuana may not be as harmful and addictive as methamphetamine, it is harmful nonetheless, and the best economic policy is to make its sale and use illegal . The additional costs of drug education and rehabilitation combined with the increased social costs associated with increased marijuana use and sale are all greater than the potential revenue gained through legalization. Even with the U.S. economy struggling, we should not buy into the argument that vices should be legalized, taxed and regulated—no matter how much revenue we think it may generate. Some things just aren’t worth the costs.

Economic crisis triggers war – best empirical evidence supportsRoyal ‘10 – Jedediah Royal, Director of Cooperative Threat Reduction at the U.S. Department of Defense, (Economic Integration, Economic Signaling and the Problem of Economic Crises, Economics of War and Peace: Economic, Legal and Political Perspectives, ed. Goldsmith and Brauer, p. 213-215)

Less intuitive is how periods of economic decline may increase the likelihood of external conflict. Political science literature has contributed a moderate degree of attention to the impact of economic decline and the security and defence behaviour of

interdependent states. Research in this vein has been considered at systemic, dyadic and national levels.

Several notable contributions follow. First, on the systemic level, Pollins (2008) advances Modclski and Thompson's (1996) work on

leadership cycle theory, finding that rhythms in the global economy are associated with the rise and fall of a pre-eminent power and the often bloody transition from one pre-eminent leader to the next. As such, exogenous shocks such as economic crises could usher in a redistribution of relative power (see also Gilpin, 1981) that leads to uncertainty about power balances, increasing the risk of miscalculation (Fearon. 1995). Alternatively, even a relatively certain redistribution of power could lead to a permissive environment for conflict as a rising power may seek to challenge a

declining power (Werner, 1999). Separately, Pollins (1996) also shows that global economic cycles combined with parallel leadership cycles impact the likelihood of conflict among major, medium and small powers, although he suggests that the causes and connections between global economic conditions and security conditions remain unknown. Second,

on a dyadic level, Copeland's (1996. 2000) theory of trade expectations suggests that 'future expectation of trade' is a significant variable in understanding economic conditions and security behaviour of states. He argues that interdependent states are likely to gain pacific benefits from trade so long as they have an optimistic view of future trade relations. However, if the expectations of future trade decline, particularly for difficult to replace items such as energy resources, the likelihood for conflict increases, as states will be inclined to use force to gain access to those resources. Crises could potentially be the trigger for decreased trade expectations either on its own or because it triggers protectionist moves by interdependent states.4

Third, others have considered the link between economic decline and external armed conflict at a national level. Blomberg and Hess

(2002) find a strong correlation between internal conflict and external conflict, particularly during periods of economic downturn. They write: The linkages between internal and external conflict and prosperity are strong and mutually reinforcing. Economic conflict tends to spawn internal conflict, which in turn returns the favour. Moreover, the presence of a recession tends to amplify the extent to which international and external conflicts self-reinforce each other. (Blomberg & Hess, 2002. p. 89) Economic decline has also been linked with an increase in the likelihood of terrorism (Blomberg. Hess. & Weerapana. 2004). which has the capacity to spill

across borders and lead to external tensions. Furthermore, crises generally reduce the popularity of a sitting government. 'Diversionary theory' suggests that, when facing unpopularity arising from economic decline, sitting governments have increased incentives to fabricate external military conflicts to create a 'rally around the flag' effect. Wang (1990, DeRouen (1995). and Blomberg, Hess, and Thacker (2006) find supporting evidence showing that economic decline and use of force are at least indirectly correlated. Gelpi (1997), Miller (1999), and Kisangani and Pickering (2009) suggest that the tendency towards diversionary tactics are greater for democratic states than autocratic states, due to the fact that democratic leaders are generally more susceptible to being removed from office due to lack of domestic support. DeRouen (2000) has provided evidence showing that periods of weak economic performance in the United States, and thus weak Presidential popularity, are statistically linked to an increase in the use of force. In summary, recent economic scholarship positively correlates economic integration with an increase in the frequency of economic crises, whereas political science scholarship links economic decline with external conflict at systemic, dyadic and national levels.' This implied connection between integration, crises and armed conflict has not featured prominently in the

economic-security debate and deserves more attention. This observation is not contradictory to other perspectives that link economic interdependence with a decrease in the likelihood of external conflict, such as those mentioned in

the first paragraph of this chapter. Those studies tend to focus on dyadic interdependence instead of global interdependence and do not specifically consider the occurrence of and conditions created by economic crises. As such, the view presented here should be considered ancillary to those views.

Gateway Drug ShellLegalizing marijuana would cause a corporate takeover of the drug – results in increased use of the drug.Richter and Levy, ‘14

[Kimberly (PhD and Professor at the University of Kansas) and Sharon (MD at Boston Children’s Hospital), “Big Marijuana — Lessons from Big Tobacco”, The New England Journal of Medicine, Perspectives, 6-14-14,

http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMp1406074?query=featured_home&, RSR]

In its current form, smoked marijuana is less deadly than tobacco. Although case–control studies have found increased mortality associated with heavy marijuana use — attributable to vehicle crashes from driving while high, suicide, respiratory cancers, and brain cancers1 — the nonfatal adverse effects of marijuana use are much more prevalent. These include respiratory damage, cardiovascular disease, impaired cognitive development, and mental illness. These harms are very real, though they pale in comparison with those of tobacco, which causes almost 500,000 U.S. deaths annually. Marijuana is also less addictive than tobacco. About 9% of cannabis users meet the criteria for dependence (according to the Diagnostic and

Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders) at some time in their lives, as compared with 32% of tobacco users.2 But tobacco was not always as lethal or addictive as it is today. In the 1880s, few people used tobacco products, only 1% of tobacco was consumed in the form of manufactured cigarettes,3 and few deaths were attributed to tobacco use. By the 1950s, nearly half the population used tobacco, and 80% of tobacco use entailed cigarette smoking; several decades later, lung cancer became the top cause of cancer-related deaths.3 This

transformation was achieved through tobacco-industry innovations in product development, marketing, and lobbying. The deadliness of modern-day tobacco stems from product developments of the early 1900s. Milder tobacco blends and new curing processes enabled smokers to inhale more deeply, facilitated absorption by lung epithelia, and boosted delivery of nicotine to the brain.

Synergistically, these changes enhanced tobacco's addictive potential and increased intake of toxins. In addition, the industry added other ingredients, including toxic substances that enhanced taste and sped absorption — without

regard for safety . When tobacco was a cottage industry, cigarettes were either “roll-your-own” or expensive hand-rolled products with

limited market reach; after industrialization, machines rolled as many as 120,000 low-cost, perfectly packaged cylinders daily. The burgeoning marijuana industry is already following the same successful business strategy by increasing potency and creating new delivery devices. The concentration of tetrahydrocannabinol (THC), marijuana's principal psychoactive constituent, has more than doubled over the past 40 years.4 Producers are manufacturing strains that they claim are less addictive or less harmful to mental health, but no supporting scientific evidence has been published. New vaporizer delivery systems developed by some manufacturers may reduce lung irritation from smoking but may also allow users to consume more THC (the component most closely associated with euphoria, addictive potential, and mental health side effects) by enabling them to inhale more often and more deeply. The business community recognizes these innovations' economic potential: a recent joint venture between a medical-marijuana provider and an electronic-cigarette maker sent stock prices soaring. Marketing strategies go hand

in hand with product innovation. The market for marijuana is currently small , amounting to 7% of Americans 12 years of age or older, just as the tobacco market was small in the early 20th century. Once machines began mass-producing cigarettes, marketing campaigns targeted women, children, and vulnerable groups by associating smoking with images of freedom, sex appeal, cartoon characters, and — in the early days — health benefits. There is reasonable evidence that marijuana reduces nausea and vomiting during cancer treatment, reverses AIDS-related wasting, and holds promise as an antispasmodic and analgesic agent.5

However, marijuana manufacturers and advocates are attributing numerous other health benefits to marijuana use — for

example, effectiveness against anxiety — with no supporting evidence . Furthermore, the marijuana industry will have

unprecedented opportunities for marketing on the Internet, where regulation is minimal and third- party tracking and direct-to-consumer marketing have become extremely lucrative. When applied to a

harmful, addictive commodity, these marketing innovations could be disastrous. This strategy poses a particular threat to

young people. Adolescents are more likely than adults to seek novelty and try new products. The developing adolescent brain is particularly vulnerable to the development of addiction. According to the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA), children who use marijuana are up to four times as likely as adults to

become chronic, heavy users — the type that would generate consistent sales for the marijuana industry. Today, nearly one in five U.S. adults still smokes, despite extensive public health campaigns focused on reducing uptake and increasing cessation. The tobacco industry has provided a detailed road map for marijuana: deny addiction potential, downplay known adverse health effects, create as large a market as possible as quickly as possible, and protect that market through lobbying, campaign contributions, and other advocacy efforts. The tobacco industry, bolstered by enormous profits, successfully lobbied to be exempted from every major piece of consumer-protection legislation even after the deadly consequences of tobacco were established. With nothing to sell or profit from, health

advocates had difficulty fighting a battle that was clearly in the best interest of the public. The marijuana industry has already formed its own advocacy organization — the National Cannabis Industry Association — to protect and advance its corporate interests. It took the medical and public health communities 50 years, millions of lives, and billions of dollars

to identify the wake of illness and death left by legal, industrialized cigarettes. The free-market approach to tobacco clearly failed to protect the public's welfare and the common good: in spite of recent federal regulation, tobacco use remains the leading cause of death in the United States. Addictive substances with

known harms may merit completely new policy approaches . For example, the government of Uruguay's marijuana program will restrict sales to government-produced strains, limit prices in order to undercut illicit markets, and closely monitor individual consumption. The effects and side effects of this approach, however, remain to be seen. At present, we should accelerate collaboration among the Food and Drug Administration, the National Institutes of Health, SAMHSA, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, and other agencies to fully understand current harms and forecast the effects of industrialization. In theory, any revenues from sales of marijuana products should pay for all regulation and harms so that society will not have to pick up the tab for damage done by the product. However, we know from the history of tobacco that this is hard to implement in

practice. History and current evidence suggest that simply legalizing marijuana, and giving free rein to the resulting industry, is not the answer . To do so would be to once again entrust private industry

with safeguarding the health of the public — a role that it is not designed to handle .

Increased marijuana use exacerbates its potential as a gateway drug – results in more trafficking of harder drugs. Sabet, Director of the Drug Policy Institute and Assistant Professor in the Division of Addiction Medicine, University of Florida, ‘6 [Kevin, “The (Often Unheard) Case Against Marijuana Leniency”, Pot Politics: Marijuana and the Costs of Prohibition, Oxford University Press, 2006, RSR]

There does seem to be a correlation between marijuana and other drug use- most proponents and

opponents of marijuana decriminalization agree on that (Golub 81 Johnson, 1994). But what is so special about

marijuana? Indeed, people advocating legalization retort that most people who have used cocaine have also used milk. Does that make milk a gateway drug? Hardly, as MacCoun and Reuter point out, since there is no correlation be- tween drinking milk and snorting/injecting/smoking

cocaine (MacCoun 81 Router, 2001). But even they admit, in their support for a less restrictive marijuana policy, that " the evidence for

a correlation between cannabis use and hard drug use is . . . overwhelming " [MacCoun and Reuter, 2001, citing

Kandel, Yamaguchi, & Chen 1992). So what causes the strong correlation between marijuana use and the use of other drugs? We're still trying to figure that out, but it appears that evidence has weakened for any kind of genetic effect on drug using by people who by their nature are rebellious. Australian researchers published in 2003 a major study in the Journal of the American Medical Association that followed 31 l

same-sex twin pairs; each pair had one twin that had used marijuana before age 17 and one who had never used the drug. The researchers found that the marijuana-using twins were five times more likely to go on to hallucinogens such as LSD, three times more likely to go on to cocaine, and twice as likely to go on to heroin [Lynskey et al., 2003]. Lynskey and his colleagues claimed they found a causal relationship between marijuana and other drugs. Though this assertion was contested by an editorial in the same issue of the Journal written by a leading marijuana researcher, the study gives the gateway theory

overwhelming force . So marijuana can lead to other drugs . The Australian study still didn't tell us why, but the authors point out three of the most popular assertions: [a] Initial pleasurable experiences with marijuana may encourage other drug use; (b) innocuous early experiences with marijuana [little chance of running into the law and/or having a negative biological reaction) may re- duce the barriers to trying other drugs; and (C) obtaining marijuana from the underground market, which is necessary when the drug is illegal, implies coming into Contact with the underworld and dealers who sell drugs other than pot. All of these seem plausible. Marijuana does not usually produce a negative reaction after the first puff. Indeed, for most people it is a pleasurable experience that does not cause the violence of smoking crack or the crazed feelings of injecting methamphetamine.

Additionally, since most people rarely suffer great criminal justice consequences for smoking or possessing a few joints, this could lead to the impression that all drug use is easily con- cealable and that the omnipresence of the police is a myth. This latter thought may give fodder to those wishing to recriminalize marijuana

in places where penalties have been eliminated. For example, after years of decriminalization, Alaska voters put a successful initiative on the ballot in 1990 stipulating penalties for marijuana possession. This third plausible explanation is a favorite of legalization advocates. It is used profusely to argue for the legalization of marijuana and the separa- tion of marijuana from other drug markets. They claim that if marijuana were brought out of the underground market, kids would have less Contact with cocaine and heroin dealers and thus have a harder time than they do currently in obtaining those drugs. Indeed, many marijuana apologists cite the fact that cocaine use among those who have used marijuana is lower in the Netherlands than in the United States (22% vs. 33%, from MacCoun 81 Reuter, 2001]. And although this is true as of 1996 (which is important to note since drug use rose between 1992 and 1996 before leveling off in 1997 and falling in 2001), we don't know whether to attribute the difference to separate drug markets or the cultural and social differences that exist be- tween the two countries. The use rates of cocaine in the United States and Netherlands do not control for other possible factors, and, as MacCoun says, "Cross-country comparisons are problematic" (MacCoun 2001]. Reinarman, Cohen, and Kall's (2004) analysis comparing drug policy in Amsterdam and San Francisco, and concluding that San Francisco's policies are worse since more people go on to harder drugs there than in Amsterdam, completely ignores the obvious limitations of global city comparisons (which do not take into account cultural, social, and political climates, and, perhaps most important in this case, nuances in the law: San Francisco's marijuana

laws are notoriously lax, even Dutch-like). I am skeptical of the theory that says separating markets will lead to less prevalence of other drugs since people are usually introduced to marijuana by their friends, not by contact with aggressive dealers (Dupre, I995; Sim- mons, Conger, 8:. Whitbeck, 1988). Many dealers of marijuana sell just that and do not have contact with dealers of other drugs. Besides, evidence from abroad that American marijuana smokers use more cocaine than the Dutch, evidence of other drug use because of marijuana's legal status, is purely speculative. That argument loses even more credence when we consider that alcohol and tobacco-our two legal drugs-act as gateway drugs in a pro- found way. Additionally, the normalization of marijuana in the Netherlands seems to have actually attracted dealers of other drugs. There may be evidence that a laissez-faire attitude on one drug (marijuana in this case) has a gateway effect of attracting dealers of other drugs. The Netherlands is the largest producer of MDMA (Ecstasy) in the world, according to the United Nation's International Narcotics Control Board. Law enforcement in Britain and France further attest to it. "Holland is Europe's drug supermarket. Drugs of

all kinds are freely available there," says one British official [qtd. in Collins, 1999). French officials report that 98% of amphetamines seized in France in 1997 came from Holland, as did more than three quarters of the ecstasy tablets. A leading French law enforcement official laments, "The light sen- tences they hand out and the liberal attitude of their judges has resulted in an explosion in the number of international trafficking groups operating out of Holland." He continues: "Get arrested with 50 kilos of heroin or cocaine in France or England and you'll be

sentenced to 20 years to life and serve at least 17 of those years. . . . In Holland . . . the most you'll get is eight years, of which you'll serve only four in prison, where you'll be in your own cell with color TV and a stereo and have the right to a conjugal visit twice a month from a woman who may-or may not-bc your wife. Is it any wonder then that the country has become the drug traffickers’ preferred working place? (qtd. In Collins, 1999).

Increased drug trafficking will be used to finance use of WMDs against the U.S.Anderson, 08 (10/8/2008, Curt, AP, “US officials fear terrorist links with drug lords,” http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/nation/2008-10-08-805146709_x.htm)

MIAMI — There is real danger that Islamic extremistgroups such as al-Qaida and Hezbollah could form alliances with wealthy and powerful Latin American drug lords to launch new terrorist attacks, U.S.

officials said Wednesday. Extremist group operativeshave already been identifiedin several Latin American countries, mostly involved in fundraising and finding logistical support. But Charles Allen, chief of intelligence

analysis at the Homeland Security Department, said they could use well-established smuggling routes and drug profits to bring people or even w eapons of m ass d estruction to the U.S."The presence of these

people in the region leaves open the possibility that they will attempt to attack the U nited S tates," said Allen, a veteran CIA analyst. "The threats in this hemisphere are real. We cannot ignore them." Added U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration operations chief Michael Braun: "It is not in our interest to let that potpourri of scum to come together."

Nuclear terrorism is likely – results in extinction. Owen B. Toon 7, chair of the Department of Atmospheric and Oceanic Sciences at CU-Boulder, et al., April 19, 2007, “Atmospheric effects and societal consequences of regional scale nuclear conflicts and acts of individual nuclear terrorism,” online: http://climate.envsci.rutgers.edu/pdf/acp-7-1973-2007.pdf

To an increasing extent, people are congregating in the world’s great urban centers, creating megacities with populations exceeding 10 million individuals. At the same time, advanced technology has designed nuclear explosives of such small size they can be easily transported in a car, small plane or boat to the heart of a city. We

demonstrate here that a single detonation in the 15 kiloton range can produce urban fatalities approaching one million in some cases, and casualties exceeding one million. Thousands of small weapons still exist in the arsenals of the U.S. and Russia, and there are at least six other countries with substantial nuclear weapons inventories. In all, thirty-three countries control sufficient amounts of highly enriched uranium or plutonium to assemble nuclear explosives. A conflict between any of these countries involving 50-100 weapons with yields of 15 kt has the potential to create fatalities rivaling those of the Second World War. Moreover, even a single surface nuclear explosion, or an air burst in rainy conditions, in a city center is likely to cause the entire metropolitan area to be abandoned at least for decades owing to infrastructure damage and radioactive contamination. As the aftermath of hurricane Katrina

in Louisiana suggests, the economic consequences of even a localized nuclear catastrophe would most likely have

severe national and international economic consequences . Striking effects result even from relatively small nuclear

attacks because low yield detonations are most effective against city centers where business and social activity as well as population are

concentrated. Rogue nations and terrorists would be most likely to strike there . Accordingly, an organized attack on the

U.S. by a small nuclear state, or terrorists supported by such a state, could generate casualties comparable to

those once predicted for a full-scale nuclear “counterforce” exchange in a superpower conflict .

Remarkably, the estimated quantities of smoke generated by attacks totaling about one megaton of nuclear

explosives could lead to significant global climate perturbations (Robock et al., 2007). While we did not extend our

casualty and damage predictions to include potential medical, social or economic impacts following the initial explosions, such analyses have been performed in the past for large-scale nuclear war scenarios (Harwell and Hutchinson, 1985). Such a study should be carried out as well for the present scenarios and physical outcomes.

Increased Kid Use ShellLegalization green-lights teenage useMichelle Castillo, writer at CBS News, 2-26-2014, “Will legalization lead to more teens smoking pot?” http://www.cbsnews.com/news/marijuana-legalization-may-lead-more-teens-to-smoke-pot/

With medical marijuana approved in more states each year and recreational use legalized in Colorado and Washington, experts are concerned that more teens may use the drug because they believe it's safe. A Feb. 25 study published in the International Journal of Drug Policy found that about 10 percent of high school students who would otherwise be at a low risk for picking up a pot-smoking habit -- which includes those who don't smoke cigarettes, students with strong religious beliefs and those with non-marijuana smoking friends -- say they would use marijuana if it was legal.

Teenage use of marijuana is bad – linked to decreased brain function – lowers IQMadeline H. Meier et al, PhD in Clinical Psychology from the University of Missouri and Postdoctoral Research Associate at the Duke Transdisciplinary Prevention Research Center, Avshalom Caspi, Edward M. Arnett Professor at Duke University and Professor of Psychology and Neuroscience, Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences at the Duke Center for Genomic and Computational Biology, Antony Ambler, member of the Dunedin Multidisciplinary Health and Development Research Unit at the Department of Preventive and Social Medicine at the School of Medicine at the University of Otago, Dunedin, New Zealand, HonaLee Harrington, Associate in Research at the Caspi and Moffitt Lab at the Duke University Department of Psychology and Neuroscience, Renate Houts, PhD in Human Development and Family Studies from the University of Texas at Austin and PhD in Developmental Science and Longitudinal Methodology from the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Richard S.A. Keefe, Professor of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences at the Duke School of Medicine and Director of the Schizophrenia Research Group at the Duke Institute for Brain Sciences, Kay McDonald, member of the Dunedin Multidisciplinary Health and Development Research Unit at the Department of Preventive and Social Medicine at the School of Medicine at the University of Otago, Dunedin, New Zealand, Aimee Ward, member of the Dunedin Multidisciplinary Health and Development Research Unit at the Department of Preventive and Social Medicine at the School of Medicine at the University of Otago, Dunedin, New Zealand, Richie Poulton, Director of the Dunedin Multidisciplinary Health and Development Research Unit at the Department of Preventive and Social Medicine at the School of Medicine at the University of Otago, Dunedin, New Zealand and Co-Director of the National Centre for Lifecourse Research, and Terrie E. Moffitt, Knut Schmidt Nielson Professor at Duke University and Professor of

Psychology and Neuroscience, Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences at the Duke Center for Genomic and Computational Biology, 10-2-2012, “Persistent cannabis users show neuropsychological decline from childhood to midlife,” http://www.pnas.org/content/109/40/E2657.full

Recent reports show that fewer adolescents believe that regular cannabis use is harmful to health. Concomitantly, adolescents are initiating cannabis use at younger ages, and more adolescents are using cannabis on a daily basis. The purpose of the present study was to test the association between persistent cannabis use and neuropsychological decline and determine whether decline is concentrated among adolescent-onset cannabis users. Participants were members of the Dunedin Study, a prospective study of a birth cohort of 1,037 individuals followed from birth (1972/1973) to age 38 y. Cannabis use was ascertained in interviews at ages 18, 21, 26, 32, and 38 y. Neuropsychological testing was conducted at age 13 y, before initiation of cannabis use, and again at age 38 y, after a pattern of persistent cannabis use had developed. Persistent cannabis use was associated with neuropsychological decline broadly across domains of functioning, even after controlling for years of education. Informants also reported noticing more cognitive problems for persistent cannabis users. Impairment was concentrated among adolescent-onset cannabis users, with more persistent use associated with greater decline. Further, cessation of cannabis use did not fully restore neuropsychological functioning among adolescent-onset cannabis users. Findings are suggestive of a neurotoxic effect of cannabis on the adolescent brain and highlight the importance of prevention and policy efforts targeting adolescents.

Uniqueness

2NC/1NR – Drug Cartels Weak NowDrug cartels are weak right now – best data proves.Dahl, ’12 [Frederik, Reuters, “Mexico Drug War 'Systematically Weakening' Cartels, Says Interior Minister”, The Huffington Post, http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/10/15/mexico-drug-war-systematically-weaking-cartels_n_1967083.html, RSR]

VIENNA, Oct 15 (Reuters) - Mexico is making progress in its fight against powerful drug cartels and they are becoming weaker as the crime bosses are killed or jailed, the interior minister said on Monday . Since

2009, about two-thirds of those identified as Mexico's 37 most- wanted criminals that year have either been killed or face legal action,

Alejandro Poire said. "I think that is an indication that the top level of these organisations is no longer capable of doing what (it was) capable of doing only three years ago," he told reporters during a U.N. conference on

cross-border crime. "Also at the immediately lower level we are systematically bringing down some of the most dangerous criminals ." Earlier this month, Mexico said it killed Heriberto Lazcano, the leader of the brutal Zetas gang and the

most powerful kingpin to fall in the battle against cartels. The Zetas have carried out some of the worst atrocities in a drug war that has killed some 60,000 people during President Felipe Calderon's six-year term, which ends in December. President-Elect Enrique Pena Nieto has said he will fine-tune the strategy to reduce violent crime linked to the drug war. Lazcano was one of Mexico's most-wanted men, synonymous with the Zetas' gory brand of retribution, such as the beheading of rivals and a recent series of massacres. Hours after he was killed, an armed group snatched Lazcano's body and that of another Zetas member from the funeral parlour. Factions of Zetas are now seen uniting behind its second-

in-command, Miguel Angel Trevino, another top Mexican official said last week. Poire said bringing crime bosses to justice diminished the cartels. "You are taking the key asset of the organisation which is the knowledge, the know-how, the connections, the linkages, the experience of these top-level leaders." Mexico's homicide rate

fell by 7 percent in the first six months compared with the same 2011 period, he said. "I would say we are making progress . I would

say we are systematically weakening the criminal organisations ," Poire said when asked whether Mexico was winning

the fight. Addressing the week-long conference in Vienna, the head of the U.N. drugs and crime office said global crime costs $870 billion per

year and he called for a unified response. "We must make the criminals understand: there can be no sanctuaries, no safe havens, no shelters from which to operate," Yury Fedotov told delegates at the Conference of the Parties to the U.N. Convention against Transnational Organized Crime.

