Trinity DU 1AC 3.0

8/21/2019 Trinity DU 1AC 3.0

1/25

1AC Plan

The United State should legalize cannabis sativa.

8/21/2019 Trinity DU 1AC 3.0

2/25

1AC Drug Trafficking

Advantage 1 is Drug Trafficking

Prohibition failslegalization creates domestic demand which shores up the

black marketdevastates cartels because of the reliability, accessibility, and

profitability of marijuanaeven if we dont eliminate all cartel profits, view the

risk as linear

Beckley Foundation, 11scientific programme initiates, designs and conducts research into the effects of psychoactivesubstances on the brain, the foundation supports research into both science and policy of drugs., The Beckley Foundation policy

programme is dedicated to improving national and global drug policies, through research that increases understanding of the health,

social and fiscal implications of drug policy, Legalizing Marijuana: An Exit Strategy from the War on Drugs,

http://www.beckleyfoundation.org/2011/04/legalizing-marijuana-an-exit-strategy-from-the-war-on-drugs/,

There are a few unknowns when it comes to the marijuana industryits effects on

productivity and drug-related violence,for example. Experts need to examine these effects, and policymakers mustopen their ears to these experts. A government-sponsored marijuana commission is not a new idea; in fact, Nixon established one in

1972 when he formed the National Commission on Marihuana and Drug Abuse. When the commission opposed Nixon by supporting

decriminalization, he ignored their recommendations and instead intensified his efforts on the War on Drugs campaign. This

tradition of adhering to popular and personal beliefs instead of scientific facts is still common today. With the U.S. federal

debt sky-high and drug-related violence in Mexico mounting, legalization is more relevant

than everand the topic is ripe for debate. Here we explore the domestic costs and benefits that the legalization of marijuanawould incur, how it might affect the marijuana industry in the Americas (particularly in Mexico), and aims to debunk the multitude of

popular falsehoods that surround marijuana. Why Current Policies Are Not Working Despite assurances from theDrug

Enforcement Agency (DEA) that the current drug policy is making headway, there are clear signs that

prohibition has not succeeded in diminishing drug supply or demand. Lowering demand for illegal drugs

is the most effective way to lower illegal drug productionwhile vendors may not respond to the threat of legal

repercussions, they certainly respond to market forces. As the largest consumer of Mexicandrugs, it is the responsibility of the U.S. to address its own demand for marijuana. But

American demand and accessibility to marijuana are not decreasing. In fact, marijuana use is

currently on the rise and, although usage has oscillated in the past decades, the proportion of use among 12th graders is

only a few percentage points below what it was in 1974. Eighty-one percent of American 12th graders said marijuana was fairly

easy or very easy to acquire in 2010.2 In a 2009 survey, 16.7 million Americans over 12 years of age h ad used marijuana in the past

monththats 6.6 percent of the total population.3 While the U.S. may be unable to control its own demand

for marijuana, it could stop its contribution to drug cartel revenues by allowing a domestic

marijuana industry to thrive , shifting profits from cartels to U.S. growers .While figures on marijuana

smuggling into the U.S. fail to provide conclusive evidence of how much of the drug is entering the country, marijuana seizures have

been steady throughout the Americas in the past decade. However, this says nothing certain about actual production numbers.4

Domestically, the task of restricting U.S. production is becoming more difficult. Indoor crops that use efficient hydroponic systemsare becoming more popular in the U.S. but pose a challenge to law enforcement agencies for a number of reasons. According to the

United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC), indoor systems: *have+ the benefit of having lower chances of detection, h igh

yields with several harvests per year with high potency cannabis and elevated selling prices. The equipment, knowledge and seeds

for indoor growing have become very accessible *and+ The costs of building an indoor growing site can be quickly recovered.5

Cultivating high-quality marijuana is becoming easier, less risky, and more profitable even for the casual grower. The rise of indoor

crops will pose a new obstacle to drug enforcement agencies in stopping marijuana production in the U.S. The UNODC

outlines other negative unintended consequences that have resulted from the illegality of

drugs. The first is obvious; when a good is forbidden, a black market inevitably rises. Black

8/21/2019 Trinity DU 1AC 3.0

3/25

markets inherently lack safety regulations and often finance other criminal activities. A second

consequence is that treatment programs are often underfunded when the bulk of any drug policy budget is spent on law

enforcement. Two other consequences have been termed geographical and substance displacement. Both terms involve

the idea of the balloon effect: when an activity is suppressed in one area, it simply

reappears in another area. Geographical displacement can be illustrated by events in Colombia, the Caribbean, and