Mexican police efforts are severely hurting cartels.Colesmith, ’14 [Warren, “Signs and Wonders: Is Mexico finally winning the drug war?”, 2-8-14, World Magazine, http://www.worldmag.com/2014/02/signs_and_wonders_is_mexico_finally_winning_the_drug_war, RSR]

Cartel busted . An interesting story is unfolding down in Mexico. Last year, the Mexican government got serious about cracking down on the “Knights Templar” drug cartel. Of course, they’ve looked serious in the past, to

no avail. Still, the movement of thousands of troops into the western Mexican state of Michoacan, the country’s region most visibly dominated by a drug cartel, was a promising development . Fast forward to a

couple of weeks ago: The cartel’s activities have been seriously curtailed and its leader captured . These

developments are a big step forward for the Mexican government’s efforts to bring the rule of law to parts of the country that have been controlled by the cartels. This development could have an impact on the economies of Mexico and the United States, and on immigration reform.

2NC/1NR – Economy on Brink NowEconomy struggling to grow now but low healthcare costs keeping it afloat.Joachim, 7-15 [David, “Budget Office Lowers Its Estimate on Federal Spending for Health Care”, 7-15-14, The New York Times, http://www.nytimes.com/2014/07/16/business/budget-office-revises-estimate-of-federal-spending-on-health-care.html?_r=0, RSR]

WASHINGTON — The growth of federal spending on health care will continue to decline as a proportion of the overall economy in the coming decades, in part because of cost controls mandated by President Obama’s health care law, the nonpartisan C ongressional B udget O ffice said on Tuesday . The budget

office said in its annual 25-year forecast that federal spending on major health care programs would amount to 8 percent of gross domestic

product by 2039, one-tenth of a percentage point lower than its previous projection. With the latest revision, the budget office has now reduced its 10-year estimate for spending by Medicare, Medicaid and other health programs by $1.23 trillion starting in 2010, the year the health care law took effect. By 2039, the savings would amount to $250 billion a year today, or about 1.5 percent of the economy. Many factors contributed to the change, including lower anticipated economic growth and a downward projection for interest rates over time . But another factor was a finding that the federal government might be able to sustain a low growth rate of payments to providers in line with

requirements set by the health care law. “Evidence suggests that hospitals and other providers may be able to achieve significant productivity gains or to restrain the growth of their costs in some other way,” the C.B.O. report said. Despite the improvement, federal health care spending is still projected to grow faster than any other budget category as baby boomers retire and begin drawing from Medicare. Health care is on track to become the government’s biggest expense by around 2030. Over all, the budget office still sees federal budget deficits and the government’s outstanding debt growing at rates it calls unsustainable . Deficits are projected to remain at their current level of about 3 percent of G.D.P., or about $500 billion — a level that economists consider maintainable in a growing economy — through 2018 before rising to 4 percent and higher after that.

Best indicators show that the US economy is on the brink of collapsing now.Elliot, Economics editor at the Guardian, 6-16 [Larry, “US economy still struggling to recover”, The Guardian, 6-16-14, http://www.theguardian.com/business/economics-blog/2014/jun/16/us-economy-struggling-recover, RSR]

Christine Lagarde, the French managing director of the International Monetary Fund (IMF), is downbeat about the U nited S tates – and with good reason. The problems of the eurozone have overshadowed

America's difficulties, but the fact is that the world's biggest economy is still struggling to recover from the downturn of 2008-09. Explaining the lack of vim is simple. The US entered the recession with a number of structural weaknesses , and these have been aggravated rather than ameliorated by a long period of sub-par growth, according to the annual health check by the fund. There was much comment earlier this month when the employment data showed that the number of people with jobs was back to pre-recession levels. In truth, this was no great

achievement since the population is steadily rising. The labour participation rate, which was on a declining trend even before the financial crisis, is more than three percentage points lower than it was a decade ago. A shortage of jobs creates two further problems. The slack in the labour market means it is hard for workers to secure pay rises. But the lack of a

European-style welfare state means that those without work fall into poverty. The official poverty measure shows the number living below the breadline has increased by 50% to more than 45 million since the turn of the

millennium. The IMF thinks the number in poverty could be closer to 50 million – around one in six of the population. With the fund

estimating that America's trend rate of growth has fallen to 2%, this figure is likely to climb rather than fall. This weak recovery by American standards is made all the more disappointing by the unprecedented amount of stimulus provided by the Federal Reserve – through quantitative easing and low interest rates– and the boost provided by plentiful new supplies of cheap energy.

Most recent data shows that the economy is struggling to grow – vulnerable to shocks.Frizell, ’14 [Sam, “U.S. Economy Slows to a Crawl in First Quarter of 2014”, 4-30-14, Time, http://time.com/82434/gdp-economy-first-quarter-2014/, RSR]

The U.S. economy slowed dramatically in the first quarter of 2014, as severe winter weather across much of the country depressed business investment and home construction. The economy’s meager 0.1% GDP growth in January, February and March represented the slowest three-month growth in the economy since the end of 2012, and a sharp deceleration from growth in the second half of 2013, when the economy grew at a 3.4% rate. The data reported by the Commerce Department early Wednesday fell far short of the expectations of Wall Street economists, who had predicted a 1.2 percent rate of

growth this quarter, the New York Times reports.

Other countries will slow US growth – puts economy on the brink of a new recession.AP, 7-23 [“Sluggish growth elsewhere could infect healthy U.S. economy”, TribLive, 7-23-14, http://triblive.com/business/headlines/6487787-74/levy-percent-recession#axzz38JthUSXS, RSR]

NEW YORK — Just as the nation's economy is strengthening, other countries are threatening to drag it

down . Employers here are gaining jobs at the fastest pace since the late 1990s, and the economy finally looks ready to expand at a healthy

rate. But sluggish growth in France, Italy, Russia, Brazil and China suggests that the old truism “When the U.S. sneezes, the rest of the world catches a cold” may need to be flipped. Maybe the rest of the world will sneeze this time, and the United States will get sick. That's the view of David A. Levy, who oversees the Levy Forecast, a newsletter analyzing the economy that his family started in 1949 and one with an enviable record. Nearly a decade ago, the now 59-year-old economist warned that housing was a bubble set to burst, and that the damage would push the country into a recession so severe the Federal Reserve would have no

choice but to slash short-term borrowing rates to their lowest levels ever to stimulate the economy. That's exactly what happened. Now, Levy says the U nited S tates is likely to fall into a recession next year triggered by downturns in other countries for the first time in modern history. “The recession for the rest of the world ... will be worse than the last one,” says Levy, whose grandfather called the 1929 stock crash and whose father won praise over decades for anticipating

turns in the business cycle, often against conventional wisdom. Levy's forecast for a global recession is an extreme one, but worth considering given so much is riding on the dominant view that economies are healing. Investors have pushed U.S. stocks to record highs, and Fed estimates have the United States growing at an annual pace of at least 3 percent for

the rest of the year and all of 2015. Investors have poured hundreds of millions of dollars into emerging market stock funds recently on hopes economic growth in those countries will pick up, not stall. Worrisome signs are already out there. Unlike their American counterparts, European banks are still stuck with too many bad loans from the financial crisis. Business debt there is too high. And confidence is fleeting, as

investors saw earlier this month when stocks sold off on worries over the stability of Portugal's largest bank. In China and other emerging markets, the old problem of relying on indebted Americans to buy more of their goods each year and not selling enough to their own people means a glut of underused factories. “The world hopes to ride on the coattails of the U.S. consumer,” said Eswar Prasad, an economist at Cornell University. “But the U.S. consumer isn't in a position to take on the burden.”

Links – Top Level

2NC/1NR – Legalization Leads to Corporate Takeover/Bad Consumption Habits XT

Marijuana legalization would substantially increase bad consumption habits outweighing any benefits.Kleinman, Professor of Public Policy at the UCLA School of Public Affairs, ’14 [Mark, “How Not to Make a Hash Out of Cannabis Legalization”, March/April/May 2014, The Washington Monthly, http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/magazine/march_april_may_2014/features/how_not_to_make_a_hash_out_of049291.php?page=all#, RSR]

The same will likely happen with cannabis. As more and more states begin to legalize marijuana over the next few years, the cannabis industry will begin to get richer—and that means it will start to wield considerably more political power, not only over the states but over national policy , too. That’s how we could get locked into a bad system in which the primary downside of legalizing pot—increased drug abuse, especially by minors—will be greater than it needs to be, and the benefits, including tax revenues, smaller than they could be. It’s easy to imagine the cannabis equivalent of an Anheuser-Busch InBev peddling low-cost, high-octane cannabis in Super Bowl commercials. We can do better than that, but only if Congress takes action—and soon. The standard framing of the cannabis legalization debate is simple: either you’re for it or you’re against it. Setting up the debate that way tempts proponents of legalization to deny all risks, while supporters of the status quo deny how bad the current situation is. Both sides deny the unknown. In truth, there’s no way to gauge all the consequences of adopting unprecedented policies, so it’s foolish to pretend to be 100 percent certain of anything. But it’s possible to guess in advance some of the categories of gain and loss from policy change, even if the magnitudes are unknown, and to identify the complete wild cards: things that might get either better or worse. The undeniable gains from legalization consist mostly of getting rid of the damage done by prohibition. (Indeed, as E. J. Dionne and William Galston have pointed out, polling suggests that support for legalization is driven more by discontent with prohibition than by enthusiasm for pot.) Right now, Americans spend about $35 billion a year on illegal cannabis. That money goes untaxed; the people working in the industry aren’t gaining legitimate job experience or getting Social Security credit, and some of them spend time behind bars and wind up with felony criminal records. About 650,000 users a year get arrested for possession, something much more likely to happen to a black user than a white one. We also spend about $1 billion annually in public money keeping roughly 40,000 growers and dealers behind bars at any one time. That’s a small chunk of the incarceration problem, but it represents a lot of money and a lot of suffering. The enforcement effort, including the use of “dynamic entry” raids, imposes additional costs in money, liberty, police-community conflict, and, occasionally, lives. Cannabis dealing and enforcement don’t contribute much to drug-related violence in the United States, but they make up a noticeable part of Mexico’s problems. Another gain from legalization would be to move the millions of Americans whose crimes begin and end with using illegal cannabis from the wrong side of the law to the right one, bringing an array of benefits to them and their communities in the form of a healthier relationship with the legal and political systems. Current cannabis users, and the millions of others who might choose to start using cannabis if the drug became legal, would also enjoy an increase in personal liberty and be able to pursue, without the fear of legal consequences, what is for most of them a harmless source of pleasure, comfort, relaxation, sociability, healing, creativity, or inspiration. For those people, legalization would also bring with it all the ordinary gains consumers derive from open competition: lower prices, easier access, and a wider range of available products and means of administration, held to quality standards the illicit market can’t enforce. To those real gains must be added the political lure of public revenue that comes without raising taxes on currently legal products or incomes. The revenue take could be substantial: legal production and distribution of the amount of cannabis now sold in the U.S. wouldn’t cost more than 20 percent of the $35 billion now being paid for it. If prices were kept high and virtually all of the surplus were captured by taxation, it’s possible that cannabis taxation could yield as much as $20 billion per year—around 1 percent of the revenues of all the state governments. Those are, of course, two big ifs. The current pricing and tax systems in Colorado and Washington, which between them account for about 5 percent of national cannabis use, won’t give taxpayers there

anything resembling the $1 billion a year that would be their prorated share of that hypothetical $20 billion. So much for the upside. What about the downside? The losses from legalization would mainly accrue to the minority of consumers who lose control of their cannabis use. About a quarter of the sixteen million Americans who report having used cannabis in the past month say they used it

every day or almost every day. Those frequent users also use more cannabis per day of use than do less frequent users. About half of the daily- and near-daily-use population meets diagnostic criteria for substance abuse or dependence—that is, they

find that their cannabis habit is interfering with other activities and bringing negative consequences , and that their attempts to cut back on the frequency or quantity of their cannabis use have failed. (Those

estimates are based on users’ own responses to surveys, so they probably underestimate the actual risks.) And then, of course, there are the extreme cases. A substantial number of these daily users spend virtually every waking hour under the influence. Legal

availability is likely to add both to their numbers and to the intensity of their problems . Jonathan Caulkins has done a calculation suggesting that legalization at low prices might increase the amount of

time spent stoned by about fifteen billion person-hours per year , concentrated among frequent heavy users rather than among the more numerous Saturday-night partiers. Every year, hundreds of thousands of cannabis users visit emergency departments having unintentionally overdosed, experiencing anxiety, dysphoria, and sometimes panic. Presumably many others suffer very unpleasant experiences without seeking professional attention. While a bad cannabis habit usually isn’t nearly as destructive as a bad alcohol habit, it’s plenty bad enough if it happens to you, or to your child or your sibling or your spouse or your parent. Maybe you think the gains of legalizing marijuana will outweigh the costs; maybe you don’t. But that’s quickly becoming a moot point. Like it or not, legalization is on its way, unless something occurs to reverse the current trend in public opinion. In any case, it shouldn’t be controversial to say that, if we are to legalize cannabis, the policy aim going forward should be to maximize the gains and minimize the disadvantages.

But the systems being put in place in Colorado and Washington aren’t well designed for that purpose, because they create a cannabis industry whose commercial interest is precisely opposite to the public interest. Cannabis consumption, like alcohol consumption, follows the so-called 80/20 rule (sometimes called “Pareto’s Law”): 20 percent of the users account for 80 percent of the volume. So from the perspective of cannabis vendors, drug abuse isn’t the problem; it’s the target demographic .

Since we can expect the legal cannabis industry to be financially dependent on dependent consumers, we can also expect that the industry’s marketing practices and lobbying agenda will be dedicated to creating and sustaining problem drug

use patterns .

Legalization would dramatically increase drug use.Sabet, Director of the Drug Policy Institute and Assistant Professor in the Division of Addiction Medicine, University of Florida, ’13 [Kevin, “A New Direction? Yes. Legalization? No. Drawing on Evidence to Determine Where to Go in Drug Policy”, Oregon Law Review, Vol. 91, 2013, RSR]

In 2010, when a team of five RAND researchers analyzed California’s 2010 effort to legalize marijuana, they concluded that the pre-tax price of the drug could plummet (as much as eighty percent) and therefore marijuana consumption could increase.9 This was based on a scenario where the federal government did not intervene and indoor home-production would be allowed. That sharp drop in price complicates any attempts to predict the actual revenues

that will result from marijuana taxes. Furthermore, the fall in price will hinder efforts to collect those revenues as a black market springs up to take advantage of the gap between the taxed price of pot and the real production cost of pot.10 This corroborated everything economics has taught us about how price correlates with use (and why Big Tobacco and the Liquor Lobby fight price hikes aggressively). There is strong evidence to indicate that rates of drug use are inversely proportional to the price of drugs . For

example, Americans who came of age in the 1980s were significantly more likely to initiate marijuana use than those in the 1990s, when price increased. The case is the same for adults and marijuana use; fewer people use marijuana when the price is higher.11 Why would the price of drugs fall so dramatically? Drugs are inherently not expensive; both cocaine and heroin are agricultural products that require minimal and inexpensive chemical processing to produce the street form of the drugs, and marijuana is strictly agricultural.12 But producing, manufacturing, distributing, and purchasing illegal drugs are inherently risky, and so people

have to be paid for that risk. One of the principle purposes of prohibition is to increase the price of a drug that would otherwise be cheap. This makes them less attractive to users who, as just discussed, are sensitive to price . Drugs are expensive because of the risk producers and traffickers take to get their product to market, and because

lowerlevel dealers are also trying to make a profit, further raising the price. In addition, cocaine and heroin are not produced in the United States, therefore increasing the price because of the necessary trafficking.13

Legalization erodes the anti-marijuana stigma – opens the door for a market explosionRoni Caryn Rabin, writer at the New York Times, 1-7-2013, “Legalizing of Marijuana Raises Health Concerns,” http://well.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/01/07/legalizing-of-marijuana-raises-health-concerns/

Both Colorado and Washington restricted marijuana use to adults age 21 and over when they legalized recreational use in November. But experts worry that the perception of marijuana is changing because its stigma as an outlawed drug has eroded. “When people can go to a ‘clinic’ or ‘cafe’ and buy pot, that creates the perception that it’s safe,” said Dr. A. Eden Evins, director of the Center for Addiction Medicine at Massachusetts General Hospital in Boston. “Before we unleash the powers of the marketplace to woo people to use this addictive substance, we need to better understand who is at risk.” “Once moneyed interests are involved, this trend will be difficult to reverse,” she added.

A2: Legalized Marijuana Would Be DifferentCannabis would turn into the new big tobacco – your authors are wrong.Humphreys, Professor of Psychiatry at Stanford University, ’11 [Keith, “Mis-imagining Marijuana Inc.”, Same Facts: The Reality-Based Community, 7-24-11, http://www.samefacts.com/2011/07/drug-policy/mis-imagining-marijuana-inc/, RSR]’

For millions of Americans, the word “marijuana” is hard-wired to the part of their brain that divides the human population into those who went to Woodstock and those who went to Viet Nam. The peculiar result is a largely left-wing movement fighting hard (alongside some corporate billionaires) to create a multinational corporation and a largely conservative movement fighting to stop the advance of capitalism and the

private sector. Some people on both sides mis-imagine a legalized marijuana industry made up of bucolic co-op farms run by hippies in tie dye t-shirts, selling pot at the lowest possible profit to friendly independent business folk in the towns who set aside 10% of their profits to save the whales. This image is pleasant to some and revolting to others, but that’s as may be because it’s not what would happen under legalization. This will be tough for baby boomers to hear, but the current generation of Americans doesn’t know Woodstock from chicken stock and understands the Viet Nam

War about as much as they do military action in the Crimea. If the U.S. legalized marijuana today, those now fading cultural meanings would not rule the day, capitalism would . Cannabis would be seen as a product to be marketed and sold just as is tobacco. People in the marijuana industry would wear suits, work in offices, donate to the Club

for Growth and ally with the tobacco industry to lobby against clean air restrictions. The plant would be grown on big corporate farms, perhaps supported with unneeded federal subsidies and occasionally marred by scandals regarding exploitation of undocumented immigrant farm workers. The liberal grandchildren of legalization advocates will grumble about the soulless marijuana corporations and the conservative grandchildren of anti-legalization activists will play golf at the country club with marijuana inc. executives, toast George Soros at the 19th hole afterwards and discuss how they can get the damn liberals in Congress to stop blocking capital gains tax cuts.

A2: Regulated LegalizationRegulated legalization won’t solve – the black market will exploit holes and use will increase.Sabet, Director of the Drug Policy Institute and Assistant Professor in the Division of Addiction Medicine, University of Florida, ’13 [Kevin, “A New Direction? Yes. Legalization? No. Drawing on Evidence to Determine Where to Go in Drug Policy”, Oregon Law Review, Vol. 91, 2013, RSR]

In 1996, local communities throughout Holland were given the authority to decide whether coffee shops should be allowed within their jurisdictions.81 Since then, three quarters of the nearly 500 local communities in Holland have refused to allow coffee shops to operate within

their borders at all.82 As a result, Amsterdam became home to one-third of all coffee shops in the country despite having only five percent of the country’s population.83 But the black market sale of marijuana did not go away in areas with a high concentration of coffee shops legally selling pot . There are several

reasons for this and all relate to the unfailing opportunism of black market sellers in exploiting the inevitable gaps left open in any regime of

legal marijuana. For example, black market dealers take advantage of coffee shops not being open twenty-four hours a day to offer round-the-clock service. Black market sellers also target minors too young to legally enter coffee shops. Additionally, while there are limits on the amount of pot a coffee shop visitor can purchase, there is no limit on how much a customer can buy from a black market dealer in a single transaction.84 All of these factors combined create an enforcement problem for Holland’s criminal justice system. Predictably, as pot use was normalized by coffee shops, an increase in marijuana use among Holland’s young people occurred. Rates of youth marijuana use more than doubled from the mid-1980s to the mid-1990s. An analysis by a pair of researchers who are sympathetic to marijuana legalization and decriminalization found that the percentage of eighteen- to twenty-year-olds reporting marijuana use went from fifteen percent in 1984 to forty-four percent in 1996, an

increase of 300% for that age group.85 The Dutch always had lower rates of youth marijuana use than the United States, but since the mid- 1990s, Dutch rates have caught up to their American counterparts. Marijuana potency has also risen dramatically over the last decade or so . The European Monitoring Centre for

Drugs and Drug Addiction has posted statistics showing that THC concentrations in marijuana sold in coffee shops more than doubled between

1999 and 2004, from an average of 8.6% in 1999 to more than 20% in 2004.86 As potency levels escalated, users began developing a tolerance for the drug, requiring increasingly higher levels of THC to get the same high—a vicious cycle that accelerates the development of dependency. Dutch citizens now are more likely to be admitted to treatment centers for marijuana use than citizens of any other European country.87

Holland holds yet another distinction that the pro-pot movement might wish would go away. Foreign Affairs, published by the United States-based Council on Foreign Relations, did an analysis of Holland’s drug experiment and described how that country’s lenient laws and status as “the drugs capital of western Europe” had turned it into “ a magnet for . . . criminal types .”88 And we are not just talking about marijuana trafficking. Law enforcement

authorities in both France and Britain estimated that eighty percent of the heroin used or seized in those countries passed through or was temporarily warehoused in Holland.89 Dutch traffickers manufactured most of the amphetamines and ecstasy pills consumed in Europe.90

According to a British customs official, “ Holland has become the place for drug traffickers to work . . . it’s an environment which is relatively troublefree from a criminal’s point of view.”91 To their credit, Dutch law

enforcement have begun to fund enforcement operations and intelligence at a much higher rate now than in the past.92 Dutch officials did not predict these effects of marijuana legalization. Nor did they predict the sharp increase in use rates, the higher rates of dependency, the significant increase in treatment admission rates, or all the other social and public health problems that have emerged in Holland over the years.

A2: SQUO Thumps UseLegalization results in a net increase in marijuana use – polling provesNational Council on Alcoholism and Drug Dependence (NCADD), 2013, “Teens Who Already Use Marijuana - Legalizing the Drug Would Increase Likelihood of Using,” http://ncadd.org/in-the-news/784-teens-who-already-use-marijuana-legalizing-the-drug-would-increase-likelihood-of-using-

Marijuana legalization would likely increase use among teens who already use marijuana, according to data from a survey of U.S. high school students. Nearly two-thirds (65%) of teens who reported using marijuana at least once in their lifetime said that legalizing the drug would make them more likely to use it. In addition, more than three-fourths (78%) of heavy marijuana users reported that legalizing the drug would make them more likely to use it. Only sixteen percent of teens who reported that they had never used marijuana agreed that they would be more likely to use marijuana if it were legal. According to the authors, "One possible scenario suggested by these data is that even if legalization does not drive up overall prevalence of teen marijuana use, it may lead to increased use among those already using, including teens who are already smoking marijuana almost daily".

Links – Economy

2NC/1NR – Legalized Marijuana Hurts the Economy XTLegalization would impose massive economic costs.Evans, Executive Director, Drug Free Projects Coalition, ’13 [David, “THE ECONOMIC IMPACTS OF MARIJUANA LEGALIZATION”, The Journal of Global Drug Policy and Practice, 12-30-13, RSR]

In 2011, the National Drug Intelligence Center released a report that assessed $193 billion in annual losses due to illnesses, accidents, lost productivity, and crime resulting from illicit drug use (63). While

the report did not separate marijuana from other drugs, it attributed nearly two-thirds of the losses to the impact of drug use on productivity . The costs of property crime and homicides were roughly equivalent. An earlier study conducted by the National Center on Addiction and Substance Abuse at Columbia University noted that “governmental spending is skewed toward shoveling up the burden of our continued failure to prevent and treat the problem rather than toward investing in cost effective approaches to prevent and minimize the disease and its consequences.” The study estimated that, in 2005,

$467.7 billion was spent on substance abuse addiction by federal ($238.2 billion), state ($135.8 billion), and local ($93.8 billion) governments. It found less than 3% of spending was related to prevention but more than three-fifths was due to healthcare costs, including those attributable to alcohol and tobacco use (64). Economic Consequences of Legalization In

effect, legalization endorses marijuana as socially acceptable. It eliminates criminal penalties, reducing prices, increasing availability, and de-stigmatizing use (65). More likely than not, these consequences are

irreversible : “Legalization would reduce the costs of supplying drugs by more than taxes could offset, pushing retail prices into uncharted waters. We can be confident this would affect consumption; we just don’t know by how much. One might consider giving legalization a trial run, pledging to repeal it if consumption ended up

rising more than anticipated. However, even temporary legalization could have permanent consequences. Society could certainly ‘unlegalize’ and reimpose prohibition, but that would not return matters to the status quo ex ante any more than putting toast

in the freezer would change it back into fresh bread.” (66) Economists estimate that marijuana use will increase by 75% - 289% once legalized, or more if advertising is permitted. However, the higher end of this range is

probably more accurate because current usage is underreported by 20%-40%. (67). According to the 2010 National Survey on Drug

Use and Health, 17.4 million Americans used marijuana in 2010. Legalization could thus invite between 13.05 million and 47.85 million new users (68). Increase in Marijuana-related Healthcare Costs Inevitably, the increase in use will correspond to an uptick in incidents of dependence and abuse. If the number of new users is between 13.05 million

and 47.85 million, then treatment admissions would likely increase from 1.3 million to 4.8 million respectively. These estimates assume a dependence rate of only 10%. Non-dependent users are still more prone to illnesses, accidents, and crime than non-users. Since legalization is expected to cut marijuana prices in half, making it more

affordable, the drop in market prices will compound risks for users who are young, poor, or already addicted (69). As a consequence, medical providers may need to adapt to the influx of new users who are involved in accidents or who report marijuana-induced panic attacks or dependence (70). While Medicaid and other public assistance programs currently pay for nearly two-thirds of all inpatient admissions, this share is expected to increase under the Affordable Care Act, with or without legalization (71).

Legalization would reverse any economic recovery – results in a new recession – prefer our evidence it’s comparative. Evans, Special Adviser to the Drug Free America Foundation, ’12 [David, “Marijuana Legalization's Costs Outweigh Its Benefits”, 10-30-12, US News and World Report, http://www.usnews.com/debate-club/should-marijuana-use-be-legalized/marijuana-legalizations-costs-outweigh-its-benefits, RSR]

Legalization will cause a tremendous increase in marijuana use . Based on the experience elsewhere, the

number of users will double or triple . This means an additional 17 to 34 million young and adult users in the United States.

Legalization will mean that marijuana businesses can promote their products and package them in attractive ways to increase their market share. Increased marijuana use will mean millions more damaged young people. Marijuana use can permanently impair brain development. Problem solving, concentration, motivation, and memory are negatively affected. Teens who use marijuana are more likely to engage in delinquent and dangerous behavior, and experience

increased risk of schizophrenia and depression, including being three times more likely to have suicidal thoughts. Marijuana-using teens are more likely to have multiple sexual partners and engage in unsafe sex. Marijuana use accounts for tens of thousands of marijuana related complaints at emergency rooms throughout the United States each year. Over 99,000 are young people. Despite arguments by the drug culture to the contrary, marijuana is addictive . The levels of THC (marijuana's psychoactive ingredient) have never been higher. This is a major factor why marijuana is the number one drug causing young people to enter treatment and why there has been a substantial increase in the people in treatment for marijuana dependence. Marijuana legalization means more drugged driving. Already, 13 percent of high school seniors said they drove after using marijuana while only 10 percent

drove after having several drinks. Why run the risk of increasing marijuana use among young drivers? Employees who test positive for marijuana had 55 percent more industrial accidents and 85 percent more injuries and they had absenteeism rates 75 percent higher than those that tested negative. This damages our economy . The argument that we can tax and regulate marijuana and derive income from it is false. The increased use will increase the multitude of costs that come with marijuana use. The costs from health and mental wellness problems, accidents, and damage to our economic productivity will far out strip any tax

obtained . Our economy is suffering. The last thing we need is the burden that legalization will put

on us .

Legalizing marijuana would drastically reduce worker productivity – hurts the economy.Evans, Executive Director, Drug Free Projects Coalition, ’13 [David, “THE ECONOMIC IMPACTS OF MARIJUANA LEGALIZATION”, The Journal of Global Drug Policy and Practice, 12-30-13, RSR]

Marijuana-impaired workers contribute to a decrease in productivity due to employee turnover, absenteeism, and illness. While performance effects might vary according to job task, frequency of use, and users’ personal characteristics, studies have found marijuana and alcohol pose comparable risks to productivity (60). Employees who tested positive for marijuana had 55% more industrial accidents and 85% more injuries compared to those that tested negative on a pre-employment exam and they had absenteeism rates 75% higher than those that tested negative (61). Low-income groups and

minorities may be particularly vulnerable to the unintended effects of legalization. According to one analysis, social stigma surrounding marijuana use could deepen the divide between managerial employees and rank-and-file workers: “[Marijuana use] does impair them as far as managerial favor, raises, promotions, and the

like. Indirect effects such as these could severely inhibit the workforce and overall production of minority groups, by stunting their ability to move up the chain of responsibility and command. Further

complicating this is the fact that with the legalization of marijuana, individuals would have less incentive to hide their habit, making it all the more easier to suffer remaining stigmatizing social consequences. Compounding the problem is that in the legalized world ‘[e]ach new user would be at some risk of progressing to heavy, chronic use . . . .’” (62 )

A2: Health Costs Not Key to EconHealthcare costs are super important to the economy.The Economist, 7-25 [“Why nurses are the new auto workers”, http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2014/07/health-care-jobs, RSR]

CAR manufacturing was the defining industry of the 20th century. In the 21st it is health care. Health

spending comprised 17% of America’s GDP in 2012 . About one in ten workers are employed in the health sector. These workers have the crucial job of making American health care more efficient, probably the country’s top domestic challenge . Those who are not doctors have a particularly important role—nurses and

lesser-trained workers can monitor and care for patients out of hospital, which should result in better quality of life for patients and lower costs

for everyone else. But just as the car industry was the 20th century’s main battleground for fights over labour, it is increasingly clear

that health workers will be at the centre of the latest bitter conflict .

A2: Legalization Increases State RevenuesLegalization would not result in governmental revenue.Evans, Executive Director, Drug Free Projects Coalition, ’13 [David, “THE ECONOMIC IMPACTS OF MARIJUANA LEGALIZATION”, The Journal of Global Drug Policy and Practice, 12-30-13, RSR]

In spite of legalization, crime is endemic and will not diminish even though the kinds of crimes committed might change. In fact, under a heavily regulated legalization regime, police detentions for marijuana-related offenses may dwarf the current rate. Legalization will increase drugged driving and more drugged driving will mean more dead and injured drivers and other innocent victims and all the cost related to these tragedies (78). Marijuana significantly impairs the ability to safely operate a motor vehicle. Driving problems include: decreased handling performance, inability to maintain headway, impaired time and distance estimation, increased reaction times, sleepiness, impaired sustained vigilance and lack of motor coordination (79). Marijuana is the most prevalent drug found in fatally injured drivers testing

positive for drugs (80). Under our current laws few offenders are in prison for marijuana possession . No more

than two-tenths of one percent (.2%) of federal inmates are locked up for marijuana possession and, among state prisoners, only one-tenth of one percent (0.1%) are in for marijuana possession without a prior record (81). Predictably, most of these prisoners are charged with probation

or parole violations or with possession of wholesale quantities where intent to distribute could not be proved. The proponents of legalization ignore the fact that legal sanctions deter or delay potential abusers, thereby limiting the growth of the illicit market. Law enforcement also leverages drug users/addicts into treatment through the use of drug courts that

offer treatment as an alternative to incarceration. According to a recent study by Colorado State University, Colorado’s legalization experiment will require retailers of marijuana to charge 318% more than

producers (82 ). The same study also found that current estimates of legalization’s revenue potential

are overblown by about 60% and that, in reality, legalization would raise revenue equal to only 1%

of Colorado’s budget . Ultimately, this will push users into the black market and drive retailers into the tax-evading ‘grey market.’ Law enforcement resources will need to be re-marshaled to address problems caused by marijuana-impaired driving, underage purchases, and criminals who seek to undercut licensed marijuana retailers. For a state to benefit from tax revenue, it must first collect the tax proceeds. States that have attempted to tax medical marijuana, a notoriously cash-only business, find this to be a problem. Of course, part of the reason why medical

marijuana is cash-only is because banks have refused to do business with those who sell drugs in violation of federal law. States will need to spend exorbitant amounts of taxpayer money to monitor retailers, conduct investigations, and prosecute tax evaders. Moreover, enforcement can cause marijuana markets to behave in surprising ways. For example, in California’s Humboldt County, the wholesale price of marijuana fell when the federal government stepped up enforcement efforts (83). The explanation for this was simple – enforcement caused retailers to change their purchasing patterns so growers found themselves steeped in excess product which they began pushing off as quickly

and cheaply as they could. In other words, law enforcement spending would merely shift from one category of offense to another. Since enforcement costs would not be insubstantial , there are good reasons to

question whether purported savings from legalization are achievable or meaningful.

Revenues wouldn’t even come close to covering the costs of legalizing marijuana.Carise, Scientist/Clinician Substance Abuse Treatment Field, ’13 [Deni, “Legalizing Marijuana -- The Real Costs”, 7-23-13, The Huffington Post, http://www.huffingtonpost.com/deni-carise/legalizing-marijuana-the-_b_3620472.html, RSR]

Pro-legalization groups are often comparing the potential tax revenue of marijuana with alcohol and tobacco; it is true that nothing is more

heavily taxed in our society than these two substances. Yet, under closer examination, it is clear that this revenue doesn't even come close to covering the enormous costs to our society from these products: alcohol misuse results in increased traffic accidents, ER visits, domestic violence and lost work productivity, while both substances lead to substantial and costly medical problems, and even death. In 2010, there were 15,990 alcohol liver deaths and 25,692 alcohol-induced deaths excluding alcohol-related accidents and homicides. In the prior year, there were 10,839 traffic fatalities in alcohol-impaired-driving crashes. These are just the figures for fatalities -- quite obviously the costs to society soar even higher when figuring in those "lucky" enough to just be injured in accidents or still living with

emphysema, lung or liver disease. There are still many people who believe that a person high on marijuana can function properly at home or work and can operate a motor vehicle without impairment. But the reality is that in 2011, marijuana was involved in 455,668 emergency room visits nationwide, and marijuana has been proven to impair motor coordination and reaction time, being the second most prevalent drug (after alcohol) implicated in automobile accidents.

A2: Solves Public Safety CostsLegalization has negative effects on public safety.Evans, Executive Director, Drug Free Projects Coalition, ’13 [David, “THE ECONOMIC IMPACTS OF MARIJUANA LEGALIZATION”, The Journal of Global Drug Policy and Practice, 12-30-13, RSR]

Studies also shed light on marijuana’s implications for public safety. Short-term and long-term use are known to cause cognitive impairment affecting sensorimotor functioning, attention span, memory, self-control, learning, and educational attainment (54). Sensorimotor and attentional deficits undermine users’ ability to

safely engage in complex tasks like operating a motor vehicle or other heavy machinery. Studies have found that drivers under the influence of marijuana typically exhibit reduced reaction speed, frequent lane-weaving, and they are twice as likely as unimpaired drivers to be involved in traffic accidents (55). Using marijuana before

driving has been found to increase the risk of fatal outcomes in motor vehicle collisions (56). Research on workplace injuries confirms these findings; employees who are impaired by the effects of marijuana are more likely to be involved in accidents at work (57). In addition to its short-term effects on sensory

perception, marijuana use can impair decision-making an self-control during and long after intoxication.

Known colloquially as ‘good judgment,’ self-control is generally believed to improve from youth into adulthood and to degenerate with substance abuse and dependence. Self control inhibits risk-seeking and impulsive behaviors that limit educational attainment and contribute to criminal conduct. Economists,

criminologists, and medical researchers have studied and documented these effects (58). According to one study, “the probability of being arrested for a non-drug involved violent, property and income-producing crime” is greater for marijuana users than non-users (59).

A2: Taxation SolvesGovernment taxation of marijuana increases the cost on the government.Sabet, Director of the Drug Policy Institute and Assistant Professor in the Division of Addiction Medicine, University of Florida, ’13 [Kevin, “A New Direction? Yes. Legalization? No. Drawing on Evidence to Determine Where to Go in Drug Policy”, Oregon Law Review, Vol. 91, 2013, RSR]

Many legalization advocates urge the government to “tax the hell out of” drugs,14 in order to pay for the assumed increased use and addiction costs. That way, new users will be deterred from starting because the price would be out of reach. The most vulnerable (i.e. the poor) would benefit from high costs, too, since one might think that those with less disposable

income can afford expensive drugs. Ironically, however, this scenario actually exacerbates some of the worst qualities of prohibition. High-cost drugs would ensure that an already well-established black market would remain largely in tact . If a person can buy cocaine for ten dollars an ounce from a dealer or go to a government-sponsored

“drug store” for ten times that much, he or she would opt for the former scenario. Especially if drugs were still illegal for minors (no one has

seriously proposed legalizing marijuana or cocaine for minors), a black market would still have reasons to linger. This is precisely what occurred in Canada when it imposed steep taxes on cigarettes.15 In fact, today there is a thriving black

market for the highly taxed cigarettes in certain parts of the U nited S tates as criminals smuggle packs of cigarettes from lower-taxed states to those with higher taxes. For example, New York has the highest tax on cigarettes in the country ($4.35 per pack, with an additional $1.50 in New York City).16 As a result, it has the highest smuggling rates in the

United States: 60.9% of cigarettes were smuggled into New York in 2011.17 After Massachusetts, Florida, and Utah raised their cigarette taxes, smuggling significantly increased.18 California Board of Equalization officials have recently estimated that cigarette excise tax revenue evasion was $182 million in fiscal year 2005–06.19 Around fifteen percent of all cigarettes sold in that state have somehow avoided the excise taxes in place on each pack to raise revenues for the state budget.20 This is lower than evasion rates in

other countries, according to the Chief Economist for the California Board of Equalization.21 For example, about twenty-two percent of the United Kingdom’s domestic cigarette market now consists of smuggled cigarettes.22 In Canada, smuggled cigarettes represented about thirty-three percent of all domestic cigarette consumption at their peak.23 In the United States, illegal drugs cost $193 billion per year in lost social costs.24 That number would no doubt increase under legalization and then have to be distributed to the new number of

total drug users. Experience with taxing alcohol and tobacco shows that any attempt to pay for lost

costs through taxes would be futile . Indeed the social costs of legalization (e.g., increased health

costs, accidents, productivity losses) outweigh any possible tax that could be levied against the drug . Drugs that are already legal in the United States are a good example of what would happen if we thought we could reap the financial benefits of illegal drugs: For every one dollar of revenue they produce, they each cost the United States ten dollars in lost social costs.2

Links – Gateway Drug

2NC/1NR – Marijuana = Gateway Drug XTLegalizing marijuana dramatically increases its effects as a gateway drug – top health experts agree.The Hill, ’14 [Ferdous Al-Faruque and Elise Viebeck, “NIH expert warns against legalizing pot”, The Hill, 4-29-14, http://thehill.com/policy/healthcare/204690-nih-expert-warns-against-legalizing-pot, RSR]

A director from the N ational I nstitutes of H ealth warned House lawmakers Tuesday against legalizing marijuana use, saying it could act as a gateway drug. The testimony from Nora Volkow, director of the National Institute on Drug Abuse at the National Institutes of Health, highlighted the split among federal agencies on drug policy and comes as the Obama administration takes a hands-

off approach to state enforcement of marijuana laws. Volkow told the House Energy and Commerce Committee’s Oversight and Investigations subpanel studies show that changes to brain chemistry after alcohol, tobacco, or marijuana use can prime users for harder drugs. Rep. Michael Burgess (R-Texas) highlighted

Volkow’s testimony, which he said came at a critical moment in the debate over the nation’s drug laws. “Right now, this nation is in a significant experiment to legalize marijuana,” he said. Polls show public opinion in support of marijuana legalization growing. Attorney General Eric Holder also told lawmakers earlier this month that the administration was open to reclassifying marijuana as a less dangerous drug. Burgess encouraged the NIH to continue researching the effects of marijuana use.

The gateway effect is cross-generational.Hughes, freelance journalist who writes about neuroscience, genetics, behavior, and medicine for the likes of Nature, Popular Science, and Slate, ’14 [Virginia, “Weed: A Gateway Drug Across Generations?”, 3-17-14, National Geographic, http://phenomena.nationalgeographic.com/2014/03/17/weed-a-gateway-drug-across-generations/, RSR]

The new study aimed to see whether any of these effects carried into the next generation. Over the past decade or so, many researchers have reported that a wide variety of environmental exposures leave chemical marks on DNA that stick around in the germ line, sometimes for several generations. (I just wrote a feature for Nature about this avenue of research.) To give one well-known example, a 2002 study of Swedish historical records found that men who had experienced famine in childhood were less likely to have

grandsons with heart disease or diabetes than those who were well fed. Just as they did in previous studies, Hurd’s team gave male and female rats periodic injections of THC throughout their adolescent period. This pattern of exposure is meant

to mimic the typical pot-smoking teen. “Every few days they got about a joint’s worth of THC,” Hurd says. Several weeks after the exposure ends (enough time for all traces of THC to disappear), the researchers allowed the animals to mate. Immediately after delivery, their pups were transferred to another cage to be raised by a female rat who had never been exposed

to THC. When those babies reached adulthood, even though they themselves had never been exposed to THC, their brains showed a range of molecular abnormalities. They had unusually low expression of the receptors for glutamate and dopamine, two important chemical messengers, in the striatum, a brain region involved in compulsive behaviors and the

reward system. What’s more, brain cells in this region had abnormal firing patterns, the study found. “I really didn’t

expect such significant differences,” Hurd says. “The fact that you see significant changes , molecular changes, in

how the neurons communicate with each other — that’s very significant to me .” This second generation had altered behaviors as well. Compared with controls, rats whose parents had been exposed to THC were more sensitive to novelty in their environment and were more likely to self-administer heroin by repeatedly pressing a lever. All of this would suggest, as the authors wrote in the paper, that

marijuana has a “cross-generational gateway” effect .

Most recent studies confirm its place as a gateway drug.Cuda, ’12 [Amanda, “Yale study: Marijuana may really be gateway drug”, 8-21-12, CT Post, http://www.ctpost.com/local/article/Yale-study-Marijuana-may-really-be-gateway-drug-3805532.php, RSR]

Anti-drug advocates who have admonished for years that marijuana is a "gateway drug" may be on

to something , according to a study by Yale University School of Medicine researchers . But the executive

director of the state chapter of the National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws dismissed the findings as "just another propaganda

study." The Yale study, which appears online in the Journal of Adolescent Health, showed that alcohol, cigarettes and marijuana were associated with an increased likelihood of prescription drug abuse in men 18 to 25. In women of that age, only marijuana use was linked with a higher likelihood of prescription drug abuse. For years, researchers have looked at a connection between marijuana and hard drugs, such as cocaine and heroin, said Lynn Fiellin, the study's lead author and an associate professor of medicine at the Yale University School of Medicine. But given the large number of people who abuse prescription drugs -- particularly opioids (or painkillers) such as OxyContin and Percocet -- Fiellin said it seemed worthwhile to examine whether there was a link between marijuana and use of these drugs. "I don't think the general population has a good idea of how serious the problem is with prescription opioids," Fiellin said. "When they're abused or misused, these are hard drugs." According to the 2010 National Survey on Drug Use and Health, which is done by the national Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, about 5 million people were current users of prescription painkillers. In their research, Fiellin and her team looked at data from the 2006, 2007 and 2008 versions of the National Survey on Drug Use and Health, as those were the most recent surveys available at the time of their study. The Yale researchers focused on a sample of 55,215 18- to 25-year-olds. Of those, 6,496, about 12 percent, reported that they were abusing prescription opioids. Of the group

abusing these drugs, about 57 percent had used alcohol, 56 percent had smoked cigarettes and 34 percent had used marijuana. The study found that, among both men and women, those who had used marijuana were 2.5 times more likely than those their age who abstained to later dabble in prescription drugs. Also, young men who drank alcohol or smoked cigarettes were 25 percent more likely to abuse prescription opioids. However, the study didn't show an association between alcohol or cigarette use in young women and later use of prescription drugs.

Marijuana is a gateway drug – drug use patters demonstrate causality Beau Kilmer et al, Co-Director of the RAND Drug Policy Research Center, Senior Policy Researcher at the RAND Corporation, Professor at the Pardee RAND Graduate School, and PhD in Public Policy from Harvard University, Jonathan P. Caulkins, H. Guyford Stever Professor of Operations Research and Public Policy at Heinz College, Carnegie Mellon University, Rosalie Liccardo Pacula, Director of the Bing Center for Health Economics, Co-Director of the RAND Drug Policy Research Center, Senior Economist at the RAND Corporation, Professor at the Pardee RAND Graduate School, PhD in Economics from Duke University, Robert MacCoun, Emeritus Professor of Public Policy at the Goldman School of Public Policy, University of California Berkeley, and

Peter Reuter, Professor in the Department of Crimonology and Criminal Justice at the University of Maryland, 2010, “Altered State? Assessing How Marijuana Legalization in California Could Influence Marijuana Consumption and Public Budgets,” http://www.rand.org/content/dam/rand/pubs/occasional_papers/2010/RAND_OP315.pdf

The use of marijuana typically precedes the use of such substances as cocaine and heroin, and people who use marijuana earlier and more heavily are more likely to go on to more and heavier use of these substances (Kandel, 2002). These facts have given rise to the so-called gateway hypothesis – the hypothesis being that the pattern is not merely coincidence but instead reflects causal linkages, so that anything that increases or reduces use of marijuana might thereby cause an increase or reduction in use of these other substances.

2NC/1NR – Gateway Effect Leads to Drug Trafficking XTMarijuana’s gateway effect leads to the trafficking of harder drugs.Chandler and Young, ’14 [Jamie (political scientist at Hunter College and The Colin L. Powell School for Civic and Global Leadership at City College of New York) and Skylar, “Legalizing Marijuana Won’t End the War on Drugs”, 3-14-14, US News, http://www.usnews.com/opinion/blogs/jamie-chandler/2014/03/14/legalizing-marijuana-wont-end-the-war-on-drugs, RSR]

Marijuana proponents are exceptional political marketers. Their Pot-aganda has convinced the public of the myths that marijuana hasn't killed anyone, isn’t addictive and that medical marijuana is a wonder drug for treating epilepsy. They’ve also labeled opponents as morally judging pot

smokers, which helps their message seem more credible. Facts indicate otherwise. Marijuana is addictive ; it’s a gateway drug and marijuana-related fatal car accidents have tripled since 1999. Smokers inhale about 65 percent of pesticides

found in marijuana buds and much of the evidence on medical marijuana and epilepsy is anecdotal. The biggest problem with pro-marijuana rhetoric is that its proponents seem to believe that legalization will end the war on drugs – naïve assertion that shows proponents fail to understand the complexities of why national drug isn’t working. President Richard Nixon declared a war on drugs in 1971, but his policy focused on supply. He targeted major drug cartels, and invested in drug treatment programs. President Ronald Reagan, on the other hand, shifted the policy to demand. His “get tough” and “zero tolerance policy” approaches locked up countless people for nonviolent drug offenses. Reagan expanded funding for law enforcement, but cut it for drug treatment, prevention and education programs. Drug addicts became the enemy, and the 1980s crack epidemic made matters worse. “Zero tolerance” grew, and that was partly driven by implicit racism. The Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 1986 created mandatory sentencing standards that dramatically increased the African-American prison population. Penalties for crack possession far exceeded those for cocaine. Politicians associated crack with low-income blacks and coke with middle-class whites. Demand-side drug policy has remained the norm for the last 30 years and part of the reason is that it helps politicians reap electoral gains. Even today, President Barack Obama supports the drug war. Yes: he’s made some pot-friendly remarks, but he likes the Edward J. Byrne Justice Assistance Grant Program. Although the Bush administration practically defunded the program, Obama allocated $2 billion back to it with the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009. He wanted to convince the public that he was tough on crime. The program has a troubled history. It ties drug arrests statistics to funding: the more arrests, the more money. Most of the money goes to drug tasks forces that have a record of disproportionally arresting poor black men for possession. The first step to fix this problem is for Congress to pass S. 1410: Smarter Sentencing Act of 2014. The law would provide funding to reform sentencing rules, mitigate prison overcrowding and racial disparities and better identify dangerous drug offenders. The bill has been stalled in committee for a year. And while it stands a decent chance of passing the Senate – some Republicans announced this week that they’re coming around to favoring it – it has zero chance of passing the GOP-controlled House. Republicans also like “tough on crime” policies.

Legalizing marijuana isn’t going to fix national drug policy. Drug cartels will make money by shifting their focus to harder drugs or looking for new markets into which to smuggle pot. If we want to reform national drug policy, we’re going to have to shift its focus back on supply, and push politicians to do a lot more than jump on the pro-pot bandwagon. The most important thing is we need to get the marijuana legalization debate off spin and on substance. If we don’t design drug policies around the lessons learned from the failure of the war on drugs, we’re just going to get more shoddy policies that don’t benefit the common good.