Mexico: as the U.S. cracked down on Colombian drug trafficking, smuggling routes were shifted to Mexico and the Caribbean. Drugtrafficking was not eliminated, but simply moved from one site to another. Substance displacement is an even more

disturbing repercussion: as availability of one drug is mitigated through enforcement,

consumers and suppliers flock to alternate drugsthat are more accessible.6 While marijuana is not a harmlesssubstance, most would agree that it is the least harmful of illicit drugs. Some drug users may be pushed toward more dangerous

substances, or hard drugs, because marijuana is too difficult to or dangerous to obtain. Conversely, raising the

accessibility of marijuana could pull users away from hard drugs . These ramifications of the current drug

control system need to be taken into account in the debate over legalization. A critical shortcoming of U.S. drug policy is that it

treats drug addiction as a crime instead of a health matter. Almost 60 percent of the overall economic cost of drug abuse is due to

expenditures spent on drug crimethe sale, manufacture, and possession of drugs.7 There seems to be a wide consensus that at

the very least, drug policy must shift its focus to treatment. Tarnishing someones record for drug use makes no sense; it en courages

criminal activity by obstructing job opportunities and it does nothing to address the factors that cause drug use. Additionally,

treatment is not readily accessible to those seeking help despite its efficacy in preventing future drug use. In 2009, 20.9 millionAmericans (8.3 percent of the total population over age 12) who needed treatment for drug or alcohol abuse did not receive it in a

specialty facilitya hospital, a rehab facility, or a mental health facility.8 This is an unacceptably high number. The U.S. overinvests

in its prohibition strategy while severely underfunding treatment options. Marijuana legalizations potential role in improving

treatment options for all drugs will be discussed later in this article; for now, suffice it to say that the status quo is not producing the

desired results and requires modification. Legalization and The Mexican Drug War The issue of legalization has been

brought to the forefront in recent years because of numerous calls by Latin American leaders

to discuss the matter as a viable policy option.Presidents Juan Manuel Santosof Colombia andFelipe

Caldernof Mexico, while not personally advocating legalization, have publicly called for serious discussion of

the concept. Former Mexican President Vicente Fox, who previously took a hard line against drugs, has altered his public stanceand now supports legalization of all drugs, especially marijuana. He argues that prohibition does not work, that drug production

ends up funding criminals, and that it is the responsibility of citizens to decide whether to use drugs or not.9 Former Presidents

Fernando Henrique Cardoso of Brazil, Ernesto Zedillo of Mexico, and Csar Gaviria of Colombia allsupported in a report by The Latin American Commission on Drugs and Democracy that the

U.S. decriminalize marijuana use(Colombia and Mexico have already done so).10 The U.S. has ignored

these requests to place drug legalization or decriminalization on the policy agenda. Drug trafficking is not a national problem;

it transcends country borders and needs to be approached from a hemispheric perspective. Therefore, the United States needs to

work with its southern neighbors to formulate a comprehensive drug policy. However, it is also telling that every Latin American

leader who has formally supported legalization or decriminalization has done so only after leaving office, indicating that such policies

are not politically safe stances. The difference between decriminalization and legalization is in their

degree of leniencytowards drugs; decriminalization permits drug use while legalization permits both drug use and

production. Those that favor decriminalizationmaintain that it would enable law enforcement agencies to

shift resources from prosecuting drug users to prosecuting drug suppliers . Decriminalization would

also free up resources for effective drug treatment programs. Those that favor legalization go one step further

than decriminalization: in Vicente Foxs words, [W]e have to take all the production chain out of the

hands of criminals and into the hands of producersso there are farmers that produce

marijuana and manufacturers that process it and distributors that distribute it, and shops that

sell it.11 Legalization would include the benefits of decriminalization , while also depriving

gangs and cartels of a lucrative product; if both the supply and demand sides are legitimate, a black market would

become obsolete. Legalizing marijuana in the United States, the largest buyer of Mexican drugs,

8/21/2019 Trinity DU 1AC 3.0

4/25

could potentially weaken drug cartels by limiting their sources of revenue. The UNODC hasacknowledged that this is a plausible way of reducing gang and cartel profits.12 Mexican and American Marijuana Markets

Eliminating the marijuana market share of Mexican cartels would hit them especially hard

because it serves as a steady, reliable source of income and carries relatively little risk for

them to produce.The percentage of total cartel drug revenues from marijuana is greatly

debatedMexican and American official figures range from 50-65 percent, but a study by the RANDCorporation suggests closer to 15-26 percent.13 Even the most conservative of these estimatesroughly a fifth of revenuewould

strike a blow to cartel profits if eliminated. Marijuana is particularly valuable to cartels because they

control the entire production line ; they both grow and distribute it themselves, making it more reliable and less risky.