Most recent data confirms this phenomenon.Miroff, ’14 [Nick, “Tracing the U.S. heroin surge back south of the border as Mexican cannabis output falls”, 4-6-14, The Washington Post, http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/tracing-the-us-heroin-surge-back-south-of-the-border-as-mexican-cannabis-output-falls/2014/04/06/58dfc590-2123-4cc6-b664-1e5948960576_story.html, RSR]

TEPACA DE BADIRAGUATO, MEXICO — The surge of cheap heroin spreading in $4 hits across rural America can be traced back to the remote valleys of the northern Sierra Madre. With the wholesale price of marijuana falling — driven in part by decriminalization in sections of the United States — Mexican drug farmers are turning away from cannabis and filling their fields with opium poppies. Mexican heroin is flooding

north as U.S. authorities trying to contain an epidemic of prescription painkiller abuse have tightened controls on synthetic opiates such as hydrocodone and OxyContin. As the pills become more costly and difficult to obtain, Mexican trafficking organizations have found new markets for heroin in places such as Winchester, Va., and Brattleboro, Vt., where, until recently, needle use for narcotics was rare or unknown. Farmers in the storied “Golden Triangle” region of Mexico’s Sinaloa state, which has produced the country’s most notorious gangsters and biggest marijuana harvests, say they are no longer planting the crop. Its wholesale price has collapsed in the past five years, from $100 per kilogram to less than $25. “It’s not worth it anymore,” said Rodrigo Silla, 50, a lifelong

cannabis farmer who said he couldn’t remember the last time his family and others in their tiny hamlet gave up growing mota. “I wish the Americans would stop with this legalization.” Growers from this area and as far afield as Central America are sowing their plots with opium poppies, and large-scale operations are turning up in places where authorities have never seen them. In late January, police in Honduras made their first discovery of a poppy farm in the country, raiding a sophisticated mountain greenhouse as big as a soccer field. That

same week, soldiers and police in western Guatemala came under attack by farmers armed with clubs and gas bombs when the security personnel moved in to destroy 160 acres of poppy. Along the border with Mexico, U.S. authorities seized 2,162 kilos of heroin last year, a record amount, up from 367 kilos in 2007. The needle habit in the United States

has made a strong comeback as heroin rushes into the country. Use of the drug in the U nited S tates increased 79 percent between 2007 and 2012, according to federal data, triggering a wave of overdose deaths and an “urgent and growing public health crisis,” Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. warned last month. Although prescription

painkillers remain more widely abused and account for far more fatal overdoses, heroin has been “moving all over the country and popping up in areas you didn’t see before,” said Carl Pike, a senior official in the Special Operations Division of the Drug Enforcement Administration. With its low price and easy portability, heroin has reached beyond New York, Chicago and other

places where it has long been available. Rural areas of New England, Appalachia and the Midwest are being hit especially hard, with cities such as Portland, Maine; St. Louis; and Oklahoma City struggling to cope with a new generation of addicts.

A2: Marijuana Main Source of RevenueLegalization won’t cut cartels revenues – they’ll diversify.Longmire, a former officer and investigative special agent in the Air Force, ’11 [Sylvia, “Legalization Won’t Kill the Cartels”, 6-18-11, The New York Times, http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/19/opinion/19longmire.html, RSR]

FOR a growing number of American policy makers, politicians and activists, the best answer to the spiraling violence in Mexico is to legalize the marijuana that, they argue, fuels the country’s vicious cartels and smugglers. After all, according to official estimates, marijuana constitutes 60 percent of cartels’ drug profits. Legalization

would move that trade into the open market, driving down the price and undermining the cartels’ power and influence. Unfortunately, it’s not that easy. Marijuana legalization has many merits, but it would do little to hinder the long- term economics of the cartels — and the violent toll they take on Mexican society. For one thing, if marijuana makes up 60 percent of the cartels’ profits, that still leaves another 40 percent, which includes the sale of methamphetamine, cocaine, and brown-powder and black-tar heroin. If marijuana

were legalized, the cartels would still make huge profits from the sale of these other drugs. Plus, there’s no reason the cartels couldn’t enter the legal market for the sale of marijuana, as organized crime groups did in the United States after the repeal of Prohibition.

Cartels will expand into new activities.Zaiac, ’14 [Nick, “Marijuana Legalization Won’t Crowd Out Cartels”, The Daily Caller, 5-21-14, http://dailycaller.com/2014/05/21/marijuana-legalization-wont-crowd-out-cartels/, RSR]

Indeed, recent months have seen a surge in reports of cartels moving into new forms of illegal activities. A few weeks ago, Mexican authorities in seized 68,000 tons of cartel-mined iron ore while en route to China. Last year, the Zetas cartel was revealed to have been involved in massive illegal coal mining operations. Around the same time,the Knights Templar cartel’s vast involvement in the avocado trade was exposed. And then came the revelation that the “lime crisis” every margarita-lover in the nation is freaking out about

is, at least in part, being fueled by cartel involvement in the fruit’s trade. Cartels’ movement into normally legal markets seems shocking to many, but the ideas are far from new. As far back as 1995, noted social scientists Diego Gambetta and Peter Reuter wrote about how cartels will seek out opportunity for profit any way they can, citing Cosa Nostra’s involvement in price fixing the

concrete industry. Cartels act as catalysts of illicit entrepreneurship, giving individuals the ability to enter the darker side of legal markets. The lime trade is an excellent example. Exporting limes to the U.S. is a good, common, and legal trade. The Knights Templar thereby expropriated some lime farms while using their clout to regulate competition out of

existence. Cartels have proven extremely adaptable to outside pressure . When some government action can prove

successful in the short-term, like the Coast Guard shutting down the Caribbean cocaine trade, the cartels will adapt. In the Caribbean case, it meant shifting supply routes overland via Mexico. When crackdowns occur in particular industries, the cartel will shift away from it. A notable example of this was the U.S.-based mafia’s avoidance of the heroin trade in the 1950s, ceding the trade to the Sicilian mob. The penalties for

trafficking heroin were so stiff that they posed systemic risk to the mafia, and thus they avoided an otherwise lucrative market. As such, cartels are becoming diversified networks of businesses , not simply reliant on the traditional drug trade for revenue. Back in 2011, Sylvia Longmire noted that this diversification would insulate cartels from economic and political shocks

of legalization, just like having a diverse portfolio of stocks insulates investors from some risk. No matter how low prices for some particular drug fall, the cartels will likely just shift to new activities. Thus, Mexican farmers’ move to opium production was all too predictable. At the same time, any time a cartel is forced to exit a trade, especially one with previously-high margins, it generally come out weaker than before. Put simply, legalizing cannabis in the U.S. will hurt the cartels, but it is unlikely that it will kill the cartels by any means.

Links – Kids

2NC/1NR – Legalization = Teenage Use XTLegalization increases teenage demand – more opportunities and greater motiveD. Mark Anderson, Assistant Professor in the Department of Agricultural Economics and Economics at Montana State University, Benjamin Hansen, Assistant Professor of Economics at the University of Oregon and Faculty Research Fellow at the National Bureau of Economic Research, and Daniel Rees, Professor in the Department of Economics at the University of Colorado, Denver, November 2013, “Medical Marijuana Laws and Teen Marijuana Use,” http://dmarkanderson.com/MMLs_and_Youth_Consumption_11_26_13_v4.pdf

On the demand side, researchers, policymakers and law enforcement officials contend that legalization reduces the stigma associated with the use of marijuana (Roan 2011; Suthers 2012; Uken 2012) and encourages young people to underestimate the health risks associated with marijuana use (O’Connor 2011; Roan 2011). In addition, legalization could increase demand by providing more opportunities for young people to interact with legitimate users (Pacula et al. 2010). Not surprisingly, past research has shown that attitudes and perceptions with regard to the harmfulness of marijuana are strongly correlated with use (Bachman et al. 1998; Pacula et al. 2001).

Legalizing medical marijuana already increased teenage consumption – legalization will result in a massive spikePatti Neighmond, Health Policy Correspondent at NPR, 3-3-2014, “Marijuana May Hurt The Developing Teen Brain,” http://www.npr.org/blogs/health/2014/02/25/282631913/marijuana-may-hurt-the-developing-teen-brain

Six percent of high school seniors say they use pot every day, which is triple the rate over the past decade. And, the marijuana they smoke is much more potent than it was in the 1970s, with far higher levels of THC, the main mind-altering ingredient. "The higher the THC levels, the more brain changes there are and the more there is the risk for addiction," the University of Wisconsin's Lisdahl says. She says more teens and young adults are smoking marijuana in states that have made the drug available for medical use. She says that's worrisome because it might be a harbinger of things to come if pot is

fully legalized.

Studies prove – youth are uniquely more likely to use marijuana once it isn’t illegalJenny Williams, Professor in the Department of Economics at the University of Melbourne, and Anne Line Bretteville-Jensen, PhD in Economics and Research Director at the Norwegian Institute for Alcohol and Drug Research, July 2014, “Does liberalizing cannabis laws increase cannabis use?” Published in the Journal of Health Economics, Vol. 36, pg. 20-32, accessed through Science Direct

A possible explanation for why we fail to detect a statistically significant impact of decriminalization on cannabis uptake once time invariant unobserved differences across states are accounted for is that the model is mispecified in assuming that decriminalization affects everyone in the same way. As discussed above, since uptake typically occurs by the age of 18, individuals may be more responsive to a change in the policy environment while legally a minor. In order to investigate this, we augment the model reported in column 3 with an interaction term between the policy variable and an indicator equal to one

for the ages at which the respondent is a minor (aged less than eighteen). The results from estimating this specification are reported in column 4 of Table 2. We find that minors who live in a decriminalized policy regime have a hazard rate of uptake that is 12% higher than an otherwise similar minor living in a policy regime in which cannabis use is a criminal offence (p-value <0.10). 19 The negative coefficient on the indicator for decriminalization indicates that compared to an otherwise similar adult living in a strictly criminal policy regime, living in a decriminalized regime reduces the rate of initiation into cannabis by 11%.

Youth are high-risk for increased marijuana use if it’s legalizedItai Danovitch, Director of Addition Psychiatry Clinical Services at the Cedars-Sinai Medical Center and Assistant Professor of Psychiatry at Cedars-Sinai and the UCLA David Geffen School of Medicine, 1-7-2013, “Sorting Through the Science on Marijuana: Facts, Fallacies, and Implications for Legalization,” http://www.antoniocasella.eu/archila/Danovitch_2012.pdf

In the Advent of Legalization, What Measures Might Safeguard the Public’s Health? The adverse effects of marijuana impact a minority of marijuana users. However, any increase in marijuana use is likely to be accompanied by an increase in the absolute number of individuals with marijuana-related problems. Enlightened regulation should seek to attenuate the unintended consequences of increased marijuana use, and should take extra measures to protect at-risk populations. The populations at highest risk of marijuana related consequences are (1) youth , (2) pregnant or breastfeeding women, and (3) individuals at high risk for mental illness.

Legalization makes marijuana look safe – massively increases useMichelle Castillo, writer at CBS News, 2-26-2014, “Will legalization lead to more teens smoking pot?” http://www.cbsnews.com/news/marijuana-legalization-may-lead-more-teens-to-smoke-pot/

Dr. Stephen Ross, director of addiction psychiatry at NYU Tisch Hospital in New York, told CBS News chief medical correspondent Dr. Jon LaPook that he was worried because trends until a few years ago had been showing a decline in teen marijuana use. As more states legalized pot, more people said they didn't think there was a risk in using, and marijuana use has increased in the last few years. "We know that in high school students, perception of harm is very much correlated with use . If high school students think something is harmful they're much less likely to use it, and the converse is very much the case," Ross explained to LaPook, who is also a professor at NYU Langone Medical Center.

A2: No Sales to MinorsMarijuana is no different from alcohol or tobacco – legalizing it will increase teenage use – profit motiveKevin A. Sabet, Assistant Professor of Psychiatry and Director of the Drug Policy Institute at the University of Florida, 11-20-2012, “Legalize pot? No, reform laws,” http://www.cnn.com/2012/11/20/opinion/sabet-marijuana-legalization/

Many who support legalization have claimed that we could control marijuana use, especially among teens, if only we regulated it through legalization. Sadly, however, the provisions passed in Colorado and Washington do everything but control marijuana. If these state laws were enacted, in fact, we could face a major industry commercializing and promoting marijuana to kids. As we know from alcohol and tobacco, even when age limits are in place , getting people hooked young is a key long- term strategy for profiteers.

Restrictions don’t solve – “Big Weed” will market to teenagers if marijuana is legalized and cutting into criminal profits causes them to market more to childrenKevin A. Sabet, Assistant Professor of Psychiatry and Director of the Drug Policy Institute at the University of Florida, 1-17-2014, “Colorado will show why legalizing marijuana is a mistake,” http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/jan/17/sabet-marijuana-legalizations-worst-enemy/?page=all

While it is true that most people who use marijuana won’t become addicted to heroin or otherwise hurt society as a result, Colorado’s experiment with legal pot can be called anything but successful. What didn’t make the news were some troubling developments. Multimillion-dollar private investing groups have emerged and are poised to become, in their words, “Big Marijuana”; added to a list of dozens of other children, a 2-year-old girl ingested a marijuana cookie and had to receive immediate medical attention; a popular website boldly discussed safe routes for smugglers to bring marijuana into neighboring states; and a marijuana-store owner proudly proclaimed that Colorado would soon be the destination of choice for 18- to 21-year-olds, even though for them marijuana is still supposed to be illegal. Popular columnists spanning the ideological spectrum, in The New York Times, The Washington Post and Newsweek/Daily Beast, soon expressed their disapproval of such policies as contributing to the dumbing down of America. Colorado’s experience, ironically, might eventually teach us that legalization’s worst enemy is itself. This raises the question: Why do we have to experience a tragedy before knowing where to go next? Sadly, the marijuana conversation is one mired with myths. Many Americans do not think that marijuana can be addictive, despite scientific evidence to the contrary. Many would be surprised to learn that the American Medical Association (AMA) has come out strongly against the legal sales of marijuana, citing public health concerns. In fact, the AMA’s opinion is consistent with most major medical associations, including the American Academy of Pediatrics and American Society of Addiction Medicine. Because today’s marijuana is at least five to six times stronger than the marijuana smoked by most of today’s parents, we are often shocked to hear that, according to the National Institutes of Health, one in six 16-year-olds who try marijuana will become addicted to it; marijuana intoxication doubles the risk of a car crash; heavy marijuana use has been significantly linked to an 8-point reduction in IQ; and that marijuana use is strongly connected to mental illness. Constantly

downplaying the risks of marijuana, its advocates have promised reductions in crime, flowing tax revenue and little in the way of negative effects on youth. We shouldn’t hold our breath, though. We can expect criminal organizations to adapt to legal prices, sell to people outside the legal market (e.g., kids) and continue to profit from other, much larger revenue sources, such as human trafficking and other drugs. We can expect the social costs ensuing from increased marijuana use to greatly outweigh any tax revenue — witness the fact that tobacco and alcohol cost society $10 for every $1 gained in taxes. Probably worst of all, we can expect our teens to be bombarded with promotional messages from a new marijuana industry seeking lifelong customers.

Big Weed will market to teens, even with restrictions – Colorado provesKevin A. Sabet, Assistant Professor of Psychiatry and Director of the Drug Policy Institute at the University of Florida, 7-10-2014, “Colorado's troubles with pot,” http://www.cnn.com/2014/07/10/opinion/sabet-colorado-marijuana/

Special-interest "Big Tobacco"-like groups and businesses have ensured that marijuana is widely promoted, advertised and commercialized in Colorado. As a result, calls to poison centers have skyrocketed, incidents involving kids going to school with marijuana candy and vaporizers seem more common, and explosions involving butane hash oil extraction have risen. Employers are reporting more workplace incidents involving marijuana use, and deaths have been attributed to ingesting marijuana cookies and food items. So much for the old notion that "pot doesn't kill." Marijuana companies, like their predecessors in the tobacco industry, are determined to keep lining their pockets. Indeed, legalization has come down to one thing: money. And it's not money for the government -- Colorado has only raised a third of the amount of tax revenue they have projected -- it's money for this new industry and its shareholders. Open Colorado newspapers and magazines on any given day and you will find pages of marijuana advertisements, coupons and cartoons promoting greater and greater highs. The marijuana industry is making attractive a wide selection of marijuana-related products such as candies, sodas, ice cream and cartoon-themed paraphernalia and vaporizers, which are undoubtedly appealing to children and teens.

Kids will use marijuana if it’s legalized – just like cigarettesShawn Radcliffe, writer at Healthline, interviewing Peter Reuter, Professor in the School of Public Policy and the Department of Crimonology at the University of Maryland, 1-6-2014, “Marijuana Legalization: The Experts Weigh In,” http://www.healthline.com/health-news/policy-experts-debate-marijuana-legalization-010613

Reuter expects that legalization will only increase these numbers. “I’m certainly confident that there will be an increase in marijuana use and in heavy marijuana use,” he says. It is also doubtful that teenagers will be deterred by the Colorado and Washington laws that prohibit the sale of marijuana to minors, when some have been using both marijuana and cigarettes illegally for many years.

Impact – Economy

2NC/1NR – Economic Collapse Leads to Extinction XTEconomic collapse leads to extinction – causes instability in rogue states.Kemp 10

[Geoffrey, Director of Regional Strategic Programs at The Nixon Center, served in the White House under Ronald Reagan, special assistant to the president for national security affairs and senior director for Near East and South Asian affairs on the National Security Council Staff, Former Director, Middle East Arms Control Project at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, 2010, The East Moves West: India, China, and Asia’s Growing Presence in the Middle East, p. 233-4]

The second scenario, called Mayhem and Chaos, is the opposite of the first scenario; everything that can go wrong does go wrong. The world economic situation weakens rather than strengthens, and India, China, and Japan suffer a major reduction in their growth rates, further weakening the global economy. As a result, energy demand falls and the price of fossil fuels plummets, leading to a financial crisis for the energy-producing states, which are forced to cut back dramatically on expansion programs and social welfare. That in turn leads to political unrest: and nurtures different radical groups, including, but not limited to, Islamic extremists. The

internal stability of some countries is challenged, and there are more “failed states.” Most serious is the collapse of the democratic government in Pakistan and its takeover by Muslim extremists, who then take possession of a large number of nuclear weapons. The danger of war between India and Pakistan increases significantly. Iran, always worried about an extremist Pakistan, expands and weaponizes its nuclear program. That further enhances nuclear proliferation in the Middle East, with Saudi Arabia, Turkey, and Egypt joining Israel and Iran as nuclear states. Under these circumstances, the potential for nuclear terrorism increases, and the possibility of a nuclear terrorist attack in either the Western world or in the oil-producing states may lead to a further devastating collapse of the world economic market, with a tsunami-like impact on stability. In this scenario, major disruptions can be expected, with dire consequences for two-thirds of the planet’s population.

Economic decline causes multiple scenarios of nuclear warBurrows and Harris 8 and Harris 2009 Mathew J. Burrows counselor in the National Intelligence Council and Jennifer Harris a member of the NIC’s Long Range Analysis Unit “Revisiting the Future: Geopolitical Effects of the Financial Crisis” The Washington Quarterly 32:2 https://csis.org/files/publication/twq09aprilburrowsharris.pdf

Increased Potential for Global Conflict Of course, the report encompasses more than economics and indeed believes the future is likely to be the result of a number of intersecting and interlocking forces. With so many possible permutations of outcomes, each with ample opportunity for unintended consequences, there is a

growing sense of insecurity. Even so, history may be more instructive than ever. While we continue to believe that the Great Depression is not likely to be repeated, the lessons to be drawn from that period include the harmful effects on fledgling democracies and multiethnic societies (think Central Europe in 1920s and 1930s) and on the sustainability

of multilateral institutions (think League of Nations in the same period). There is no reason to think that this would not be true in the twenty-first as much as in the twentieth century. For that reason, the ways in which the potential for greater conflict could grow would seem to be even more apt in a constantly volatile economic environment as they would be if change would be steadier. In surveying those risks, the report stressed the likelihood that terrorism and

nonproliferation will remain priorities even as resource issues move up on the international agenda. Terrorism’s appeal will decline if economic growth continues in the Middle East and youth unemployment is reduced. For those terrorist groups that remain active in 2025,

however, the diffusion of technologies and scientific knowledge will place some of the world’s most dangerous capabilities within their reach. Terrorist groups in 2025 will likely be a combination of descendants of long established groupsinheriting organizational structures, command and control processes, and training procedures necessary to conduct sophisticated attacksand newly emergent collections of the angry and disenfranchised that become self-radicalized, particularly in

the absence of economic outlets that would become narrower in an economic downturn. The most dangerous casualty of any economically-induced drawdown of U.S. military presence would almost certainly be the Middle East.

Although Iran’s acquisition of nuclear weapons is not inevitable, worries about a nuclear-armed Iran could lead states in the region to develop new security arrangements with external powers, acquire additional weapons, and consider pursuing their own nuclear ambitions. It is not clear that the type of stable deterrent relationship that existed between the

great powers for most of the Cold War would emerge naturally in the Middle East with a nuclear Iran. Episodes of low intensity conflict and terrorism taking place under a nuclear umbrella could lead to an unintended escalation and broader conflict if clear red lines between those states involved are not well established. The close proximity of potential nuclear rivals combined with underdeveloped surveillance capabilities and mobile dual-capable Iranian missile systems also will produce inherent difficulties in achieving reliable indications and warning of an

impending nuclear attack. The lack of strategic depth in neighboring states like Israel, short warning and missile flight times, and uncertainty of Iranian intentions may place more focus on preemption rather than defense, potentially leading to escalating crises.Types of conflict that the world continues to experience, such as over resources, could reemerge, particularly if protectionism grows and there is a resort to neo- mercantilist practices. Perceptions of renewed energy scarcity will drive countries to take actions to assure their future access to energy supplies. In

the worst case, this could result in interstate conflicts if government leaders deem assured access to energy resources, for example, to be essential for maintaining domestic stability and the survival of their regime. Even actions short of war, however, will have important geopolitical implications. Maritime security concerns are providing a rationale for naval buildups and modernization efforts, such as China’s and India’s development of blue water naval capabilities. If the fiscal stimulus focus for these countries indeed turns inward, one of the most obvious funding targets may be military. Buildup of regional naval capabilities could lead to increased tensions, rivalries, and counterbalancing moves, but it also will create opportunities for multinational cooperation in protecting critical sea lanes. With water also becoming scarcer in Asia and the Middle East, cooperation to manage changing water resources is likely to be increasingly difficult both within and between states in a more dog-eat-dog world.

A2: Econ ResilientDouble-dip now causes depression - overwhelms their DIsidore 11 (Financial Correspondent-CNN Money, 8/10, http://money.cnn.com/2011/08/10/news/economy/double_dip_recession_economy/index.htm

Another recession could be even worse than the last one for a few reasons. For starters, the economy is more vulnerable than it was in 2007 when the Great Recession began. In fact, the economy would enter the new recession much weaker than the start of any other downturn since the end of World War II. Unemployment currently stands at 9.1%. In November 2007, the month before the start of the Great Recession, it was just 4.7%. And the large number of Americans who have stopped looking for work in the last few years has left the

percentage of the population with a job at a 28-year low. Various parts of the economy also have yet to recover from the last

recession and would be at serious risk of lasting damage in a new downturn. Home values continue to lose ground and are projected to continue their fall. While manufacturing has had a nice rebound in the last two years, industrial production is still 18% below pre-recession levels. There are nearly 900 banks on the FDIC's list of troubled institutions, the highest number since 1993. Only 76 banks were at risk as the Great Recession took hold. But what has economists particularly worried is that the tools generally used

to try to jumpstart an economy teetering on the edge of recession aren't available this time around. "The reason we didn't go into a depression three years ago is the policy response by Congress and the Fed," said Dan Seiver, a finance professor at San Diego State University. "We won't see that this time." Three times between 2008 and 2010, Congress approved massive spending or temporary tax cuts to try to stimulate the economy. But fresh from the bruising debt ceiling battle and credit rating downgrade, and with elections looming, the federal government has shown little inclination to move in that direction. So this new recession would likely have virtually no policy effort to counteract it.

A2: US Isn’t Key to Global EconomyU.S. economy key to global economy – perception of slowdown spills overDees, DG-Economics Principle Economist, and Saint-Guilhem, European Central Bank research, 09

(Stephan and Arthur, March 2009, European Central Bank, "THE ROLE OF THE UNITED STATES IN THE GLOBAL ECONOMY AND ITS EVOLUTION OVER TIME," www.ecb.europa.eu/pub/pdf/scpwps/ecbwp1034.pdf, accessed 7-20-12, CNM)The U.S. economy is very often seen as “the engine” of the world economy. AS a result, any sign of slowdown in the United States raises concerns about harmful spillovers to the other economies. The current economic recession in the United

States has questioned the ability of the global economy to “decouple” from U.S. cyclical developments. While there were some signs of decoupling in the first quarters following the U.S. downturn, they disappeared rapidly towards the end of 2008, when the crisis became more global and the economic cycles turned out to be more synchronous across the world. While the increasing economic integration at the world level and the resulting emergence of large economic players, like China, is likely to have weakened the role of the U.S. economy as a driver of global growth, the influence of the U nited S tates on other economies remains however larger than direct trade ties would suggest. Third-market effects together with increased financial integration tends to foster the international transmission of cyclical developments.

Impact – Gateway Drug

2NC/1NR – Cartels Leads to WMD Terrorism XTCooperation with Hezbollah makes WMD terrorism likely.Nolden, Lieutenant Colonel , United States Army, ’11 [John, “Mexican Drug Cartels and al Qaeda: Credible Link or Impracticable Alliance?”, Department of Joint Military Operations, RSR]

In general, there appear to be at least four primary ways in which the Mexican drug cartels and al Qaeda may overlap: (1) The operational environment is sufficient in Mexico for cooperation, (2) Through shared tactics and methods, (3) Through the process of transformation from one type of group to the other over time, and (4) Through short-term transaction-based, service-for-hire activities between groups.7 Most in this camp admit that the joining of forces has yet to be widely recognized, but they vehemently warn of the

potential national security threat should this relationship come to fruition.8 Critics who suggest a linkage between terrorist organizations and the drug cartels turn to the operational environment in Mexico. Some consider Mexico a weak or nearly failed state. The Government of Mexico’s inability to control rampant corruption, intimidation, and escalating violence has caused some to question its legitimacy. In 2009, U.S. Army War College professor and Central American expert Max Manwaring identified 233 “Zones of Impunity” that exist throughout large

geographical portions of Mexico.9 Such ingredients when combined with the lack of governance could breed terrorism and create an environment where al Qaeda could prosper. Similar environments exist in Somalia, the

Maghreb in Africa, and western Pakistan. Historically, al Qaeda enjoyed a comparable environment in pre-2001 Afghanistan. Most alarming and threatening is the proximity of such conditions to the U nited S tates . Another major point in

the “cooperation is likely” camp centers on shared tactics and methods. It is true that increasingly the tactics employed by the Mexican cartels are similar to those used by al Qaeda. The cartels’ use of intimidation, kidnappings, beheadings, and

other forms of execution to achieve a desired psychological effect seem to be straight out of al Qaeda’s playbook. Just recently Mexican cartels resorted to vehicle-improvised explosive devices. The major Colombian cartels also reverted to such techniques.

Through the sharing of such techniques, some believe a level of cooperation could emerge and possibly grow. A third possible means of cooperation surfaces through the crime-terror nexus. Under this

theory, the cartels transform and engage in ever-increasing terrorism operations. Conversely, the terror organizations begin to engage in criminal enterprises including drug trafficking. This is similar to Colombia when the Medellin and Cali cartels expanded their operations to include terrorism. To a degree, the al-Qaeda Organization in the Islamic Maghreb has morphed into a hybrid criminal organization through kidnapping, the drug trade, and diamond smuggling in Africa.10 As the two types of

organizations transform, the concern turns to the possible collaboration as they converge within the shadowy world of illicit trade. Finally, the “cooperation is likely” camp highlights the possibility of collaboration that seeks short-term financial gain. The concern lies in a Mexican cartel’s willingness to smuggle a terrorist across the United States southern border for the “right” price. Particularly alarming in this scenario is a terrorist possessing a Weapon of Mass Destruction (WMD). The advocates of this argument cite potential infiltrations across the border given the number of Other Than Mexicans (OTMs) and Special Interest Aliens (SIAs) from Special Interest Countries (SICs) that have been apprehended.11 Cartels and human traffickers demand a much higher transit price for subjects under the aforementioned categories. In this

circumstance, they believe the cartel’s immediate lust for profit outweighs the potential risk to a long-

term strategic objective .

Increased drug trafficking makes a terrorist attack on US soil more likely – motivation exists.Boyle, ’12 [Matthew, Investigative Reporter, “Congressional report ties Middle East terrorists to Mexican drug cartels”, The Daily Caller, 11-16-12, http://dailycaller.com/2012/11/16/congressional-report-ties-middle-east-terrorists-to-mexican-drug-cartels/2/, RSR]

A new congressional report from the House Homeland Security Committee Subcommittee on Oversight, Investigations and Management ties Middle East terror organizations to Mexican drug cartels. The report, released Thursday, is titled “A Line in the Sand: Countering Crime, Violence and Terror at the Southwest Border.” It found that the

“Southwest border has now become the greatest threat of terrorist infiltration into the United

States. ” It specifically cites a “growing influence” from Iranian and Hezbollah terror forces in Latin America. “The presence of Hezbollah in Latin America is partially explained by the large Lebanese diaspora in South America,” the report reads. “In general,

Hezbollah enjoys support by many in the Lebanese world community in part because of the numerous social programs it provides in Lebanon that include schools, hospitals, utilities and welfare.” The congressional report, prepared by the subcommittee’s chairman, Texas Republican Rep. Michael McCaul, argues that the “explanation for Iranian presence in Latin America begins with its symbiotic relationship with Hezbollah.” “United in their dedication to the destruction of Israel, Iran has helped Hezbollah grow from a small group of untrained guerrillas into what is arguably the most highly trained, organized and equipped terrorist organization in the world,” the report reads. “In return, Hezbollah has served as an ideal proxy for Iranian military force – particularly against Israel – which affords Iran plausible deniability diplomatically. Hence wherever Hezbollah is entrenched, Iran will be as well and vice-versa.” McCaul’s report goes on to argue Iran’s increased presence in Latin America is because of the nation’s close relationship with Venezuela – which recently re-elected socialist leader Hugo Chavez. The report found that Hezbollah’s “relationship with Mexican drug cartels,” has been “documented as early as 2005.” Quoting former Drug Enforcement Administration executive Michael Braun, the report argues these ties are troubling. “Operatives from FTOs (foreign terrorist organizations) and DTOs (drug trafficking organizations) are frequenting the same shady bars, the same seedy hotels and the same sweaty brothels in a growing number of areas around the

world,” Braun said in a statement quoted in the report. “And what else are they doing? Based upon over 37 years in the law enforcement and security sectors, you can mark my word that they are most assuredly talking business and sharing lessons learned.” In October 2011, Iran apparently tried to exploit its ties to the drug cartels to conduct its eventually foiled assassination attempt on the Saudi ambassador to the United States. “According to a federal arrest complaint filed in New York City, the [Iranian] Qods Force attempted to hire a drug cartel (identified by other sources as the Los Zetas) to assassinate Saudi Ambassador Adel al-Jubeir for a fee of $1.5 million,” the report reads. “The terror attack was to take place at a popular restaurant in Washington, D.C. without regard to collateral deaths or damage.” “The Qods Force made this solicitation because it knows drug traffickers are willing to undertake such criminal activity in exchange for money,” the report continues. “Moreover, if this terror attack had been successful, the Qods Force intended to use the Los Zetas for other attacks in the future. Had it not been for a [Drug Enforcement Agency] DEA informant posing as the Los Zetas operative, this attack could have very well taken place.” In a previous report, McCaul’s subcommittee documented “the emerging power and influence of the Mexican drug cartels along the Southwest border.” “The report elaborated on the increasing cooperation between the drug cartels and prison and street gangs in the United States to facilitate the trafficking and sale of illicit drugs along with the enforcement of remunerations,” the recently-released report says of the previous report. “Those cartels diversified

into other areas of criminality such as human smuggling and arms trafficking.” In a statement, McCaul said that “Middle East terrorist networks that continue to plot against the U nited S tates are expanding their ties to Mexican drug trafficking

organizations, better positioning themselves for a possible attack on our homeland .” “This report documents the increased presence of Iran and Hezbollah in Latin America and addresses the growing concern that terrorist organizations will exploit burgeoning relationships with Mexican drug cartels to infiltrate the Southwest border undetected,” McCaul said.

2NC/1NR – Terrorism Leads to Extinction XTAttacks are likely and will escalate.Vladimir Z. Dvorkin ‘12 Major General (retired), doctor of technical sciences, professor, and senior fellow at the Center for International Security of the Institute of World Economy and International Relations of the Russian Academy of Sciences. The Center participates in the working group of the U.S.-Russia Initiative to Prevent Nuclear Terrorism, 9/21/12, "What Can Destroy Strategic Stability: Nuclear Terrorism is a Real Threat," belfercenter.ksg.harvard.edu/publication/22333/what_can_destroy_strategic_stability.html

Hundreds of scientific papers and reports have been published on nuclear terrorism. International conferences have been held on this threat with participation of Russian organizations, including IMEMO and the Institute of U.S. and Canadian Studies. Recommendations on how to combat the threat have been issued by the International Luxembourg Forum on Preventing Nuclear Catastrophe, Pugwash Conferences on Science and World Affairs, Russian-American Elbe Group, and other organizations. The UN General Assembly adopted the International Convention for the Suppression of Acts of Nuclear Terrorism in 2005 and cooperation among intelligence services of leading states in this

sphere is developing.¶ At the same time, these efforts fall short for a number of reasons, partly because various acts of nuclear terrorism are possible. Dispersal of radioactive material by detonation of conventional explosives (“dirty bombs”) is a method that is most accessible for terrorists. With the wide spread of radioactive sources, raw materials for such attacks have become much more accessible than weapons-useable nuclear material or nuclear weapons. The use of “ dirty bombs ” will not cause many immediate casualties, but

it will result into long-term radioactive contamination, contributing to the spread of panic and socio-

economic destabilization . ¶ Severe consequences can be caused by sabotaging nuclear power plants, research reactors, and radioactive materials storage facilities. Large cities are especially vulnerable to such attacks. A large city may host dozens of research reactors with a nuclear power plant or a couple of spent nuclear fuel storage facilities and dozens of large radioactive materials storage facilities located nearby. The past few years have seen significant efforts made to enhance organizational and physical aspects of security at

facilities, especially at nuclear power plants. Efforts have also been made to improve security culture. But these efforts do not preclude the possibility that well-trained terrorists may be able to penetrate nuclear

facilities . ¶ Some estimates show that sabotage of a research reactor in a metropolis may expose hundreds of thousands to high doses of radiation. A formidable part of the city would become uninhabitable for a long time.¶ Of all the scenarios, it is building an improvised nuclear device by terrorists that poses the maximum risk. There are no engineering problems that cannot be solved if terrorists decide to build a simple “gun-type” nuclear device. Information on the design of such devices, as well as implosion-type devices, is available in the public domain. It is the acquisition of weapons-grade uranium that

presents the sole serious obstacle. Despite numerous preventive measures taken, we cannot rule out the possibility that such materials can be bought on the black market. Theft of weapons-grade uranium is also possible . Research reactor fuel is considered to be particularly vulnerable to theft, as it is scattered at sites in dozens of countries. There are about 100 research reactors in the world that run on weapons-grade uranium fuel, according to the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA).¶ A terrorist “gun-type” uranium bomb can have a yield of least 10-15 kt, which is comparable to the yield of the bomb dropped on

Hiroshima . The explosion of such a bomb in a modern metropolis can kill and wound hundreds of thousands and cause serious economic damage. There will also be long-term sociopsychological and political consequences.¶ The vast majority of states have introduced unprecedented security and surveillance measures at transportation and other large-scale public facilities after the terrorist attacks in the United States, Great Britain, Italy, and other countries.

These measures have proved burdensome for the countries’ populations, but the public has accepted them as necessary. A nuclear terrorist attack will make the public accept further measures meant to enhance control even if these measures significantly restrict the democratic liberties they are accustomed to. Authoritarian states could be expected to adopt even more restrictive measures.¶ If a nuclear terrorist act occurs, nations will delegate tens of thousands of their secret services’ best personnel to investigate and attribute the attack. Radical Islamist groups are among those capable of such an act. We can imagine what would happen if they

do so, given the anti-Muslim sentiments and resentment that conventional terrorist attacks by Islamists have generated in developed democratic countries. Mass deportation of the non-indigenous population and severe sanctions would follow such an attack in what will cause violent protests in the Muslim world . Series of armed clashing terrorist attacks may follow . The prediction that Samuel Huntington has made in his book “ The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order” may come true. Huntington’s book clearly demonstrates that it is not Islamic extremists that are the cause of the Western world’s problems.

Rather there is a deep, intractable conflict that is rooted in the fault lines that run between Islam and Christianity. This is especially dangerous for Russia because these fault lines run across its territory. To sum it up, the political leadership of Russia has every reason to revise its list of factors that could undermine strategic stability. BMD does not deserve to be even last on that list because its effectiveness in repelling massive missile strikes will be extremely low. BMD systems can prove useful only if deployed to defend against launches of individual ballistic missiles or groups of such missiles. Prioritization of other destabilizing factors—that could affect global and regional stability—merits a separate study or studies. But even without them I can conclude that nuclear terrorism should be placed on top

of the list. The threat of nuclear terrorism is real, and a successful nuclear terrorist attack would lead to

a radical transformation of the global order . All of the threats on the revised list must become a subject of thorough studies

by experts. States need to work hard to forge a common understanding of these threats and develop a strategy to combat them.

A2: Nuclear Terror Not PossibleThe risk of a nuclear terror attack is high now. Matthew, et al, 10/2/13 [ Bunn, Matthew, Valentin Kuznetsov, Martin B. Malin, Yuri Morozov, Simon Saradzhyan, William H. Tobey, Viktor I. Yesin, and Pavel S. Zolotarev. "Steps to Prevent Nuclear Terrorism." Paper, Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs, Harvard Kennedy School, October 2, 2013, Matthew Bunn. Professor of the Practice of Public Policy at Harvard Kennedy School andCo-Principal Investigator of Project on Managing the Atom at Harvard University’s Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs. • Vice Admiral Valentin Kuznetsov (retired Russian Navy). Senior research fellow at the Institute for U.S. and Canadian Studies of the Russian Academy of Sciences, Senior Military Representative of the Russian Ministry of Defense to NATO from 2002 to 2008. • Martin Malin. Executive Director of the Project on Managing the Atom at the Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs. • Colonel Yuri Morozov (retired Russian Armed Forces). Professor of the Russian Academy of Military Sciences and senior research fellow at the Institute for U.S. and Canadian Studies of the Russian Academy of Sciences, chief of department at the Center for Military-Strategic Studies at the General Staff of the Russian Armed Forces from 1995 to 2000. • Simon Saradzhyan. Fellow at Harvard University’s Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs, Moscow-based defense and security expert and writer from 1993 to 2008. • William Tobey. Senior fellow at Harvard University’s Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs and director of the U.S.-Russia Initiative to Prevent Nuclear Terrorism, deputy administrator for Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation at the U.S. National Nuclear Security Administration from 2006 to 2009. • Colonel General Viktor Yesin (retired Russian Armed Forces). Leading research fellow at the Institute for U.S. and Canadian Studies of the Russian Academy of Sciences and advisor to commander of the Strategic Missile Forces of Russia, chief of staff of the Strategic Missile Forces from 1994 to 1996. • Major General Pavel Zolotarev (retired Russian Armed Forces). Deputy director of the Institute for U.S. and Canadian Studies of the Russian Academy of Sciences, head of the Information and Analysis Center of the Russian Ministry of Defense from1993 to 1997, section head - deputy chief of staff of the Defense Council of Russia from 1997 to 1998.http://belfercenter.ksg.harvard.edu/publication/23430/steps_to_prevent_nuclear_terrorism.html]

I. Introduction In 2011, Harvard’s Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs and the Russian Academy of Sciences’ Institute

for U.S. and Canadian Studies published “The U.S. – Russia Joint Threat Assessment on Nuclear Terrorism.” The assessment analyzed the means , motives , and access of would-be nuclear terrorists , and concluded that the

threat of nuclear terrorism is urgent and real . The Washington and Seoul Nuclear Security Summits

in 2010 and 2012 established and demonstrated a consensus among political leaders from around the

world that nuclear terrorism poses a serious threat to the peace , security, and prosperity of our planet . For any country, a terrorist attack with a nuclear device would be an immediate and catastrophic disaster, and

the negative effects would reverberate around the world far beyond the location and moment of the detonation. Preventing a nuclear terrorist attack requires international cooperation to secure nuclear materials, especially

among those states producing nuclear materials and weapons. As the world’s two greatest nuclear powers, the United States and Russia have the greatest experience and capabilities in securing nuclear materials and plants and, therefore, share a special responsibility to lead international efforts to prevent terrorists from seizing such materials and plants. The depth of convergence between U.S. and Russian vital national interests on the issue of nuclear security is best illustrated by the fact that bilateral cooperation on this issue has continued uninterrupted for more than two decades, even when relations between the two countries occasionally became frosty, as in the aftermath of the August 2008 war in Georgia. Russia and the United States have strong incentives to forge a close and trusting partnership to prevent nuclear terrorism and have made enormous progress in securing fissile material both at home and in partnership with other countries. However, to meet the evolving threat posed by those individuals intent upon using nuclear weapons for terrorist purposes, the United States and Russia need to deepen and broaden their cooperation. The 2011 “U.S. - Russia Joint Threat Assessment” offered both specific conclusions about the nature of the threat and general observations about how it might be addressed. This report builds on that foundation and analyzes the existing framework for action, cites gaps and deficiencies, and makes specific recommendations for improvement. “The

U.S. – Russia Joint Threat Assessment on Nuclear Terrorism” (The 2011 report executive summary): • Nuclear terrorism is a real and urgent threat .

Urgent actions are required to reduce the risk. The risk is driven by the rise of terrorists who seek to inflict unlimited damage, many of whom have sought justification for their plans in radical interpretations of Islam ; by the spread of information about the decades-old technology of nuclear weapons; by the increased availability of weapons-usable nuclear materials; and by globalization, which makes it easier to move people, technologies, and materials across the world. • Making a crude nuclear bomb would not be easy, but is potentially within the capabilities of a technically sophisticated terrorist group , as numerous government

studies have confirmed . Detonating a stolen nuclear weapon would likely be difficult for terrorists to accomplish, if the weapon was equipped with modern technical

safeguards (such as the electronic locks known as Permissive Action Links, or PALs). Terrorists could, however, cut open a stolen nuclear weapon and make use of its nuclear material for a bomb of their own . • The nuclear material for a bomb is small and difficult to detect, making it a major challenge to stop nuclear smuggling or to recover nuclear material after it has been stolen. Hence, a primary focus in reducing the risk must be to keep nuclear material and nuclear weapons from being

stolen by continually improving their security, as agreed at the Nuclear Security Summit in Washington in April 2010. • Al-Qaeda has sought nuclear weapons for almost two decades . The group has repeatedly attempted to purchase stolen nuclear material or

nuclear weapons, and has repeatedly attempted to recruit nuclear expertise . Al-Qaeda reportedly conducted tests of conventional explosives for its nuclear program in the desert in Afghanistan . The group’s

nuclear ambitions continued after its dispersal following the fall of the Taliban regime in Afghanistan. Recent writings from top al-Qaeda leadership are focused on justifying the mass slaughter of civilians, including the use of weapons of mass destruction, and are in all likelihood intended to provide a formal religious justification for nuclear

use . While there are significant gaps in coverage of the group’s activities, al-Qaeda appears to have been frustrated thus far in acquiring a nuclear capability; it is unclear whether the the

group has acquired weapons-usable nuclear material or the expertise needed to make such material into a bomb. Furthermore, pressure from a broad range of counter-terrorist actions

probably has reduced the group’s ability to manage large, complex projects, but has not eliminated the danger. However, there is no sign the group has

abandoned its nuclear ambitions. On the contrary, leadership statements as recently as 2008 indicate that

the intention to acquire and use nuclear weapons is as strong as ever .

There’s a high probability of the impact. Neely ’13 (Meggaen Neely, CSIS, “Doubting Deterrence of Nuclear Terrorism”, http://csis.org/blog/doubting-deterrence-nuclear-terrorism?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+csis-poni+%28PONI+Debates+the+Issues+Blog%29, March 21, 2013)

The 2010 Nuclear Posture Review (NPR) cites nuclear terrorism as “today’s most immediate and extreme danger.” To counter this danger, the NPR lists research initiatives, securing nuclear materials, and a “commitment to hold fully accountable” any who help terrorists obtain nuclear weapons. Matthew Kroenig and Barry Pavel, the self-described authors of U.S. strategy for deterring terrorist networks, explain further how the United States can discourage terrorists from detonating a nuclear weapon. They make

useful distinctions between actors in terrorist organizations, which can have implications for U.S. policies. However, the United States should not rely exclusively on deterrence – that is, those policies that attempt to discourage terrorists from detonating a nuclear weapon. Complementary policies that may be more effective will focus on securing nuclear materials and implementing defensive

measures, in addition to conventional counterterrorism strategies. Although this shift will not make the task of preventing nuclear terrorism easier, recognizing the limits of deterrence policies will allow the United States to make smarter choices in defending against nuclear terrorism. Assessing the Threat of Nuclear Terrorism

The risk that terrorists will set off a nuclear weapon on U.S. soil is disconcertingly high. While a terrorist organization may experience difficulty constructing nuclear weapons facilities, there is significant concern that terrorists can obtain a nuclear weapon or nuclear materials. The fear that an

actor could steal a nuclear weapon or fissile material and transport it to the United States has long-existed. It takes a great amount of time and resources (including territory) to construct centrifuges and reactors to build a nuclear weapon

from scratch. Relatively easily-transportable nuclear weapons, however, present one opportunity to terrorists. For example, exercises similar to the recent Russian movement of nuclear weapons from munitions depots to storage sites may

prove attractive targets. Loose nuclear materials pose a second opportunity. Terrorists could use them to create a crude nuclear weapon similar to the gun-type design of Little Boy. Its simplicity – two subcritical masses of highly-enriched uranium – may make it

attractive to terrorists. While such a weapon might not produce the immediate destruction seen at Hiroshima, the radioactive fall-out and psychological effects would still be damaging. These two opportunities for terrorists differ from concerns about a “dirty bomb,” which mixes radioactive material with conventional explosives.

According to Gary Ackerman of the National Consortium for the Study of Terrorism and Responses to Terrorism, the number of terrorist organizations that would detonate a nuclear weapon is probably small. Few terrorist organizations have the ideology that would motivate nuclear weapons acquisition. Before we breathe a sigh of relief, we should recognize that this only increases the “signal-to-noise ratio”: many terrorists might claim to want to detonate a nuclear weapon, but the United States must find and prevent the small number of groups that actually would. Transportable nuclear weapons and loose fissile materials grant opportunities to terrorists with nuclear pursuits. How should the United States seek to undercut the efforts of the select few with a nuclear intent? The Problems with Deterrence The answer for U.S. policy is not deterrence. Deterrence involves convincing an adversary that the costs imposed upon him after taking an action will outweigh any benefits gained. It requires altering the strategic calculus (i.e. the analysis of costs and benefits for taking a particular action) of the adversary. These costs come from either punishment imposed on the adversary or from denying the adversary the expected benefits. In execution, deterrence requires policies of consistency and conditionality towards an adversary: consistency in expressing the imposition of costs or denied benefits if the adversary takes a specific action and conditionality in that the possibility of retaliation depends upon the adversary’s decision to take the undesirable action. These requirements of consistency and conditionality cannot be applied to a transnational threat like nuclear terrorism. Terrorists operate across states’ borders, but the burden remains on states to implement deterrence laws and policies that impose costs or deny benefits. One could point to the “glorification” laws in the United Kingdom, which sought to deter suicide terrorism by criminalizing the praise of martyrdom, as an example of such a policy. However, not all countries are able or willing to implement such laws. Alternatively, even countries that are able and willing may hesitate for fear of violating international or domestic norms. For example, with the “glorification” laws, many accused British policymakers of infringing on the right to free speech. Deterrence requires consistency in the communication of certain retaliation should the adversary take an

undesired action. In the aggregate, states’ policies will likely lack this consistency and conditionality required for deterring nuclear terrorism. This results in confusion and a lack of credibility for the threat of imposing costs or denying benefits. Of course, terrorists are not susceptible to more “traditional” forms of deterrence like holding territory at risk (given that they do not own territory) or by threatening suicide terrorists with physical harm.