Conversely, cocaine is imported to Mexicomostly from South America, heightening the risk of smuggling it. Moretroubling is that cartels are now even growing marijuana on U.S. public lands, mostly throughout national parks and forests, in order

to avoid the task of smuggling drugs across the U.S.-Mexican border.14 If Mexico were to reach the point of

legalizing marijuana, the U.S. could continue to buy the drug legally from south of the border,

like many other consumer goods. But even if Mexico did not implement its own legalization, recent data

indicates that a domestic U.S. industry could fill the role of the supplier and eliminate the

need for Mexican marijuana. The drug is increasingly grown domestically15 and U.S. growers are already posing a threatto Mexican market share. Exact numbers are impossible to assess, but figures of American domestic marijuana production range

from 30-60 percent of the total consumed in the U.S.16 Additionally, a report by the RAND Corporation found that legalizing

marijuana in California alone (and a subsequent rise in state-wide marijuana production) could lower Mexican cartel marijuana

revenues by 65-85 percent. This could occur if Californian marijuana were smuggled to the rest of the U.S. where the drug would still

be illegal. The marijuanas projected high quality and low price would make it an extremely competitive product.17 It seems

reasonable to assume that if the drug were legalizedin all fifty states, the domestic market could

easily overwhelm the Mexican market share. In terms of tangible effects on Mexican drug violence, the RAND

Corporation and UNODC agree that removing U.S. demand for illegal marijuana would increase violence in the short run because

Mexican cartels would be fighting for dominance in a shrinking market.18 But in the long run, once U.S. demand is met

by domestic supply, cartels would be financially debilitated and, most likely, some of the violence quelled.

The U.S. population is by far the largest drug market for Mexico, making our action necessaryfor any transnational legalization to be effective. While cocaine, methamphetamines, and

heroin are still funding cartels, drug violence will not be completely eliminated; but any move

to starve their resources is a step forward in weakening them and, ultimately, saving lives.

Legalization short circuits illegal markets and frees up resources to prevent

violence

Carlsen 10(Nov 2; Laura- Director of the Mexico City-based Americas Program of the Center for International Policy and acolumnist for Foreign Policy In Focus)How Legalizing Marijuana Would Weaken Mexican Drug Cartels (xo1)

In the months leading up to today's vote on California's Proposition 19 to legalize recreational use of marijuana, opponents oflegalization 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

8/21/2019 Trinity DU 1AC 3.0

5/25

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 drugrehabilitation 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 marijuanasales

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, tothe 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. The government of Mexican president Felipe Calderon, along with Colombian president JuanManuel Santos, has redoubled efforts in U.S. media and international forums to oppose the California legalization measure. This is

not surprising. These two nations are deeply entrenched in a military-model drug war that has channeled a combined total of nearly

$9 billion dollars in U.S. government funds to their governments. As in any war, powerful political and economic interests are at

stake in perpetuating the drug war. It's interesting to see what they say though. Neither President Santos nor

Calderon argue that legalization will strengthen drug cartels.Instead, both complain that

legalization will erode their drug war by heightening the contradiction between violent

crackdownson growers and traffickers in their countries and the lax attitude toward consumptionof marijuanain the United States. At a recent meeting of the Tuxtla Dialogue in Cartagena, Colombia's President Juan Manuel Santos said, "It's

confusing for our people to see that, while we lose lives and invest resources in the fight against drug trafficking, in consuming

countries initiatives like California's referendum are being promoted." It'sabout time that contradiction was

exposed. But the way to resolve it is not to increase fumigation operations that destroy

peasant livelihoods and the environment and seizures of marijuana shipments that lead to the

deaths of innocent civilians, while further criminalizing consumption in the U.S.The way to

resolve it is to halt ineffective measures to stop marijuana use, and focus scarce resources on

attacking the financial and violent aspects of transnational organized crime, and providing

employment and services for vulnerable sectors. Legalization of marijuana, in addition to

reducing the economic base of the cartels, frees up resources to do just that. In a report from the

Latin American Commission on Drugs and Democracy former presidents of Mexico, Colombia, Brazil called for discussion on

legalizing marijuana, noting, "Prohibitionistpoliciesbased onthe eradicationof production andon the

disruptionof drug flowsas well as on the criminalizationof consumption have not yieldedthe expected

results. We are farther than ever from the announced goal of eradicating drugs." They add that corruption and

violence have increased throughout the region as result of the strategy.The war on drugs launched byPresident Felipe Calderon has led to more than 30,000 drug-related deaths since late 2006 and the skyrocketing of human rights

violations committed by security forces. Last week an international Forum against militarization and violence in Ciudad Juarez, the

epicenter of the drug war, was disrupted when police shot a peace protester. As Calderon insists that there is "no alternative" to

the militarized drug war, a recent survey shows that three-fourths of Mexicans polled believe the drug war is failing. Particularly in

border towns, grassroots organizations have formed to protest the violence and high social costs. Meanwhile, the government

haslargely bypassed non-violent ways to reduce the power of cartels, such as legalization, anti-money laundering efforts and social programs to strengthen affected communities in favor of the military/police model supported

by the U.S. government. Organized crime is a business. Reducing demand through providing legal

sources hurts that business. Hardline rhetoric and wars of statistics cannot change that

fundamental equation.