Err negative – we don’t fully know terrorists’ capabilities. Dahl ’13 (Fredrik Dahl, “Missing nuclear material may pose attack threat: IAEA”, http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/06/28/us-nuclear-security-iaea-idUSBRE95R0BV20130628, June 28, 2013)

(Reuters) - Nuclear and radioactive materials are still going missing and the information the United Nations atomic agency receives about such incidents may be the tip of the iceberg , said a senior U.N.

official. Any loss or theft of highly enriched uranium, plutonium or different types of radioactive sources is potentially serious as al Qaeda-style militants could try to use them to make a crude nuclear device or a so-called dirty bomb, experts say. Khammar Mrabit, a director of the U.N.'s International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), said there had been progress in recent years to prevent that from happening. But he said more still needed to be done to enhance nuclear security. "You have to improve continuously because also on the other side, the bad guys, they are trying to find ways how to evade such detection," Mrabit said in an interview. "The threat is global because these people operate without borders," he said on Thursday before an IAEA-hosted meeting of more than 100 states in Vienna next week on how to ensure nuclear materials do not fall into the wrong hands. The U.N. agency is helping states combat smuggling of uranium, plutonium or other items that could be used for a nuclear weapon or a dirty bomb, which uses conventional explosives to scatter radioactive material across a wide area posing health risks and massive cleanup costs. About 150-200 cases are reported annually to the IAEA's Incident and Trafficking Database. More than 120 countries take part in this information exchange

project, covering theft, sabotage, unauthorized access and illegal transfers. While making clear that most were not major from a nuclear security point of view, Mrabit said some were serious incidents involving nuclear material such as uranium or plutonium. These incidents mean that "material is still out of regulatory control", said Mrabit, who heads the nuclear security office of the IAEA. "Maybe this is the tip of the iceberg, we don't know , this is what countries report to us." DIRTY BOMB DANGER In one reported case, police in

former Soviet Moldova two years ago seized highly enriched uranium carried by smugglers in a shielded container to prevent it from being detected, a sign of increased sophistication of such gangs. But unlike in the 1990s - after the Cold War and the collapse of the Soviet Union weakened control over its nuclear arsenal - the few cases that are reported involve grams of enriched uranium or plutonium, not kilograms. "A lot has been improved," Mrabit said. Analysts say radical groups could theoretically build a crude but deadly nuclear device if they have the money, technical know-how and the amount of fissile material needed. Obtaining weapons-grade fissile material - highly enriched uranium or plutonium - poses their biggest challenge, so keeping it secure is vital, both at civilian and military facilities. An apple-sized amount of plutonium in a nuclear device and detonated in a highly populated area could instantly kill or wound hundreds of thousands of people, according to the Nuclear Security Governance Experts Group (NSGEG), a lobby group. Because radioactive material is seen as less hard to find and the device easier to manufacture, experts say a "dirty bomb" is a more likely threat than a nuclear bomb. In dirty bombs, conventional explosives are used to disperse radiation from a radioactive source, which can be found in hospitals, factories or other places not very well protected. George M.

Moore, a former senior IAEA analyst, said in an article in the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists last month that " many experts believe

it's only a matter of time before a dirty bomb or another type of radioactive dispersal device" is used.

Mrabit said: " Statistically speaking no reasonable person will say that this will never happen. The probability is there."

Impact – Kids

2NC/1NR – Marijuana = IQ Drop/Mental Health EffectsMarijuana uniquely affects teens – causes a huge IQ dipCBS, 8-27-2012, “Smoking marijuana regularly as a teen may lower IQ scores as an adult,” http://www.cbsnews.com/news/smoking-marijuana-regularly-as-a-teen-may-lower-iq-scores-as-an-adult/

Teens who smoke marijuana frequently are more likely to experience a long-term drop in their IQ, according to a new study. That could be a potential pitfall for millions of teens, given recent estimates show about one in 10 teens in grades nine through 12 smoke marijuana at least 20 times per month. The researchers however didn't find the same IQ dip for people who became frequent users of pot after 18, suggesting pot use is especially dangerous for the developing brain. "Parents should understand that their adolescents are particularly vulnerable ,'" said lead researcher Madeline Meier, a postdoctoral researcher at Duke University's Center for Child and Family Policy.

Marijuana harms teenage brain developmentBrian Alexander, NBC News Contributor, formerly wrote at Science and was a contributing editor at Wired, 12-15-2013, “Teen pot use could hurt brain and memory, new research suggests,” http://www.nbcnews.com/health/health-news/teen-pot-use-could-hurt-brain-memory-new-research-suggests-f2D11741988

Teenage pot smokers could be damaging brain structures critical to memory and reasoning, according to new research that found changes in the brains of heavy users. Research released Monday in the journal Schizophrenia Bulletin showed the brains of young heavy marijuana users were altered in so-called sub-cortical regions — primitive structures that are part of the memory and reasoning circuits. And young people with such alterations performed worse on memory tests than non-using controls, despite the fact that the heavy users had not indulged for more than two years, on average, before the testing. “We see that adolescents are at a very vulnerable stage neurodevelopmentally,” said Matthew Smith, who led the research team at Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine in Chicago. “And if you throw stuff into the brain that’s not supposed to be there, there are long-term implications for their development.”

Teenage marijuana use lowers IQ and increases the risk of mental health disordersDarryl Egnal, writer at the San Diego Jewish Journal, July 2014, “Marijuana in my Medicine Cabinet,” http://sdjewishjournal.com/site/6767/marijuana-in-my-medicine-cabinet/

Additionally, the use of medical cannabis in teenagers and young adults is still viewed as risky by most medical practitioners. Young adulthood is an important time when the brain is still developing and hormones are all over the place. Some research has shown that the use of marijuana in teenagers can cause or exacerbate depression, psychosis or schizophrenia. This means a teenager with cancer who is going through chemotherapy and is in pain, suffering from nausea and lack of appetite presents a real dilemma for doctors. In the meantime, researchers are continuously working to find marijuana strains that don’t have a psychoactive effect.

Legalization increases teenage use – leads to a variety of mental illnesses and drops IQKevin A. Sabet, Assistant Professor of Psychiatry and Director of the Drug Policy Institute at the University of Florida, 10-30-2012, “There Are Smarter Ways to Deal with Marijuana Than Legalization,” http://www.usnews.com/debate-club/should-marijuana-use-be-legalized/there-are-smarter-ways-to-deal-with-marijuana-than-legalization

According to the nonpartisan RAND Corporation, legalization would greatly reduce the price of marijuana, thereby significantly increasing use, especially among kids. This is a problem because the brain is developing until age 25, and recently completed research shows that pot can significantly decrease IQ, double the risk of a car crash (according to the most exhaustive review ever undertaken on the matter), and significantly increase the chance of contracting a mental illness. Today's marijuana is not the same stuff parents think back today with nostalgia about—in fact it is about 4-5 times stronger in potency.

2NC/1NR – Education MPX

Marijuana changes brain matter – affects brain function – results in worse educational performance among adolescents Krista M. Lisdahl, Assistant Professor of Psychology at the University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee, Erika R. Gilbart, BS in Psychology from the University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee and Research Assistant at the University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee’s Brain Imaging and Neuropsychology Lab, Natasha E. Wright, PhD in Clinical Psychology from the University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee and Graduate Research Assistant at the University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee’s Brain Imaging and Neuropsychology Lab, and Skyler Shollenbarger, BA in Psychology from the University of Cincinnati and Research Assistant at the University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee’s Brain Imaging and Neuropsychology Lab, 7-1-2013, “Dare to delay? The impacts of adolescent alcohol and marijuana use onset on cognition, brain structure, and function,” http://journal.frontiersin.org/Journal/10.3389/fpsyt.2013.00053/full#B128

Taken together, the above studies suggest that regular MJ use during adolescence may lead to structural changes such as abnormal gray matter pruning patterns and reduced white matter myelination. These changes have been associated with poor neuronal efficiency and poorer cognitive functioning, especially psychomotor speed, executive functioning, emotional control, and learning and memory, even after a month of monitored abstinence. Given the high rates of MJ use in teens and emerging adults, this may mean a large proportion of youth are experiencing cognitive difficulties that may negatively impact their performance. Indeed, we have found increased school difficulty and reduced grades in MJ-using teens (Medina et al., 2007a) (Table 1).

Marijuana hurts brain development – affects academic performancePatti Neighmond, Health Policy Correspondent at NPR, 3-3-2014, “Marijuana May Hurt The Developing Teen Brain,” http://www.npr.org/blogs/health/2014/02/25/282631913/marijuana-may-hurt-the-developing-teen-brain

The teenager's brain has a lot of developing to do: It must transform from the brain of a child into the brain of an adult. Some researchers worry how marijuana might affect that crucial process. "Actually, in childhood our brain is larger," says Krista Lisdahl, director of the brain imaging and neuropsychology lab at University of Wisconsin, Milwaukee. "Then, during the teenage years, our brain is getting rid of those connections that weren't really used, and it prunes back. "It actually makes the brain faster and more efficient." The streamlining process ultimately helps the brain make judgments, think critically and remember what it has learned. Lisdahl says it's a mistake for teenagers to use cannabis. "It's the absolute worst time," she says, because the mind-altering drug can disrupt development. Think of the teen years, she says, as the "last golden opportunity to make the brain as healthy and smart as possible." Lisdahl points to a growing number of studies that show regular marijuana use — once a week or more — actually changes the structure of the teenage brain, specifically in areas dealing with memory and problem solving. That can affect cognition and academic performance, she says.

2NC/1NR – Laundry ListMarijuana use among teenagers tanks education performance – makes a variety of negative socioeconomic and health outcomes more likelyItai Danovitch, Director of Addition Psychiatry Clinical Services at the Cedars-Sinai Medical Center and Assistant Professor of Psychiatry at Cedars-Sinai and the UCLA David Geffen School of Medicine, 1-7-2013, “Sorting Through the Science on Marijuana: Facts, Fallacies, and Implications for Legalization,” http://www.antoniocasella.eu/archila/Danovitch_2012.pdf

A relationship between marijuana and poor educational attainment has been repeatedly demonstrated across many studies.60 The relationship appears to hold even when confounding variables are statistically controlled.61 School performance is a function of many factors, but it is likely that the short-term effects of marijuana intoxication exacerbate existing school difficulties and push poor performance into school failure. On the other hand, analysis of behavioral, socioeconomic, and health outcomes at age twenty-nine all reveal that abstainers consistently have the most favorable outcomes, whereas early high users consistently have the least favorable outcomes.62 A twenty-one-year longitudinal study of 1265 New Zealand adolescents found that regular or heavy use, was associated with increased rates of a range of adjustment problems, including other illicit drug use, crime, depression and suicidal behaviors.63

Teenage marijuana use has a wide variety of negative effects – increases educational dropout, crime, health problems, heavier drug useRosalie Liccardo Pacula et al, Associate Economist at the RAND Corporation and Faculty Research Fellow of the National Bureau for Economic Research, Michael Grossman, Distinguished Professor of Economics at the City University of New York Graduate Center and Director of the Health Economics Program at the National Bureau of Economic Research, Frank J. Chaloupka, Professor of Economics at the University of Illinois at Chicago and Research Associate at the National Bureau of Economic Research, Patrick M. O’Malley, Senior Research Scientist in the University of Michigan’s Institute for Social Research, Lloyd D. Johnston, Distinguished Research Scientist at the University of Michigan’s Institute for Social Research, and Matthew C. Farrelly, Senior Economist at the Center for

Economics Research at the Research Triangle Institute, January 2001, “Risky Behavior Among Youths: An Economic Analysis,” http://www.nber.org/chapters/c10691.pdf

The sheer popularity of marijuana among youths makes it an interesting illicit substance to examine. However, there are other factors that motivate a closer examination of the demand for marijuana by youths. First, marijuana use has been associated with a wide range of antisocial dangerous behaviors, including driving under the influence, dropping out of school, engaging in crime, and destruction of property (Brook, E and Whiteman I999; SAMHSA l998a, l998b; Yamada, Kendix, and Yamada I996; Spunt et al. 1994; Osgood et al. I988). Second, there is increasing evidence that marijuana is an addictive substance and that regular use can result in dependence (DeFonseca et al. I997; SAMHSA 1998a) Third, regular marijuana use has been associated with a number of health problems, particularly among youths, including upper-respiratory problems (Polen et al. I993; Tashkin et al. 1990) and reproductive-system problems (Nahas and Latour 1992; Tommasello I982). Finally, it is widely believed that marijuana is a gateway substance or that early involvement with marijuana can increase the likelihood of later use of “harder drugs.” Although there is no clear evidence of a causal link between early marijuana use and subsequent illicit drug use, there is significant evidence of a strong correlation

and that early marijuana use is an antecedent (Kandel 1975; Kandel, Kessler, and Marguiles 1978; Ellickson, Hays, and Bell 1992; Brook, Balka, and Whiteman 1999; Ellickson and Morton, in press).

Marijuana decreases educational achievement – peer networking, attitude shiftsDavid Ferguson, Professor of Medicinal Chemistry and Director of Graduate Studies at the College of Pharmacy at the University of Minnesota, John Horwood, Associate Professor of Health and Development Study at the University of Otago, and AL Beautrais, Professor at the University of Auckland’s NHMRC Centre of Research Excellence in Suicide Prevention, December 2003, “Cannabis and educational achievement,” published in Addiction, Vol. 98, Issue 12, pg. 1681-1692

First, the regular use of cannabis requires that the individual develops a network of peers and contacts in order to obtain and use cannabis. It may be suggested that, as a result of contact with networks of substance-using peers and others, young people who use cannabis heavily or regularly acquire what Kandel and colleagues [14] have described as ‘anti conventional’ attitudes. These attitudes may encourage young people to avoid making a personal investment in education and to choose to live an alternative lifestyle. Secondly, it may be that the heavy use of cannabis may lead to cognitive or motivational deficits that create barriers to full participation in education and thence lead to educational under-achievement [4.9, 16, 17] Both of these routes could potentially create a situation in which the heavy use of cannabis leads to an increased rate of educational under-achievement.

Marijuana decreases educational achievement – makes unemployment more likelyDavid Ferguson, Professor of Medicinal Chemistry and Director of Graduate Studies at the College of Pharmacy at the University of Minnesota, John Horwood, Associate Professor of Health and Development Study at the University of Otago, and AL Beautrais, Professor at the University of Auckland’s NHMRC Centre of Research Excellence in Suicide Prevention, December 2003, “Cannabis and educational achievement,” published in Addiction, Vol. 98, Issue 12, pg. 1681-1692

One area that requires further examination concerns the linkages between cannabis and educational achievement. A number of studies have found that young people who use cannabis tend to be characterized by reduced levels of educational achievement, including: lower grade point averages; negative attitudes towards school; reduced satisfaction with school; poor school performance; elevated rates of school absenteeism; higher rates of expulsion or suspension from school; and higher rates of school dropout [5-12]. As might be expected from these results, young people who use cannabis also prove to be at greater risk of unemployment. [11.13-15] However, surprisingly few studies have examined these issues and most studies have focused on the academic underachievement of high school students. Less is known about cannabis use and higher tertiary educational opportunities and achievement. The findings outlined above clearly raise the possibility that the heavy or abusive use of cannabis may be a factor that discourages educational achievement and increases risks of unemployment.

A2: Alt Causes

Best studies rule out alt causes – marijuana use causes brain function declineMadeline H. Meier et al, PhD in Clinical Psychology from the University of Missouri and Postdoctoral Research Associate at the Duke Transdisciplinary Prevention Research Center, Avshalom Caspi, Edward M. Arnett Professor at Duke University and Professor of Psychology and Neuroscience, Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences at the Duke Center for Genomic and Computational Biology, Antony Ambler, member of the Dunedin Multidisciplinary Health and Development Research Unit at the Department of Preventive and Social Medicine at the School of Medicine at the University of Otago, Dunedin, New Zealand, HonaLee Harrington, Associate in Research at the Caspi and Moffitt Lab at the Duke University Department of Psychology and Neuroscience, Renate Houts, PhD in Human Development and Family Studies from the University of Texas at Austin and PhD in Developmental Science and Longitudinal Methodology from the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Richard S.A. Keefe, Professor of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences at the Duke School of Medicine and Director of the Schizophrenia Research Group at the Duke Institute for Brain Sciences, Kay McDonald, member of the Dunedin Multidisciplinary Health and Development Research Unit at the Department of Preventive and Social Medicine at the School of Medicine at the University of Otago, Dunedin, New Zealand, Aimee Ward, member of the Dunedin Multidisciplinary Health and Development Research Unit at the Department of Preventive and Social Medicine at the School of Medicine at the University of Otago, Dunedin, New Zealand, Richie Poulton, Director of the Dunedin Multidisciplinary Health and Development Research Unit at the Department of Preventive and Social Medicine at the School of Medicine at the University of Otago, Dunedin, New Zealand and Co-Director of the National Centre for Lifecourse Research, and Terrie E. Moffitt, Knut Schmidt Nielson Professor at Duke University and Professor of

Psychology and Neuroscience, Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences at the Duke Center for Genomic and Computational Biology, 10-2-2012, “Persistent cannabis users show neuropsychological decline from childhood to midlife,” http://www.pnas.org/content/109/40/E2657.full

We ruled out six alternative explanations for the observed effects of persistent cannabis use on neuropsychological functioning, namely that these effects could be explained by (i) past 24-h cannabis use, (ii) past-week cannabis use, (iii) persistent tobacco dependence, (iv) persistent hard-drug dependence, (v) persistent alcohol dependence, and (vi) schizophrenia. We recalculated the mean change in full-scale IQ as a function of persistent cannabis dependence, excluding each of the aforementioned groups. We elected to show results just for full-scale IQ for this analysis as well as all subsequent analyses because full-scale IQ captures overall intellectual functioning. Fig. 1 shows that excluding each of these groups of study members did not alter the initial finding; effect sizes, representing within-person IQ change as a function of persistent cannabis dependence, remained virtually the same and remained statistically significant (see Table S2 for IQ subtests). Furthermore, a multivariate regression of the effect of persistent cannabis dependence on full-scale IQ decline, controlling for past 24-h cannabis use, persistent substance dependence (the number of study waves for which study members diagnosed with tobacco, hard-drug, or alcohol dependence), and schizophrenia remained statistically significant (t = −2.20, P = 0.0282).

A2: IQ Rebounds

Marijuana has a toxic effect on brain function – even after quitting useMadeline H. Meier et al, PhD in Clinical Psychology from the University of Missouri and Postdoctoral Research Associate at the Duke Transdisciplinary Prevention Research Center, Avshalom Caspi, Edward M. Arnett Professor at Duke University and Professor of Psychology and Neuroscience, Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences at the Duke Center for Genomic and Computational Biology, Antony Ambler, member of the Dunedin Multidisciplinary Health and Development Research Unit at the Department of Preventive and Social Medicine at the School of Medicine at the University of Otago, Dunedin, New Zealand, HonaLee Harrington, Associate in Research at the Caspi and Moffitt Lab at the Duke University Department of Psychology and Neuroscience, Renate Houts, PhD in Human Development and Family Studies from the University of Texas at Austin and PhD in Developmental Science and Longitudinal Methodology from the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Richard S.A. Keefe, Professor of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences at the Duke School of Medicine and Director of the Schizophrenia Research Group at the Duke Institute for Brain Sciences, Kay McDonald, member of the Dunedin Multidisciplinary Health and Development Research Unit at the Department of Preventive and Social Medicine at the School of Medicine at the University of Otago, Dunedin, New Zealand, Aimee Ward, member of the Dunedin Multidisciplinary Health and Development Research Unit at the Department of Preventive and Social Medicine at the School of Medicine at the University of Otago, Dunedin, New Zealand, Richie Poulton, Director of the Dunedin Multidisciplinary Health and Development Research Unit at the Department of Preventive and Social Medicine at the School of Medicine at the University of Otago, Dunedin, New Zealand and Co-Director of the National Centre for Lifecourse Research, and Terrie E. Moffitt, Knut Schmidt Nielson Professor at Duke University and Professor of

Psychology and Neuroscience, Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences at the Duke Center for Genomic and Computational Biology, 10-2-2012, “Persistent cannabis users show neuropsychological decline from childhood to midlife,” http://www.pnas.org/content/109/40/E2657.full

Cannabis, the most widely used illicit drug in the world, is increasingly being recognized for both its toxic and its therapeutic properties (1). Research on the harmful and beneficial effects of cannabis use is important because it can inform decisions regarding the medicinal use and legalization of cannabis, and the results of these decisions will have major public-health consequences. As debate surrounding these issues continues in the United States and abroad, new findings concerning the harmful effects of cannabis on neuropsychological functioning are emerging. Accumulating evidence suggests that long-term, heavy cannabis use may cause enduring neuropsychological impairment—impairment that persists beyond the period of acute intoxication (2). Studies of long-term, heavy cannabis users fairly consistently show that these individuals perform worse on neuropsychological tests (2⇓⇓–5), and some (6⇓–8) but not all (9) studies suggest that impairment may remain even after extended periods of abstinence. The magnitude and persistence of impairment may depend on factors such as the quantity, frequency, duration, and age-of-onset of cannabis use (2), as more severe and enduring impairment is evident among individuals with more frequent and prolonged heavy use and a younger age-of-onset (3, 6, 8, 10⇓⇓⇓⇓⇓–16).

Meier Prodict

Prefer Meier – best data setCBS, 8-27-2012, “Smoking marijuana regularly as a teen may lower IQ scores as an adult,” http://www.cbsnews.com/news/smoking-marijuana-regularly-as-a-teen-may-lower-iq-scores-as-an-adult/

"Parents should understand that their adolescents are particularly vulnerable,'" said lead researcher Madeline Meier, a postdoctoral researcher at Duke University's Center for Child and Family Policy. More than 1,000 study participants from New Zealand were tested for IQ at age 13 - likely before any significant marijuana use - and again at age 38. All were born in the town of Dunedin during a year-long span ending in 1973. In addition to IQ tests, participants were given five interviews between ages 18 and 38, including questions related to their marijuana use. At age 18, 52 participants said they had become dependent on marijuana, meaning that they continued to use it despite its causing significant health, social or legal problems. Ninety-two others reported dependence starting at a later age. Researchers compared their IQ scores at age 13 to the score at age 38 and found a drop only in those who had started regularly smoking pot by 18. Those deemed marijuana-dependent in three or more surveys had a drop averaging 8 points. If a person had average intelligence and was smarter than 50 percent of the population, dropping 8 points would give them a score only higher than 29 percent of the population, the researchers said. Among participants who'd been dependent at 18 and in at least one later survey, quitting didn't remove the problem. IQ declines showed up even if they'd largely or entirely quit using pot at age 38, analysis showed. The researchers got similar overall results for IQ decline when they compared participants who reported having used marijuana at least once a week on average for the past year. The researchers had no data on how much was used on each occasion or how potent it was. The study was published online Monday in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. It was funded with governmental grants from the United States and Britain, and a foundation in Zurich. The researchers also surveyed people who knew the study participants well at age 38 and found that the more often participants were rated as marijuana-dependent in the surveys over their lifetimes, the more memory and attention problems were noticed by their acquaintances over the previous year. Dr. Richie Poulton, a study co-author and professor of developmental psychopathology at the University of Otago in New Zealand, said the message of the research is to stay away from marijuana until adulthood if possible. "For some it's a legal issue, but for me it's a health issue," he said. Marijuana use is fairly common in American teens, as evidenced in a June government study that showed 23 percent of high school students said they'd recently smoked pot, surpassing cigarettes in popularity. Young people "don't think it's risky," said Dr. Staci Gruber, director of the cognitive and clinical neuroimaging core at the Harvard-affiliated MacLean Hospital's Brain Imaging Center in Belmont, Mass. Gruber, who didn't participate in the new work, said the idea that marijuana harms the adolescent brain is "something we believe is very likely," and the new finding of IQ declines warrants further investigation. Experts said the new research is an advance because its methods avoid criticisms of some earlier work, which generally did not measure mental performance before marijuana use began. Dr. Nora Volkow, director of the National Institute on Drug Abuse which helped fund the research, said the research was "the cleanest study I've ever read" that looked long-term harm from marijuana use.

Big Weed DA – Aff

Uniqueness

Drug Cartels Strong NowDrug cartels are strong right now – best indicators.Estevez, ’14 [Dolia, “Mexico's Astonishing Costs Of Fighting Drug Cartels Have Not Reduced Violence”, 6-19-14, Forbes http://www.forbes.com/sites/doliaestevez/2014/06/19/mexicos-astonishing-spending-on-fighting-drug-cartels-has-not-reduced-violence/, RSR]

The Global Peace Index says that Mexico has suffered from escalating drug-related violence since the launch of military operations in late 2006 (under the previous Administration of Felipe Calderon) against the country’s powerful cartels. This, it goes on, has led to a sharp rise in overall criminality as a result of the cartels’ subsequently branching out into other activities besides drug trafficking, such as kidnapping and extortion. Murder rates have also risen substantially, having reached 21.5 per 100,000 in 2012

according to the UN Office on Drugs and Crime, nearly triple the level of 2007. Yet in those cities where there are turf wars the rate has exceeded 100 per 100,000, although it tends to fall once cartel activity moves elsewhere. The report notes that due to the inefficiency and

corruption among the police force, the participation of the military has spearheaded the government’s efforts against the cartels. “Lack of confidence in the police, as well as in judicial institutions, has raised citizens’ perceptions of insecurity and, in some cases, has led to the creation of self-defense militias like in the state of Michoacán, where thousands of armed militiamen have taken back numerous cities held by the cartels amid an uneasy stand-off with the government,” the report says.

The cartels have already infiltrated the US.AP, ’13 [“AP IMPACT: Cartels dispatch agents deep inside US”, 4-1-13, Town Hall, http://townhall.com/news/politics-elections/2013/04/01/ap-impact-cartels-dispatch-agents-deep-inside-us-n1554224, RSR]

CHICAGO (AP) — Mexican drug cartels whose operatives once rarely ventured beyond the U.S. border are dispatching some of their most trusted agents to live and work deep inside the U nited S tates — an

emboldened presence that experts believe is meant to tighten their grip on the world's most lucrative narcotics market and maximize profits. If left unchecked, authorities say, the cartels' move into the American interior could render the syndicates harder than ever to dislodge and pave the way for them to expand into other criminal enterprises such as prostitution, kidnapping-and-extortion rackets and money laundering. Cartel activity in the U.S. is certainly not new. Starting in the 1990s, the ruthless syndicates became the nation's No. 1 supplier of illegal drugs, using unaffiliated middlemen to smuggle cocaine, marijuana and heroin beyond the border or even to grow pot here. But a wide-ranging Associated Press review of federal court cases and government drug-enforcement data, plus interviews with many top law enforcement officials, indicate the groups have begun deploying agents from their inner circles to the U.S. Cartel operatives are suspected of running drug-distribution

networks in at least nine non-border states, often in middle-class suburbs in the Midwest, South and Northeast. "It's probably the most serious threat the U nited S tates has faced from organized crime," said Jack Riley, head of the Drug Enforcement Administration's Chicago office. The cartel threat looms so large that one of Mexico's most notorious drug kingpins — a man who has never set foot in Chicago — was recently named the city's Public Enemy No. 1, the same notorious label once assigned to Al Capone. The Chicago Crime Commission, a non-government agency that tracks crime trends in the region, said it considers Joaquin "El Chapo" Guzman even more menacing than Capone because Guzman leads the deadly Sinaloa cartel, which supplies most of the narcotics sold in Chicago and in many cities across the U.S. Years ago, Mexico faced the same problem — of then-nascent cartels expanding their power — "and didn't nip the problem in the bud," said Jack Killorin, head of an anti-trafficking program in Atlanta for the Office of National Drug Control Policy. "And see where they are now." Riley sounds a similar alarm: "People think, 'The border's 1,700 miles away. This isn't our problem.' Well, it is. These days, we operate as if Chicago is on the border." Border states from Texas to California have long grappled with a cartel presence. But cases involving cartel members have now emerged in the suburbs of Chicago and Atlanta, as well as Columbus, Ohio,

Louisville, Ky., and rural North Carolina. Suspects have also surfaced in Indiana, Michigan, Minnesota and Pennsylvania. Mexican drug cartels "are taking over our neighborhoods," Pennsylvania Attorney General Kathleen Kane warned a legislative committee in

February. State Police Commissioner Frank Noonan disputed her claim, saying cartels are primarily drug suppliers, not the ones trafficking drugs on the ground. For years, cartels were more inclined to make deals in Mexico with American traffickers, who would then handle transportation to and distribution within major cities, said Art Bilek, a former organized crime investigator who is now executive vice president of the crime commission. As their organizations grew more sophisticated, the cartels began scheming to keep more profits for themselves. So leaders sought to cut out middlemen and assume more direct control, pushing aside American traffickers, he said. Beginning two or three years ago, authorities noticed that cartels were putting "deputies on the ground here," Bilek said. "Chicago became such a massive market ... it was critical that they had firm control." To help fight the syndicates, Chicago recently opened a first-of-its-kind facility at a secret location where 70 federal agents work side-by-side with police and prosecutors. Their primary focus is the point of contact between suburban-based cartel operatives and city street gangs who act as retail salesmen. That is when both sides are most vulnerable to detection, when they are most likely to meet in the open or use cellphones that can be wiretapped. Others are skeptical about claims cartels are expanding their presence, saying law-enforcement agencies are prone to exaggerating threats to justify bigger budgets. David Shirk, of the University of San Diego's Trans-Border Institute, said there is a dearth of reliable intelligence that cartels are dispatching operatives from Mexico on a large scale. "We know astonishingly little about the structure and dynamics of cartels north of the border," Shirk said. "We need to be very cautious about the assumptions we make."

Statistics from the DEA suggest a heightened cartel presence in more U.S. cities. In 2008, around 230 American communities reported some level of cartel presence. That number climbed to more than 1,200 in 2011, the most recent year for which information is available, though the increase is partly due to better reporting.

Economy Recovering NowEconomy becoming super resilient now.DMN, 7-23 [Dallas Morning News, “U.S. economy, though sluggish, may now be sturdier”, 7-23-14, http://www.dallasnews.com/business/headlines/20140723-u.s.-economy-though-sluggish-may-now-be-sturdier.ece, RSR]

WASHINGTON — Out of a seemingly hollow recovery from the recession, a more durable if still slow-growing U.S. economy has emerged. That conclusion, one held by a growing number of economists , might surprise many people. After all, in the five years since the recession officially ended, Americans’ pay has basically stagnated. Millions remain unemployed or have abandoned their job searches. Economic growth is merely plodding along. Yet as the economy has slowly

healed, analysts say it has replaced some critical weaknesses with newfound strengths . Among the trends:

Fewer people are piling up credit card debt or taking on risky mortgages. This should make growth more sustainable and avoid a cycle of extreme booms and busts. Banks are more profitable and holding additional

cash to help protect against a repeat of the 2008 market meltdown. More workers hold advanced degrees. Education typically leads to higher wages and greater job security, reducing the likelihood of unemployment. Millions who have reached retirement age are staying on the job. This lessens the economic drag from retiring baby boomers and helps sustain consumer spending. Over the long run, such trends could help

produce a sturdier economy , one less prone to the kind of runaway growth that often ends in a steep and sudden slump. The

downside? At least in the short term, these same trends have prevented the economy from accelerating. When consumers borrow and spend less freely, for example, they restrain growth. And when people seek to work longer or become more educated, often there aren’t enough jobs for all of them, at least not right away. People with advanced degrees can often find lower-paying jobs that don’t require much education. But

when they do, they tend to push some people with only a high school education into unemployment. One of the most striking trends in the recovery has been an aversion to personal debt. A typical U.S. household owes $7,122 in credit card debt, $1,618 less than at the start of the recession, according to an analysis of New York Federal Reserve data by the firm Nerd Wallet. (After factoring in inflation, the balance is $2,900 lower.)

Five signs that the economy is on pace for a recovery now.AP, 7-5 [“5 reasons why US economy is recovering”, 7-5-14, http://www.foxnews.com/us/2014/07/05/5-reasons-why-us-economy-is-recovering/, RSR]

WASHINGTON – How does the U.S. economy do it? Europe is floundering. China faces slower growth. Japan is struggling to sustain tentative

gains. Yet the U.S. job market is humming, and the pace of economic growth is steadily rising. Five full years

after a devastating recession officially ended, the economy is finally showing the vigor that Americans have long awaited. Last month, employers added 288,000 jobs and helped reduce the unemployment rate to 6.1 percent, the lowest since September 2008. June capped a five-month stretch of 200,000-plus job gains — the first in nearly 15 years. After having shrunk at a 2.9 percent annual rate from January through March — largely because of a brutal winter — the U.S. economy is expected to

grow at a healthy 3 percent pace the rest of the year. Here are five reasons the U nited S tates is outpacing other

major economies: AN AGGRESSIVE CENTRAL BANK "The Federal Reserve acted sooner and more aggressively than other

central banks in keeping rates low," says Bernard Baumohl, chief global economist at the Economic Outlook Group. In December 2008, the Fed slashed short-term interest rates to near zero and has kept them there. Ultra-low loan rates have made it easier for individuals and businesses to borrow and spend. The Fed also launched three bond-buying programs meant to reduce long-term rates. By contrast, the European Central Bank has been slower to respond to signs of economic distress among the 18 nations that share the euro currency. The ECB actually raised rates in 2011 — the same year the eurozone sank back into recession. It's worth keeping in mind that the

Fed has two mandates: To keep prices stable and to maximize employment. The ECB has just one mandate: To guard against

high inflation. The Fed was led during and after the Great Recession by Ben Bernanke, a student of the Great Depression who was

determined to avoid a repeat of the 1930s' economic collapse. Janet Yellen, who succeeded Bernanke as Fed chair this year, has continued his emphasis on nursing the U.S. economy back to health after the recession of 2007-2009 with the help of historically low rates.

STRONGER BANKS The United States moved faster than Europe to restore its banks' health after the financial crisis of 2008-2009. The U.S. government bailed out the financial system and subjected big banks to stress tests in 2009 to reveal their financial strength. By showing the banks to be surprisingly healthy, the stress tests helped restore

confidence in the U.S. financial system . Banks gradually started lending again. European banks are only now undergoing stress

tests, and the results won't be out until fall. In the meantime, Europe's banks lack confidence. They fear that other banks are holding too many bad loans and that Europe is vulnerable to another crisis. So they aren't lending much. In the United States, overall bank lending is up nearly 4 percent in the past year. Lending to business has jumped 10 percent. In the eurozone, lending has dropped 3.7 percent overall, according to figures from the Institute of International Finance. Lending to business is off 2.5 percent. (The U.S. figures are for the year ending in mid-June;

the European figures are from May.) A MORE FLEXIBLE ECONOMY Economists say Japan and Europe need to undertake reforms to make their economies more flexible — more, in other words, like America's. Europe needs to lift wage restrictions that prevent employers from cutting pay (rather than eliminating jobs) when times are bad. It could also rethink welfare and retirement programs that discourage people from working and dismantle policies that protect favored businesses and block innovative newcomers, the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development has argued. Prime Minister Shinzo Abe has proposed reforms meant to make the Japanese economy more competitive. He wants to expand child care so more women can work, replace small inefficient farms with more large-scale commercial farms and allow more foreign migrant workers to fill labor shortages in areas such as nursing and construction. Yet his proposals face fierce opposition. "Europe and Japan remain less well-positioned for durable long-term growth, as they have only recently begun to tackle their deep-rooted structural problems, and a lot remains to be done," says Eswar Prasad, a professor of trade policy at Cornell University. China is struggling to manage a transition from an economy based on exports and often wasteful investment

in real estate and factories to a sturdier but likely slower-growing economy based on more consumer spending. LESS BUDGET-

CUTTING Weighed down by debt, many European countries took an ax to swelling budget deficits. They slashed

pension benefits, raised taxes and cut civil servants' wages. The cuts devastated several European economies . They led to

27 percent unemployment in Greece, 14 percent in Portugal and 25 percent in Spain. The United States has done some budget cutting, too, and

raised taxes. But U.S. austerity hasn't been anywhere near as harsh. A ROARING STOCK MARKET The Fed's easy-money policies ignited a world-beating U.S. stock market rally. Over the past five years, U.S. stocks have easily outpaced shares in Europe, Japan and Hong Kong. That was one of Bernanke's goals in lowering rates. He figured that miserly fixed-income rates would nudge investors into stocks in search of higher returns. Higher stock prices would then make Americans feel more confident and

more willing to spend — the so-called wealth effect. Most economists agree it's worked .

Links

No Link – Drug CartelsBest studies prove that drug legalization severely hampers cartels’ profits.CBS News, ’12 [“Study: U.S. marijuana legalization would hurt Mexican cartels”, 10-31-12, http://www.cbsnews.com/news/study-us-marijuana-legalization-would-hurt-mexican-cartels/, RSR]

MEXICO CITY A study released Wednesday by a respected Mexican think tank contends that proposals to legalize the recreational use of marijuana in Colorado, Oregon and Washington could cut Mexican drug cartels' earnings from traffic to the U.S. by as much as 30 percent . Opponents questioned some of the

study's assumptions, saying the proposals could also offer new opportunities for cartels to operate inside the U.S. and replace any profit lost to a drop in international smuggling. The ballot measures to be decided on Nov. 6 would allow adults to possess small amounts of pot under a regimen of state regulation and taxation. Polls have shown tight races in Washington and Colorado, with Washington's measure appearing to

have the best chance of passing. Oregon's measure, which would impose the fewest regulations, does not appear likely to pass. The study by the Mexican Competitiveness Institute, "If Our Neighbors Legalize," assumes that legalization in any state would allow growers there to produce marijuana relatively cheaply and create an illicit flow to other states, where the drug could be made available at cheaper prices and higher quality than Mexican marijuana smuggled across the international border. The report, based on previous studies by U.S. experts including those at the RAND Corporation, assumes that Mexican cartels earn more than $6 billion a year from drug smuggling to the U.S. It calculates the hypothetical, post-legalization price of marijuana produced in Oregon, Washington and Colorado and sold within those states and smuggled to other states. It then assumes that purchasers around the U.S. will choose domestic marijuana when it is sold cheaper than the current price of Mexican marijuana. That choice will lead to a loss of $1.425 billion to the cartels if Colorado legalizes, $1.372 billion if Washington approves the ballot measure, and $1.839 billion if Oregon votes yes, the study says. It only looks at the effects of legalization in individual states, and does not calculate what would happen if more than one legalized marijuana.

Legalization hurts cartels – they can’t diversify to other sources.Carlsen, ’10 [Laura, “How Legalizing Marijuana Would Weaken Mexican Drug Cartels”, 10-2-10, The Huffington Post, http://www.huffingtonpost.com/laura-carlsen/how-legalizing-marijuana_b_777837.html, RSR]

In the months leading up to today's vote on California's Proposition 19 to legalize recreational use of marijuana, opponents of legalization have issued a barrage of confused and contradictory arguments. Their aim is to somehow debunk the common-sense fact that legal sourcing erodes

the black-market profits of organized crime. The most recent argument thrown out in the anti-Prop. 19 campaign, claims that the California marijuana market is insignificant to Mexican drug traffickers. That argument was blown out of the water on October 18 when the Mexican Army and police seized 134 tons of marijuana, wrapped and ready to be smuggled from Tijuana across the border. The huge cache was estimated to be worth at least $338 million dollars on the street. Mexican authorities guessed that it was owned by the nation's most powerful drug-

trafficking organization, the Sinaloa Cartel. Even if much of that is distributed to other states, the sheer size of the potential shipment shows that the U.S. marijuana market for Mexican traffickers, calculated at $20 billion a year, is well worth fighting for. Since before Prop. 19 came along, reports showed that Mexico's drug cartels were concerned about how U.S. production and legalization of medical marijuana cut into their profits. Prohibition creates the underground market that generates their economic, political and military strength. With the drop in income from marijuana sales, cartels have less money for buying arms and politicians, or recruiting young people into the trade. The drug cartels also consider the marijuana black market worth killing for . Just days after the historic bust, thirteen young men were massacred at a drug rehabilitation center. An anonymous voice came over police radio saying the act was "a taste of Juarez" and that up to 135 people could be murdered in retaliation for the bust--one per ton. Although calculating Mexican cartel earnings from

marijuana sales will always be a guessing game, it's indisputable that as long as it's illegal every penny of those earnings goes into the pockets of organized crime. From the peasant who converts his land from corn to pot to feed his family, to the truckdriver who takes on a bonus cargo, to the Mexican and U.S. border officials who open "windows" in international customs controls, to the youth gangs who sell in U.S. cities--all are sucked into a highly organized and brutal system of contraband. Legalization in part of the world's leading market would take a huge chunk out of this transnational business.

No Link – Economic CostsLegalization results in massive economic benefits.Miron and Waldock, ’10 [Jeffrey (senior lecturer and director of undergraduate studies at Harvard University and a senior fellow at the Cato Institute) and Kate (doctoral candidate in economics at the Stern School of Business at New York University), “Making an Economic Case for Legalizing Drugs”, 10-3-10, The Cato Institute, http://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/making-economic-case-legalizing-drugs, RSR]

Legalization would reduce state and federal deficits by eliminating expenditure on prohibition enforcement — arrests, prosecutions, and incarceration — and by allowing governments to collect tax revenue on legalized sales. This potential fiscal windfall is of particular interest because California, which is facing a budget shortfall of $19.9 billion for fiscal 2011, will vote Nov. 2 on a ballot initiative that would legalize marijuana under California law. Advocates of the measure have suggested the state could raise billions in annual tax revenue, in addition to saving criminal-justice expenditure or reallocating this expenditure to more important priorities. Should the California measure pass and generate the forecasted budgetary savings, other states

would likely follow suit. “ [T]he budgetary implications of legalization are neither trivial nor overwhelming.” In

our recent study, just released by the Cato Institute, we estimate the impact of legalization on federal, state, and local budgets. The report concludes that drug legalization would reduce government expenditure about $41.3 billion annually.

Roughly $25.7 billion of this savings would accrue to state and local governments, and roughly $15.6 billion to the federal government. About $8.7 billion of the savings would result from legalization of marijuana, $20 billion from

legalization of cocaine and heroin, and $12.6 billion from legalization of all other drugs. Legalization would also generate tax revenue of roughly $46.7 billion annually if drugs were taxed at rates comparable to those on alcohol and tobacco. About $8.7 billion of this revenue would result from legalization of marijuana, $32.6 billion from legalization of cocaine and heroin, and $5.5 billion from legalization of all other drugs.

No economic arguments against legalization.Dighe, Professor of Economics, The State University of New York at Oswego, ’14 [Ranjit, “Legalize It -- The Economic Argument”, The Huffington Post, 1-30-14, http://www.huffingtonpost.com/ranjit-dighe/legalize-marijuana-economic-argument_b_4695023.html, RSR]

If you want to argue that marijuana usage is bad because the drug is addictive, destructive or harms productivity, then you have to show some

evidence for these claims. Ample medical evidence suggests that marijuana is less dangerous than alcohol, and

in a recent New Yorker interview even President Obama concurred. A recent study by economists D. Mark Anderson and Daniel I. Rees found that semi-legalization, in the form of medical marijuana, in 16 states led adults to consume more marijuana but to moderate their alcohol consumption, leading to a 9 percent decrease in traffic fatalities. Marijuana has not been found to be physically addictive, and addiction rates of any kind are lower for marijuana than for alcohol, tobacco and harder drugs. (Aside: I live in upstate New York, which has an indoor smoking ban, and every day this winter I see nicotine addicts shivering and smoking outside; it's hard to imagine someone going outside in the dead of an upstate New York winter to smoke a joint.) While perhaps it is better to have no vices, the vast majority of people who are currently deterred from using marijuana arguably find another, legal vice, mostly alcohol and/or tobacco. Granted, as a drug that is typically smoked, marijuana could lead to lung cancer and other

health problems, but unlike tobacco cigarettes, marijuana is typically consumed in small doses and has yet to be linked to a single death. As for the effect of marijuana on worker productivity, the first thing to note is that nobody is advocating smoking marijuana or being high on the job, any more than anyone advocates drinking or being drunk on the job. People are expected to show up for work sober, and employers have always had the right to fire people who fail to meet that basic requirement. The issue, then, is whether smoking marijuana in one's free time impairs

one's job performance. Long-term memory loss and "amotivational syndrome" have been alleged, but

decades' worth of studies have debunked both of those claims. All told, the expected costs of

legalizing marijuana are minimal . (That includes one I did not mention previously, the "gateway" effect of marijuana to using

harder drugs. As for that claim, studies have shown marijuana to be scarcely more of a gateway drug than alcohol, and that the vast majority of marijuana users have never even tried cocaine.) What about the benefits? The tax benefits tend to be greatly overblown, first of all because higher taxes aren't really a benefit (they are a transfer from people who pay them to people who don't) and also because studies, notably that of economist Jeffrey Miron, estimate the increased tax take at about $6 billion, or less than 1 percent of the current federal deficit. The benefits of reduced prohibition enforcement costs are similarly small, about $10 billion. The bulk of the benefits would be to current and prospective marijuana consumers. I understand that many people do not care about other people's prospective enjoyment of legal marijuana or their

increased convenience in obtaining it. Which is fine: the economic way of thinking is not for everybody. But consider the biggest benefit, which is that some 19 to 32 million people would no longer be treated as criminals and subject to arbitrary arrest, imprisonment, asset forfeiture and other punishment. This benefit goes way beyond the criminal justice system's costs of enforcing pot laws. It is about the ability of those 19 to 32 million users, their families, and friends to live normal lives. In my own neighborhood a kindly older gentleman was recently arrested for possession of not quite four pounds of marijuana and sentenced to a year in state prison. He was a good neighbor and caused no inconvenience to anyone in the community, but current law dictated that he could no longer live among us. His imprisonment has been devastating to his wife and family, has deprived the community of a good and well-liked neighbor, and has made him a convict or ex-convict forever. No reasonable cost-benefit analysis would justify his imprisonment. Perhaps because of the huge personal and social costs of criminalizing the recreational behavior of tens of millions, about a dozen states have already "decriminalized" marijuana. In most cases, decriminalization is a halfway measure whereby consumption is either legal or subject to a civil fine (like a parking ticket) but the drug's manufacture or sale is still illegal. This is better than continuing to treat marijuana as a Schedule I narcotic, but this kind of decriminalization has been tried before, with alcohol. It was called Prohibition, which actually did not ban the consumption of alcohol but only its manufacture, sale and transportation. We've all heard how that turned out. Under alcohol prohibition or pot decriminalization, using the substance is okay but procuring it makes you a criminal and forces you to deal with bigger criminals (dealers) in an unregulated black market. Product safety, quality control and peaceful conflict resolution, among other things, will be lacking in such a market. If pot were "decriminalized" nationwide along

these lines, some 19 to 32 million people could still be criminals if they tried to buy it. Compared with continuing the war on marijuana, the net benefits of decriminalization appear large, but the net benefits of legalization look much larger. Open and regulated markets are safer than black markets, and our judicial system is clogged enough already with real criminals.

No Link – Gateway DrugMarijuana isn’t a gateway drug – empirics proveGerman Lopez, writer at Vox focusing on health care, drugs, and LGBT issues, 5-15-2014, “No, marijuana isn’t a gateway drug,” http://www.vox.com/2014/5/15/5717074/no-marijuana-isnt-a-gateway-drug

There's more evidence that marijuana does not, in fact, lead to harder drug use. A new study from Emory University researchers looked at federal surveys and states that legalized medical marijuana to evaluate the impact of legalization on marijuana and other drug use. Researchers found medical marijuana legalization led adults 21 and older to use more marijuana, but the increase did not lead people to try harder drugs. The study has several implications for states that are considering whether to legalize marijuana for recreational or medical purposes. For one, it suggests relaxed marijuana laws can lead to more regular marijuana use, although not among teenagers. But the study also indicates that marijuana use might not be as dangerous as some critics of the drug fear. The study had two major findings: Before medical marijuana legalization, 11.1 percent of adults 21 and older reported using marijuana in the past month; after legalization, that rose to 14.2 percent. But medical marijuana legalization had seemingly no effect on children and adults aged 12 to 20. After medical marijuana legalization, there was also no significant increase in alcohol abuse and dependency, cocaine use, or heroin use — even though marijuana use ticked up for adults.

Marijuana isn’t a gateway drug – other factors explain the correlation – best dataRAND Corporation, 2002, “Using Marijuana May Not Raise the Risk of Using Harder Drugs,” http://www.rand.org/pubs/research_briefs/RB6010/index1.html

This evidence would appear to make a strong case for a gateway effect. However, another explanation has been suggested: Those who use drugs may have an underlying propensity to do so that is not specific to any one drug. There is some support for such a "common-factor" model in studies of genetic, familial, and environmental factors influencing drug use. The presence of a common propensity could explain why people who use one drug are so much more likely to use another than are people who do not use the first drug. It has also been suggested that marijuana use precedes hard-drug use simply because opportunities to use marijuana come earlier in life than opportunities to use hard drugs. The DPRC analysis offers the first quantitative evidence that these observations can , without resort to a gateway effect, explain the strong observed associations between marijuana and hard-drug initiation.

Gateway effect is just correlationBeau Kilmer et al, Co-Director of the RAND Drug Policy Research Center, Senior Policy Researcher at the RAND Corporation, Professor at the Pardee RAND Graduate School, and PhD in Public Policy from Harvard University, Jonathan P. Caulkins, H. Guyford Stever Professor of Operations Research and Public Policy at Heinz College, Carnegie Mellon University, Rosalie Liccardo Pacula, Director of the Bing Center for Health Economics, Co-Director of the RAND Drug Policy Research Center, Senior Economist at the RAND Corporation, Professor at the Pardee RAND Graduate School, PhD in Economics from Duke University, Robert MacCoun, Emeritus Professor of Public Policy at the Goldman School of Public Policy, University of California Berkeley, and

Peter Reuter, Professor in the Department of Crimonology and Criminal Justice at the University of Maryland, 2010, “Altered State? Assessing How Marijuana Legalization in California Could Influence Marijuana Consumption and Public Budgets,” http://www.rand.org/content/dam/rand/pubs/occasional_papers/2010/RAND_OP315.pdf

Few topics in the drug-policy literature have stirred greater passions than the gateway hypothesis. While everyone agrees about the descriptive facts (e.g. cocaine use is usually preceded by marijuana use), there are sharp differences about whether the patterns reflect a causal relationship and, if so, what the causal mechanism is. Skeptics are fond of pointing out that cocaine use is also usually preceded by drinking milk (i.e., most cocaine users tried milk before they first experienced cocaine, but no one believes drinking milk puts one at risk for greater cocaine use ).