8/21/2019 Trinity DU 1AC 3.0

6/25

Left unchecked DTO violence spills over, collapses Mexico, and draws in the US

Metz 2/19/14 (Steven Metz is a defense analyst and the author of "Iraq and the Evolution of American Strategy) StrategicHorizons: All Options Bad If Mexicos Drug Violence Expands to U.S. http://www.worldpoliticsreview.com/articles/13576/strategic-

horizons-all-options-bad-if-mexico-s-drug-violence-expands-to-u-s (xo1)

Over the past few decades, violence in Mexico has reached horrific levels, claiming the lives of 70,000 as criminalorganizations fight each other for control of the drug trade and wage war on the Mexican police, military, government officials and

anyone else unlucky enough to get caught in the crossfire. The chaos has spread southward, engulfing

Guatemala, Honduras and Belize. Americans must face the possibility that the conflict may

also expand northward, with intergang warfare, assassinations of government officials and

outright terrorism in the U nited S tates. If so, this willforce Americans to undertake a fundamental reassessment

of the threat, possiblyredefining it as a security issue demanding the use of U.S. military power. One way

that large-scale drug violence might move to the U nited S tates is if the cartels miscalculate and

think they can intimidate the U.S. government or strike at American targets safely from a

Mexican sanctuary. The most likely candidate would be thegroup known as the Zetas. They were createdwhen elite government anti-drug commandos switched sides in the drug war, first serving as mercenaries for the Gulf Cartel and

then becoming a powerful cartel in their own right. The Zetas used to recruit mostly ex-military and ex-law enforcement members in

large part to maintain discipline and control. But the pool of soldiers and policemen willing to join the narcotraffickers was

inadequate to fuel the groups ambition. Now the Zetas are tapping a very different, much larger, but less disciplined pool of recruits

in U.S. prisons and street gangs. This is an ominous turn of events. Since intimidation through extreme violence

is a trademark of the Zetas, its spread to the U nited S tates raises the possibility of large-scale

violence on American soil. As George Grayson of the College of William and Mary put it, The Zetas are determined to gainthe reputation of being the most sadistic, cruel and beastly organization that ever existed. And without concern for extradition,

which helped break the back of the Colombian drug cartels, the Zetas show little fear of the United States government, already

having ordered direct violence against American law enforcement. Like the Zetas, mostof the other Mexican cartels are

expanding their operations inside the U nited S tates. Only a handful of U.S. states are free of them today. So far

the cartels dont appear directly responsible for large numbers of killings in the United States, but as expansionandreliance

on undisciplined recruitslooking to make a name for themselves through ferocity continue, the chances ofmiscalculation or violent freelancing by a cartel affiliate mount. This could potentially move

beyond intergang warfare to the killing of U.S. officials or outright terrorismlike the car bombs thatdrug cartels used in Mexico and Colombia. In an assessment for the U.S. Army War College Strategic Studies Institute, Robert Bunker

and John Sullivan considered narcotrafficker car bombs inside the United States to be unlikely but not impossible. A second

waythat Mexicos violence could spread north is via the partnership between the narcotraffickers

and ideologicallymotivatedterrorist groups.The Zetas already have a substantial connection to Hezbollah, based on

collaborative narcotrafficking and arms smuggling. Hezbollah has relied on terrorism since its foundingand has

few qualms about conducting attacks far from its home turf in southern Lebanon. Since Hezbollah is a close ally or

proxy of Iran, it mightsome day attempt to strike the U nited S tates in retribution for American action against

Tehran. If so, it wouldlikely attempt to exploit its connection with the Zetas, pulling the narcotraffickers into atransnational proxy war. The foundation for this scenario is already in place: Security analysts like Douglas Farahhave warned of a tier-one security threat for the United States from an improbable alliance between narcotraffickers and anti -

American states like Iran and the Bolivarian regime in Venezuela. The longer this relationship continues and

the more it expands, the greater the chances of dangerous miscalculation. No matter how

violence from the Mexican cartels came to the United States, the key issue would be Washingtons response. If

the Zetas, a nother Mexican cartelor someone acting in their stead launched a campaign of assassinations or

8/21/2019 Trinity DU 1AC 3.0

7/25

bombings in the U nited S tates or helpedHezbollah or someother transnational terrorist organizationwith

a mass casualty attack, and the Mexican government proved unwilling or unable to respond in a way that Washington considered

adequate, the U nited S tates would have to consider military action. While the United States has deep cultural

and economic ties to Mexico and works closely with Mexican law enforcement on the narcotrafficking problem, the security

relationship between the two has always been difficultunderstandably so given the long history of U.S. military intervention in

Mexico. Mexico would be unlikely to allow the U.S.military or other government agencies free rein to strike atnarcotrafficking cartels in its territory, even if those organizations were tied to assassinations, bombings or terrorism

in the United States. But any U.S. president would face immense political pressure to strike at

Americas enemiesif the Mexican government could not or would not do so itself. Failing to actfirmly and decisively

would weaken the president and encourage the Mexican cartels to believe that they could

attack U.S. targets with impunity.After all, the primary lesson from Sept. 11 was that playing only defense and

allowing groups that attack the United States undisturbed foreign sanctuary does not work. But using the U.S. military

against the cartels on Mexican soil couldweaken the Mexican government or even cause its collapse, end

further security cooperation between Mexico and the U nited S tates and damageone of the most

important and intimate bilateral economic relationships in the world. Quite simply, every available

strategic option would be disastrous. Hopefully, cooperation between Mexican and U.S. security and intelligence

services will be able to forestall such a crisis. No one wants to see U.S. drones over Mexico. But so long as thecore dynamic of

narcotraffickingmassive demand for drugs in the U nited S tates combined with their prohibition

persists, theutter ruthlessness, lack of restraint andunlimited ambitionofthe narcotraffickers raises the

possibility of violent miscalculationand the political and economic calamity that would follow.

Escalates to full scale war- strategy re-assessment to protect the home front

Shingal 11(ANKUR- BA PS from UCLA, JD @ UChicagoAt the Tipping Point: Why the United States Must Assist Mexico inthe Mexican Drug War http://www.mortarboardatucla.org/uploads/4/7/8/9/4789362/winter_journal.pdf#page=26) (xo1)

The third reason why the United States must enhance its aid to Mexico is the possibility of a failed Mexican state. The drugwarin Mexico has become a life or death struggle for the Mexican government. Despite substantial US

aid, the Mexican authorities remain outgunnedand outmanned. The drug cartels, although not acting as an

alternative government per say, enjoy near autonomy throughout a number of cities across the country, including

border cities such as Tijuana and Ciudad Jurez. In effect, the Mexican governmenthas completely committed itself to

fighting against the drug cartels, but is at best failing to make progress and at worst losing the war. Whatis even more disheartening is the consideration that the drug cartels are the ones with time on their side. While the Mexican

government has neither the resources nor the man power to continue its major offensive without more substantial assistance

from the United States, the drug cartels remain as powerful as ever. It is distinctly possible to foresee a day when

the Mexican government,in spite of its efforts, is unable to controlthe drug cartels, and Mexico

essentially becomes a failed state. While there are a number of scholars and politicians, including Mexican President

Caldern, who ardently argue that the Mexican state will not fail, it is significant to note that the US government is already preparing itself for that possibility.In fact, according to a study by the United States Joint Forces

Command, which looks to uncover future developments to ensure that the US military will not be caught off guard, Mexico is

considered a large and important [state that] bear[s] consideration for a rapid and sudden

collapse. 177 The study also states that the *Mexican+ government, its politicians, police and judicial infrastructure are allunder sustained assault and pressure bydrug cartels. That internal conflict *is having] a major impact on the stability of the

Mexican state. 178 The US government has already begun to take specific actions to ensure that it is ready for that increasingly

likely possibility of a failed state. One example is that the Texas state government is spending millions of tax dollars to construct

refugee camps to prepare for the possibility that thousands flee Mexico if the state fails. Ted Galen Carpenter, vice president for

8/21/2019 Trinity DU 1AC 3.0

8/25

the defense and foreign policy center at the Cato Institute, argues that while a complete collapse may be a relative long shotits

not out of the question....Its obviously prudent to consider that possibility and not get blindsided should it happen. 179 While it

is true that the United States preparing itself does not necessarily mean that the Mexican collapse is imminent, such preparation is

a product of the US governments fear that such an event has a very real potential to actually occur. If the Mexican

government were to fail, the U nited S tates would be forced to take direct military action

against the drug cartels.As the Joint Forces Command report notes, any descent by Mexico into chaos

would demand an American response based on the serious implications for homeland security

alone. 180 That response could prove to be nothing less than a full scale war because, unlike in the

current situation, the U nited S tates would not have the luxury of having the Mexico state to fight

on its behalf. Essentially, if the U nited S tates does not provide more meaningful aid now, then it may be forced to

fight another war that would affect its own citizenry directly. It is irrefutable that the amount of aid that is necessary is substantially more than the four hundred million dollars worth that the United States has already promised , through

the Mrida Initiative. But all of those extra costs, all of which are economic, pale in comparison to the amount

of money and manpower[troops]that the U nited S tates would have to expend to win a war against the

drug cartels directly. Therefore, it would be prudent for the US to provide more aid now rather than waiting and possibly

being forced into a position where it has no choice but to fight a war on its home front.