No Link – Kids

Legalization won’t increase teenage use – empirics Elizabeth Lopatto, writer at Forbes, 4-24-2014, “Marijuana Legalization: What About The Teens?” http://www.forbes.com/sites/elizabethlopatto/2014/04/24/marijuana-legalization-what-about-the-teens/

One of the worries of people who oppose marijuana legalization is that teenagers will have easier access to the drug, making them more likely to use it. It’s an important worry, given that some problems of cognitive development have been seen in people who start smoking pot young. Fortunately, we now have some empirical evidence to help settle the question. Using 20 years of data from the Youth Risk Behavior Surveillance Survey, researchers saw no discernible difference use after legalization, according to a study of 11 million people in the Journal of Adolescent Health. The researchers looked specifically at states that had legalized medical marijuana, and for which there was enough before-and-after data. They were then compared with a neighboring state that hadn’t legalized the drug. Marijuana use within the previous month was common across the study, with about 21 percent of students reporting it. But there wasn’t a difference between the states with legal weed and the states without it.

No Link – Public HealthLegalization of marijuana improves public health – trades off with alcohol use.Sullum, ’13 [Jacob, “Economists Predict Marijuana Legalization Will Produce 'Public-Health Benefits'”, Forbes, 11-1-13, http://www.forbes.com/sites/jacobsullum/2013/11/01/economists-predict-marijuana-legalization-will-produce-public-health-benefits/, RSR]

In their 2012 book Marijuana Legalization: What Everyone Needs to Know, Jonathan Caulkins and three other drug policy scholars identify the

impact of repealing pot prohibition on alcohol consumption as the most important thing no one knows. Are cannabis and alcohol complements, so that drinking can be expected to increase along with pot smoking? Or are they substitutes, implying that more pot smoking will mean less drinking? For analysts attempting to calculate the costs and benefits of legalizing marijuana, the question matters a lot, because alcohol is considerably more dangerous than marijuana by most measures . If the two products are complements, states that legalize marijuana can expect to see more consumption of both, exacerbating existing health and safety problems. But if the two products are substitutes, legalizing marijuana can alleviate those problems by reducing alcohol consumption. Reviewing the evidence in the Journal of Policy Analysis and Management,

Montana State University economist D. Mark Anderson and University of Colorado economist Daniel Rees find that “studies based on clearly defined natural experiments generally support the hypothesis that marijuana and alcohol are substitutes.” Increasing the drinking age seems to result in more marijuana consumption, for instance, and pot smoking drops off sharply at age 21, “suggesting that young adults treat alcohol and marijuana as substitutes.” Another study found that legalizing marijuana for medical use is associated with a drop in beer sales and a decrease in heavy drinking. These results, Anderson and Rees say, “suggest that, as marijuana becomes more available, young adults in Colorado and Washington will

respond by drinking less, not more.” That conclusion is consistent with earlier research in which Anderson and Rees found that enacting medical marijuana laws is associated with a 13 percent drop in traffic fatalities. That effect could be due to the fact that marijuana impairs driving ability much less dramatically than alcohol does, although the fact that alcohol is more likely to be consumed outside the home (resulting in more driving under its influence) may play a role as well. Anderson and Rees also consider the impact of legalization on pot smoking by teenagers. Looking at data from the Youth Risk Behavior Survey from 1993 through 2011, they see “little evidence of a relationship between legalizing medical marijuana and the use of marijuana among high

school students.” Narrowing the focus to California after medical marijuana dispensaries began proliferating, they find “little evidence that marijuana use among Los Angeles high school students increased in the mid-2000s.” It actually went down from 2007 and 2009, then rose from 2009 to 2011, but that increase was mirrored in three comparison cities (Boston, Chicago, and Dallas) without dispensaries. Anderson and Rees note that UCLA drug policy expert Mark Kleiman, who co-wrote Marijuana Legalization and has been advising Washington’s cannabis regulators, recently described a worst-case scenario for legalization featuring an increase in heavy drinking, “carnage on our highways,” and a “massive” increase in marijuana

consumption among teenagers. “Kleiman’s worst-case scenario is possible, but not likely,” they conclude. “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 .”

MPX

A2: EconomyMost rigorous historical data proves there’s no impact to econ collapse.Brandt and Ulfelder 11—*Patrick T. Brandt, Ph.D. in Political Science from Indiana University, is an Assistant Professor of Political Science in the School of Social Science at the University of Texas at Dallas. **Jay Ulfelder, Ph.D. in political science from Stanford University, is an American political scientist whose research interests include democratization, civil unrest, and violent conflict. [April, 2011, “Economic Growth and Political Instability,” Social Science Research Network]

These statements anticipating political fallout from the global economic crisis of 2008–2010 reflect a widely held view that economic growth has rapid and profound effects on countries’ political stability. When economies grow at a healthy clip, citizens are presumed to be too busy and too content to engage in protest or rebellion, and governments are thought to be flush with revenues they can use

to enhance their own stability by producing public goods or rewarding cronies, depending on the type of regime they inhabit. When growth slows, however, citizens and cronies alike are presumed to grow frustrated with their governments, and the leaders at the receiving end of that frustration are thought to lack the financial resources to respond effectively.

The expected result is an increase in the risks of social unrest, civil war, coup attempts, and regime breakdown. Although it is pervasive, the assumption that countries’ economic growth rates strongly affect their political stability has not been subjected to a great deal of careful empirical analysis, and evidence from social science research to date does not unambiguously support it. Theoretical models of

civil wars, coups d’etat, and transitions to and from democracy often specify slow economic growth as an important cause or catalyst of those events,

but empirical studies on the effects of economic growth on these phenomena have produced mixed results. Meanwhile, the effects of economic growth on the occurrence or incidence of social unrest seem to have hardly been studied in recent years , as empirical analysis of contentious collective action has concentrated on political opportunity structures and

dynamics of protest and repression. This paper helps fill that gap by rigorously re-examining the effects of short-term variations in economic growth on the occurrence of several forms of political instability in countries worldwide over the past few decades. In this paper, we do not seek to develop and test new theories of political instability. Instead, we aim to subject a hypothesis common to many prior theories of political instability to more careful empirical scrutiny. The goal is to provide a detailed empirical characterization of the relationship between economic growth and political instability in a broad sense. In effect, we describe the conventional wisdom as seen in the data. We do so with statistical models that use smoothing splines and multiple lags to allow for nonlinear and dynamic effects from economic growth on political stability. We also do so with an instrumented measure of growth that explicitly accounts for

endogeneity in the relationship between political instability and economic growth. To our knowledge, ours is the first statistical study of this relationship to simultaneously address the possibility of nonlinearity and problems of endogeneity. As such, we believe this paper offers what is probably the most rigorous general evaluation of this argument to date. As the results show, some of our findings are surprising. Consistent with conventional assumptions, we find that social unrest and civil violence are more likely to occur and democratic regimes are more susceptible to coup attempts around periods of slow economic growth. At the same time, our analysis shows no significant relationship between variation in growth and the risk of civil-war onset, and results from our analysis of regime changes contradict the widely accepted claim that economic crises cause transitions from autocracy to democracy. While we would hardly pretend to have the last word on any of these

relationships, our findings do suggest that the relationship between economic growth and political stability is neither as uniform nor as strong as the conventional wisdom(s) presume(s). We think these findings also help explain why the global recession of 2008–2010 has failed thus far to produce the wave of coups and regime failures that some observers had anticipated, in spite of the expected and apparent uptick in social unrest associated with the crisis.

Our evidence is assumptive of the worst case scenario – even that doesn’t lead to war.Robert Jervis 11, Professor in the Department of Political Science and School of International and Public Affairs at Columbia University, December 2011, “Force in Our Times,” Survival, Vol. 25, No. 4, p. 403-425

Even if war is still seen as evil, the security community could be dissolved if severe conflicts of interest were to arise. Could the more peaceful world generate new interests that would

bring the members of the community into sharp disputes? 45 A zero-sum sense of status would be one example, perhaps linked to a steep rise in nationalism. More likely would be a worsening of the current economic difficulties, which could itself produce greater nationalism, undermine democracy and bring back old-fashioned beggar-my-neighbor economic policies. While these

dangers are real, it is hard to believe that the conflicts could be great enough to lead the members of the community to contemplate fighting each other. It is not so much that economic interdependence has proceeded to the point where it could not be reversed – states that were more internally interdependent than anything seen

internationally have fought bloody civil wars. Rather it is that even if the more extreme versions of free trade and

economic liberalism become discredited , it is hard to see how without building on a preexisting high level of political conflict

leaders and mass opinion would come to believe that their countries could prosper by impoverishing or even attacking others. Is it possible that problems will not only become severe, but that people will entertain the thought that they have to

be solved by war? While a pessimist could note that this argument does not appear as outlandish as it did before the financial crisis, an optimist could reply (correctly, in my view) that the very fact that we have seen such a sharp economic down-turn without anyone suggesting that force of arms is the solution

shows that even if bad times bring about greater economic conflict , it will not make war

thinkable .

A2: TerrorismNo impact to terror – their ev is fear mongering. Mueller and Stewart 12 [John Mueller is Senior Research Scientist at the Mershon Center for International Security Studies and Adjunct Professor in the Department of Political Science, both at Ohio State University, and Senior Fellow at the Cato Institute in Washington, D.C. Mark G. Stewart is Australian Research Council Professorial Fellow and Professor and Director at the Centre for Infrastructure Performance and Reliability at the University of Newcastle in Australia, “The Terrorism Delusion”, International Security, Vol. 37, No. 1 (Summer 2012), pp. 81–110, Chetan]

It seems increasingly likely that the official and popular reaction to the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, has been substantially deluded —massively disproportionate to the threat that al-Qaida has ever actually presented either as an international menace or as an inspiration or model to homegrown amateurs. Applying the extensive datasets on terrorism that have been generated over the last decades, we conclude that the chances of an American perishing at the hands of a terrorist at present rates is one in 3.5 million per year—well within the range of what risk analysts hold to be “acceptable risk.”40

Yet, despite the importance of responsibly communicating risk and despite the costs of irresponsible fearmongering , just about

the only official who has ever openly put the threat presented by terrorism in some sort of context is New York’s Mayor Michael Bloomberg,

who in 2007 pointed out that people should “get a life” and that they have a greater chance of being hit by lightning than of being a victim of terrorism—an observation that may be a bit off the mark but is roughly accurate.41 (It might be noted that, despite this unorthodox outburst, Bloomberg still managed to be re-elected two years later.) Indeed, much of the reaction to the September 11 attacks calls to mind Hans Christian Andersen’s fable of delusion, “The Emperor’s New Clothes,” in which con artists convince the emperor’s court that they can weave stuffs of the most beautiful colors and elaborate patterns from the delicate silk and purest gold thread they are given. These stuffs, they further convincingly explain, have the property of remaining invisible to anyone who is unusually stupid or unfit for office. The emperor finds this quite appealing because not only will he have splendid new clothes, but he will be able to discover which of his officials are unfit for their posts—or in today’s terms, have lost their effectiveness. His courtiers, then, have great professional incentive to proclaim the stuffs on the loom to be absolutely magnificent even while mentally justifying this conclusion with the equivalent of “absence of

evidence is not evidence of absence.” Unlike the emperor’s new clothes, terrorism does of course exist. Much of the reaction to the threat, however, has a distinctly delusionary quality . In Carle’s view, for example, the CIA has been

“spinning in self-referential circles” in which “our premises were flawed, our facts used to fit our premises, our premises determined,

and our fears justified our operational actions, in a self-contained process that arrived at a conclusion dramatically at odds with the facts.” The process “projected evil actions where there was, more often, muddled indirect and unavoidable complicity, or not much at all.” These “delusional ratiocinations,” he further observes, “were all sincerely, ardently held to have constituted a rigorous, rational process to identify terrorist threats” in which “the avalanche of reporting confirms its validity by its quantity,” in which there is a tendency to “reject incongruous or contradictory facts as erroneous, because they do not conform to accepted reality,” and in which potential dissenters are not-so-subtly reminded of career dangers: “Say what you want at meetings. It’s your decision. But you are doing yourself no favors.”42 Consider in this context the alarming and profoundly imaginary estimates of U.S. intelligence agencies in the year after the September 11 attacks that the number of trained al-Qaida operatives in the United States was between 2,000 and 5,000.43 Terrorist cells, they told reporters, were “embedded in most U.S. cities with sizable Islamic communities,” usually in the “run-down sections,” and were “up and active” because electronic intercepts had found some of them to be “talking to each other.”44 Another account relayed the view of “experts” that Osama bin Laden was ready to unleash an “11,000 strong terrorist army” operating in more than sixty countries “controlled by a

Mr. Big who is based in Europe,” but that intelligence had “no idea where thousands of these men are.”45 Similarly, FBI Director Robert

Mueller assured the Senate Intelligence Committee on February 11, 2003, that, although his agency had yet to identify even one al-Qaida cell in the United States, “I remain very concerned about what we are not seeing,” a sentence rendered in bold lettering in his prepared text. Moreover, he claimed that such unidentified entities presented “the greatest threat,” had “developed a support infrastructure” in the country, and had achieved both the “ability” and

the “intent” to inflict “signi ficant casualties in the US with little warning.”46 Over the course of time, such essentially delusionary thinking has been internalized and institutionalized in a great many ways . For example, an extrapolation

of delusionary proportions is evident in the common observation that, because terrorists were able, mostly by thuggish means, to crash airplanes into buildings, they might therefore be able to construct a nuclear bomb. Brian Jenkins has run an internet search to discover how often variants of the term “al-Qaida” appeared within ten

words of “nuclear.” There were only seven hits in 1999 and eleven in 2000, but the number soared to 1,742 in 2001 and to 2,931 in 2002.47 By 2008, Defense Secretary Robert Gates was assuring a congressional committee that what keeps every senior government leader awake at night is “the thought of a terrorist ending up with a weapon of mass destruction, especially nuclear.”48 Few of the sleepless, it seems, found much solace in the fact that an al-Qaida computer seized in Afghanistan in 2001 indicated that the group’s budget for research on weapons of mass

destruction (almost all of it focused on primitive chemical weapons work) was $2,000 to $4,000.49 In the wake of the killing of Osama bin Laden, officials now have many more al-Qaida computers, and nothing in their content appears to suggest that the group had the time or inclination, let alone the money, to set up and staff a uranium-seizing operation, as well as a fancy, super-high-technology facility to fabricate a bomb. This is a process that requires trusting corrupted foreign collaborators and other criminals, obtaining and transporting highly guarded material, setting up a machine shop staffed with top scientists and technicians, and rolling the heavy, cumbersome, and untested finished product into position to be detonated by a skilled crew—all while attracting no attention from outsiders.50 If the miscreants in the

American cases have been unable to create and set off even the simplest conventional bombs, it stands to reason that none of them were very close to creating, or having anything to do with, nuclear weapons—or for that matter biological, radiological, or chemical ones. In fact, with perhaps one exception, none seems to have even

dreamed of the prospect; and the exception is José Padilla (case 2), who apparently mused at one point about creating a dirty bomb

—a device that would disperse radiation—or even possibly an atomic one. His idea about isotope separation was to put uranium into a pail and

then to make himself into a human centrifuge by swinging the pail around in great arcs.51 Even if a weapon were made abroad and then brought into the United States, its detonation would require individuals in-country with the capacity to receive and handle the complicated weapons and then to set them off. Thus far, the talent pool appears, to put mildly, very thin.

Too many logistical and technical difficulties. Gavin, Tom Slick Professor of International Affairs at UT Austin, ‘10

[Francis, Winter 2009/2010, “Same As It Ever Was: Nuclear Alarmism, Proliferation, and the Cold War,” International Security 34.3]

Coherent policies to reduce the risk of a nonstate actor using nuclear weapons clearly need to be developed. In particular, the rise of the Abdul

Qadeer Khan nuclear technology network should give pause.49 But again, the news is not as grim as nuclear alarmists would suggest. Much has already been done to secure the supply of nuclear materials, and relatively simple steps can produce further improvements. Moreover, there are reasons to doubt both the capabilities and even the interest many terrorist groups have in detonating a nuclear device on U.S. soil. As Adam Garfinkle writes, "The threat of nuclear terrorism is very remote."50 Experts disagree on whether nonstate actors have the scientific, engineering, financial, natural resource, security, and logistical capacities to build a nuclear [End Page 19] bomb from scratch. According to terrorism expert

Robin Frost, the danger of a "nuclear black market" and loose nukes from Russia may be overstated. Even if a terrorist group did acquire a nuclear weapon, delivering and detonating it against a U.S. target would present tremendous technical and logistical difficulties .51 Finally, the feared nexus between terrorists and rogue regimes may be exaggerated. As nuclear proliferation expert Joseph Cirincione argues, states such as Iran and North Korea are "not the most likely sources for terrorists since their stockpiles, if any, are

small and exceedingly precious, and hence well-guarded."52 Chubin states that there "is no reason to believe that Iran today, any more than Sadaam Hussein earlier, would transfer WMD [weapons of mass destruction] technology to

terrorist groups like al-Qaida or Hezbollah."53 Even if a terrorist group were to acquire a nuclear device, expert Michael

Levi demonstrates that effective planning can prevent catastrophe : for nuclear terrorists, what "can go wrong might go

wrong, and when it comes to nuclear terrorism, a broader, integrated defense, just like controls at the source of

weapons and materials, can multiply, intensify, and compound the possibilities of terrorist failure, possibly driving terrorist groups to reject nuclear terrorism altogether ." Warning of the danger of a terrorist

acquiring a nuclear weapon, most analyses are based on the inaccurate image of an "infallible ten-foot-tall enemy." This type of alarmism, writes Levi, impedes the development of thoughtful strategies that could deter, prevent, or mitigate a terrorist attack: "Worst-case estimates have their place, but the possible failure-averse, conservative, resource-limited five-foot-tall nuclear terrorist, who is subject not only to the laws of physics but also to Murphy's law of nuclear terrorism, needs to become just as central to our evaluations of strategies."54

Top experts vote neg.Walt 12 (Stephen, Belfer Professor of International Affairs – Harvard University, “What Terrorist Threat?,” Foreign Policy, 8-13, http://walt.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2012/08/13/what_terrorist_threat)

Remember how the London Olympics were supposedly left vulnerable to terrorists after the security firm hired for the games admitted that it couldn't supply enough manpower? This "humiliating shambles" forced the British government to call in 3,500 security personnel of its own, and led GOP presidential candidate Mitt Romney to utter some tactless remarks about Britain's alleged mismanagement during his official "Foot-in-Mouth"

foreign tour last month. Well, surprise, surprise. Not only was there no terrorist attack, the Games themselves came off rather well. There were the inevitable minor glitches, of course, but no disasters and some quite impressive organizational achievements. And of course, athletes from around the world delivered inspiring, impressive, heroic, and sometimes disappointing performances, which is what the Games are all about. Two lessons might be drawn from this event. The first is that the head-long rush to privatize everything -- including the provision of security -- has some obvious downsides. When markets and private firms fail, it is the state that has to come to the rescue. It was true after the 2007-08 financial crisis, it's true in the ongoing euro-mess, and it was true in the Olympics. Bear that in mind when Romney and new VP nominee Paul Ryan tout the virtues of shrinking government, especially the need to privatize

Social Security and Medicare. The second lesson is that we continue to over-react to the "terrorist threat." Here I

recommend you read John Mueller and Mark G. Stewart's The Terrorism Delusion : America's Overwrought

Response to September 11, in the latest issue of International Security. Mueller and Stewart analyze 50 cases of supposed "Islamic terrorist plots" against the United States, and show how virtually all of the perpetrators were (in their words)

"incompetent, ineffective, unintelligent, idiotic, ignorant, unorganized, misguided, muddled, amateurish, dopey, unrealistic, moronic, irrational and foolish." They quote former Glenn Carle, former deputy national intelligence officer for transnational threats saying "we must see jihadists for the small, lethal, disjointed and miserable opponents that they are," noting further that al Qaeda's "capabilities are far inferior to its desires." Further, Mueller and Stewart estimate that expenditures on domestic homeland security (i.e., not counting the wars in Iraq or

Afghanistan) have increased by more than $1 trillion since 9/11, even though the annual risk of dying in a domestic terrorist attack is about 1 in 3.5 million . Using conservative assumptions and conventional risk-assessment methodology, they estimate that for these expenditures

to be cost-effective "they would have had to deter, prevent, foil or protect against 333 very large attacks that would otherwise have been successful every year." Finally, they worry that this exaggerated sense of danger has now been "internalized": even when politicians and "terrorism experts" aren't hyping the danger, the public still sees the threat as large and imminent. As they conclude: ... Americans seems to have internalized their anxiety about terrorism, and politicians and policymakers have come to believe that they can defy it only at their own peril. Concern about appearing to be soft on terrorism has replaced concern about seeming to be soft on communism, a phenomenon that lasted far longer than the dramatic that generated it ... This extraordinarily exaggerated and essentially

delusional response may prove to be perpetual." Which is another way of saying that you should be prepared to keep standing in those pleasant and efficient TSA lines for the rest of your life, and to keep paying for far-flung foreign interventions designed to "root out" those nasty jihadis.

A2: IQ – Marijuana Not Key

Marijuana isn’t responsible for mental health issues – their studies are flawedPatti Neighmond, Health Policy Correspondent at NPR, 3-3-2014, “Marijuana May Hurt The Developing Teen Brain,” http://www.npr.org/blogs/health/2014/02/25/282631913/marijuana-may-hurt-the-developing-teen-brain

But there's an important caveat here: Those who used the most marijuana in the Meier study had lower IQs to begin with. Dr. Gregory Tau, a psychiatrist and drug abuse researcher at Columbia University, says there's a chicken-and-egg dilemma with many marijuana studies, including this one . "It's very possible that there's something very different to begin with among teenagers who tend to get into trouble with marijuana or who become heavy users," Tau says. "They could have subtle emotional differences, perhaps some cognitive functioning differences. "It may be hard for them to 'fit in' with a peer group that's more achievement-oriented." These differences could predispose them to use pot.

Tons of alt causes to IQ – marijuana isn’t the key factorMaia Szalavitz, writer at Time, 1-15-2013, “New Research Questions Marijuana’s Impact in Lowering IQ,” http://healthland.time.com/2013/01/15/new-research-questions-marijuanas-impact-in-lowering-iq/

Marijuana may also lead to higher dropout and expulsion rates from school, which may be an indirect way that marijuana is connected to IQ. “As you consider groups with higher and higher exposure to cannabis, these groups will have higher and higher shares of participants from low SES backgrounds,” says Rogeberg, who also notes that other research has not found a connection between teen marijuana use and lowered IQ. “The issues raised by Rogeberg are those that confound all observational studies: no matter how carefully controlled a study appears to be, there are always other variables that may alter the conclusions once they are uncovered,” says Dr. Nora Volkow, director of the National Institute on Drug Abuse. “In fact, for something like IQ, it would be surprising for one variable to be 100% causal to a particular outcome.” Neither research group is insisting that is the case; clearly IQ is affected by myriad factors that scientists are only beginning to tally. But whether marijuana is directly affecting brain development — or whether factors like school dropout or expulsion are more influential — is not yet clear.

A2: IQ – Rebound

No permanent IQ damage – the brain reboundsJoseph Stromberg, writer at Smithsonian Magazine, 1-14-2013, “Long-Term Marijuana Use Could Have Zero Effect on IQ,” http://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/long-term-marijuana-use-could-have-zero-effect-on-iq-1431876/

For support, he also points to a 2002 Canadian study that also asked whether long-term marijuana use impacted IQ, but with data entirely from middle-class survey participants. That paper found that IQ only decreased for current cannabis users, and when even heavy users stopped smoking, their IQ rebounded. Since that study largely excluded socioeconomic factors and did not find a permanent trend, he feels that it supports his argument that such factors play a major role.

No permanent brain damage from marijuana – no causation, effects are reversibleLaura Sanders, writer at Science News, 5-30-2014, “Legalization trend forces review of marijuana’s dangers,” https://www.sciencenews.org/article/legalization-trend-forces-review-marijuana%E2%80%99s-dangers

Most of the negative effects of marijuana — poorer attention, working memory and mental nimbleness — were absent in adults who had not used the drug for a month, Thames and her colleagues found. However, a person’s ability to plan and make complicated decisions was still impaired a month out. The results offer just a “snapshot at the time we did the testing,” Thames says. They describe an association, not causation. “The question down the road is, what kind of implications does that have for everyday functioning?” Scientists have largely failed to turn up compelling evidence that adult pot smokers risk permanent brain problems, Earleywine says. “Being stoned all the time is a strange way to live your life,” he says, but data just aren’t there to argue that a cannabis-fueled lifestyle is permanently harmful to the adult body and brain.