If military operation shift alone doesnt collapse US heg, instability on the

border hamstrings effective US power projection

Kaplan 12chief geopolitical analyst at Stratfor (Robert D., With the Focus on Syria, Mexico Burns, Stratfor, 3-28-2012,http://www.stratfor.com/weekly/focus-syria-mexico-burns)

While the foreign policy elite in Washington focuses on the 8,000 deaths in a conflict in Syria -- half a world away from the United

States -- more than 47,000 people have died in drug-related violence since 2006 in Mexico. A deeply troubled state as well as a

demographic and economic giant on the United States' southern border, Mexico will affect America's destiny in

coming decades more than any state or combination of states in the Middle East.Indeed,

Mexico may constitute the world's seventh-largest economy in the near future.Certainly, while the Mexicanviolence is largely criminal, Syria is a more clear-cut moral issue, enhanced by its own strategic consequences. A calcified authoritarian regime in Damascus is stamping out dissent with guns and artillery barrages.

Moreover, regime change in Syria, which the rebels demand, could deliver a pivotal blow to Iranian influence in the Middle East, an event that would be the best news to U.S. interests in the region in years or

even decades. Nevertheless, the Syrian rebels are divided and hold no territory, and the toppling of pro-Iranian dictator Bashar al Assad might conceivably bring to power an austere Sunni regime equally averse to

U.S. interests -- if not lead to sectarian chaos. In other words, all military intervention scenarios in Syria are fraught with extreme risk. Precisely for that reason, that the U.S. foreign policy elite has continued for

months to feverishly debate Syria, and in many cases advocate armed intervention, while utterly ignoring the vaster panorama of violence next door in Mexico, speaks volumes about Washington's own obsessions

and interests, which are not always aligned with the country's geopolitical interests. Syria matters and matters momentously to U.S. interests, but Mexico ultimately matters

more, so one would think that there would be at least some degree of parity in the amount

written on these subjects.I am not demanding a switch in news coverage from one country to the other, just a bit morebalance. Of course, it is easy for pundits to have a fervently interventionist view on Syria precisely because it is so far away, whereas

miscalculation in Mexico on America's part would carry far greater consequences . For example,

what ifthe Mexican drug cartels took revenge on San Diego?Thus, one might even argue that the

verynoise in the media about Syria, coupled with the relative silence about Mexico, is proof that it is the latter

issue that actually is too sensitive for loose talk. It may also be that cartel-wracked Mexico -- at some rude subconscious level -- connotes for East Coastelites a south of the border, 7-Eleven store culture, reminiscent of the crime movie "Traffic," that holds no allure to people focused on ancient civilizations across the ocean. The concerns of Europe and the MiddleEast certainly seem closer to New York and Washington than does the southwestern United States. Indeed, Latin American bureaus and studies departments simply lack the cachet of Middle East and Asian ones in

government and universities. Yet, the fate of Mexico is the hinge on which the United States'cultural and demographic

future rests. U.S. foreign policy emanates from the domestic condition of its society, and

nothing will affect its society more than the dramatic movement of Latin history northward. By2050, as much as a third of the American population could be Hispanic. Mexico and Central America constitute a growing demographic and economic powerhouse with which the United States has an inextricable

relationship. In recent years Mexico's economic growth has outpaced that of its northern neighbor. Mexico's population of 111 million plus Central America's of more than 40 million equates to half the population

of the United States. Because of the North American Free Trade Agreement, 85 percent of Mexico's exports go to the United States, even as half of Central America's trade is with the United States. While the

median age of Americans is nearly 37, demonstrating the aging tendency of the U.S. population, the median age in Mexico is 25, and in Central America it is much lower (20 in Guatemala and Honduras, for

example). In part because of young workers moving northward, the destiny of the United States could be north-south, rather than the east-west, sea-to-shining-sea of continental and patriotic myth. (This will be

8/21/2019 Trinity DU 1AC 3.0

9/25

amplified by the scheduled 2014 widening of the Panama Canal, which will open the Greater Caribbean Basin to megaships from East Asia, leading to the further development of Gulf of Mexico port cities in the

United States, from Texas to Florida.) Since 1940, Mexico's population has increased more than five-fold. Between 1970 and 1995 it nearly doubled. Between 1985 and 2000 it rose by more than a third. Mexico's

population is now more than a third that of the United States and growing at a faster rate. And it is northern Mexico that is crucial. That most of the drug-related homicides in this current wave of violence that so

much dwarfs Syria's have occurred in only six of Mexico's 32 states, mostly in the north, is a key indicator of how northern Mexico is being distinguished from the rest of the country (though the violence in the city

of Veracruz and the regions of Michoacan and Guerrero is also notable). If the military-led offensive to crush the drug cartelslaunched by

conservative President Felipe Calderon falters, as it seems to be doing, and Mexico City goes back to

cutting deals with the cartels, then the capital may in a functional sense lose even further

control of the north, with concrete implications for the southwestern United States. Onemight argue that with massive border controls, a functional and vibrantly nationalist United

States can coexist with a dysfunctional and somewhat chaotic northern Mexico. But that is

mainly true in the short run. Looking deeper into the 21st century, as Arnold Toynbee notes in A Study of History (1946),

a border between a highly developed society and a less highly developed one will not attain

an equilibrium but will advance in the [less developed] society's favor. Thus, helping to stabilize

Mexico-- as limited as the United States' options may be, given the complexity and sensitivity of the relationship -- is a more

urgent national interest than stabilizing societies in the Greater Middle East. If Mexico ever

does reach coherent First World status, then it will become less of a threat, and the healthy

melding of the two societies will quicken to the benefit of both. Today, helping to thwart drug cartels in rugged and remote terrain inthe vicinity of the Mexican frontier and reaching southward from Ciudad Juarez (across the border from El Paso, Texas) means a limited role for the U.S. military and other agencies -- working, of course, in full

cooperation with the Mexican authorities. (Predator and Global Hawk drones fly deep over Mexico searching for drug production facilities.) But the legal framework for cooperation with Mexico remains

problematic in some cases because of strict interpretation of 19th century posse comitatus laws on the U.S. side. While the United States has spent hundreds of billions of dollars to affect historical outcomes in

Eurasia, its leaders and foreign policy mandarins are somewhat passive about what is happening to a country with which the United States shares a long land border, that verges on partial chaos in some of its

northern sections, and whose population is close to double that of Iraq and Afghanistan combined. Mexico,in addition to the obvious challenge of China as a rising

great power, will help write the American story in the 21st century. Mexico will partly determine

what kind of society America will become, and what exactly will be its demographic and geographic character,especially in the Southwest. The U.S. relationship with China will matter more than any other individual bilateral relationship in

terms of determining the United States' place in the world, especially in the economically crucial Pacific. If policymakers in

Washington calculate U.S. interests properly regarding those two critical countries, then the

United States will have power to spare so that its elites can continue to focus on serious moral

questions in places that matter less.

Disrupts the international order- ensures great power wars, allied prolif and

global coop

Brooks et al. 13(STEPHEN G. BROOKS is Associate Professor of Government at Dartmouth College. G. JOHN IKENBERRYis Albert G. Milbank Professor of Politics and International Affairs at Princeton University and Global Eminence Scholar at Kyung

Hee University in Seoul. WILLIAM C. WOHLFORTH is Daniel Webster Professor of Government at Dartmouth College) Lean

Forward In Defense of American Engagement http://www.saintjoehigh.com/ourpages/auto/2013/1/7/40360647/13-

0102%20Lean%20Forward.pdf (xo1)

KEEPING THE PEACE Of course, even if it is true that the costs of deep engagement fall far below what advocates of retrenchment

claim, they would not be worth bearing unless they yielded greater benefits. In fact, they do. The most obvious benefit of the

current strategyis that it reduces the risk of a dangerous conflict. The United States' security

commitments deter states with aspirations to regional hegemonyfrom contemplating

expansion and dissuade U.S. partners from trying to solve security problems on their own inways that would end up threatening other states. Skeptics discount this benefit by arguing that U.S. securityguarantees aren't necessary to prevent dangerous rivalries from erupting. They maintain that the high costs of territorial conquest

and the many tools countries can use to signal their benign intentions are enough to prevent conflict. In other words, major powers

could peacefully manage regional multipolaritywithout the American pacifier. But that outlook is too sanguine. If

Washington got out of East Asia, Japan and South Korea would likely expand their military

capabilities and go nuclear, which could provoke a destabilizing reaction from China. It's worthnoting that during the Cold War, both South Korea and Taiwan tried to obtain nuclear weapons; the only thing that stopped them

8/21/2019 Trinity DU 1AC 3.0

10/25

was the United States, which used its security commitments to restrain their nuclear temptations. Similarly, were the U nited

S tates to leave the Middle East, the countries currently backed by Washington -- notably, Israel, Egypt, and

Saudi Arabia-- might act in ways that would intensify the region's security dilemmas. There

would even be reason to worry about Europe.Although it's hard to imagine the return of great-power military

competition in a post-American Europe, it's not difficult to foresee governments there refusing to pay

the budgetary costs of higher military outlays and the political costs of increasing EU defense

cooperation. The result might be a continent incapable of securing itself from threats on its

periphery, unable to join foreign interventions on which U.S. leaders might want European

help, and vulnerable to the influence of outside rising powers.Given how easily a U.S.

withdrawal from key regions could lead to dangerous competition, advocates of retrenchment tend toput forth another argument: that such rivalries wouldn't actually hurt the United States. To be sure, few doubt that the United

States could survive the return of conflict among powers in Asia or the Middle East -- but at what cost? Were states in one

or both of these regions to start competing against one another, they would likely boost

their military budgets, arm client states, and perhaps even start regional proxy wars, all of

which should concern the U nited S tates, in part because its lead in military capabilities would

narrow. Greater regional insecurity could also produce cascades of nuclear proliferation as powers

such as Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Japan, South Korea, and Taiwan built nuclear forces of their own. Those countries' regional

competitors might then also seek nuclear arsenals. Although nuclear deterrence can promote stability

between two states with the kinds of nuclear forces that the Soviet Union and the United States possessed, things get

shakier when there are multiple nuclear rivals with less robust arsenals. As the number of

nuclear powers increases, the probability of illicit transfers, irrational decisions, accidents,

and unforeseen crises goes up. The case for abandoning the United States' global role misses the underlying security

logic of the current approach. By reassuring allies and actively managing regional relations,

Washingtondampens competitionin the world's key areas, thereby preventing the emergence of a

hothouse in which countries would grow new military capabilities. For proof that this strategy isworking, one need look no further than the defense budgets of the current great powers: on average, since 1991 they have kept

their military expenditures as a percentage of GDP to historic lows, and they have not attempted to match the United States' top-end military capabilities. Moreover, all of the world's most modern militaries are U.S. allies, and the United States' military lead

over its potential rivals is by many measures growing. On top of all this, the current grand strategy acts as a hedge against the

emergence regional hegemons. Some supporters of retrenchment argue that the U.S. military should keep its forces over the

horizon and pass the buck to local powers to do the dangerous work of counterbalancing rising regional powers. Washington, they

contend, should deploy forces abroad only when a truly credible contender for regional hegemony arises, as in the cases of

Germany and Japan during World War II and the Soviet Union during the Cold War. Yet there is already a potential

contender for regional hegemony -- China -- and to balance it, the U nited S tates will need to

maintain its key alliances in Asia and the military capacity to intervene there.The implication isthat the United States should get out of Afghanistan and Iraq, reduce its military presence in Europe, and pivot to Asia. Yet that is

exactly what the Obama administration is doing. MILITARY DOMINANCE, ECONOMIC PREEMINENCE Preoccupied with security

issues, criticsof the current grand strategy miss one of its most important benefits: sustaining an open

global economy and a favorable place for the U nited S tates within it. To be sure, the sheer size of its outputwould guarantee the United States a major role in the global economy whatever grand strategy it adopted. Yet the country's

military dominance undergirds its economic leadership. In addition to protecting the world

economy from instability, its military commitments and naval superiority help secure the sea-

lanes and other shipping corridors that allow trade to flow freely and cheaply. Were the

U nited S tates to pull backfrom the world, the task of securing the global commons would get much

harder. Washington would have less leverage with which it could convince countries to

8/21/2019 Trinity DU 1AC 3.0

11/25

cooperate on economic matters and less access to the military bases throughout the world

needed to keep the seas open.A global role also lets the United States structure the world economy in ways thatserve its particular economic interests. During the Cold War, Washington used its overseas security commitments to get allies to

embrace the economic policies it preferred -- convincing West Germany in the 1960s, for example, to take costly steps to support

the U.S. dollar as a reserve currency. U.S. defense agreements work the same way today. For example, when negotiating the 2011

free-trade agreement with South Korea, U.S. officials took advantage of Seoul's desire to use the agreement as a means of

tightening its security relations with Washington. As one diplomat explained to us privately, "We asked for changes in labor and

environment clauses, in auto clauses, and the Koreans took it all." Why? Because they feared a failed agreement would be "a

setback to the political and security relationship." More broadly, the United States wields its security leverage

to shape the overall structure of the global economy. Much of what the United States wants from theeconomic order is more of the same: for instance, it likes the current structure of the World Trade Organization and the

International Monetary Fund and prefers that free trade continue. Washington wins when U.S. allies favor this status quo, and one

reason they are inclined to support the existing system is because they value their military alliances. Japan, to name one example,

has shown interest in the Trans-Pacific Partnership, the Obama administration's most important free-trade initiative in the region,

less because its economic interests compel it to do so than because Prime Minister Yoshihiko Noda believes that his support will

strengthen Japan's security ties with the United States. The United States' geopolitical dominance also helps

keep the U.S. dollar in place as the world's reserve currency, which confers enormous

benefits on the country, such as a greater ability to borrow money. This is perhaps clearest with Europe:the EU's dependence on the United States for its security precludes the EU from having the kind of political leverage to support the

euro that the United States has with the dollar. As with other aspects of the global economy, the UnitedStates does not provide its leadership for free: it extracts disproportionate gains. Shirking

that responsibility would place those benefits at risk.CREATING COOPERATION What goes for the

global economy goes for other forms of international cooperation. Here, too, American leadership

benefits many countries but disproportionately helps the United States. In order to counter transnational threats,

such as terrorism, piracy, organized crime, climate change, and pandemics, states have to

work together and take collective action.But cooperation does not come about effortlessly,

especially when national interests diverge. The U nited S tates' military efforts to promote stability and its

broader leadership make it easier for Washington to launch joint initiatives and shape them

in ways that reflect U.S. interests. After all, cooperation is hard to come by in regions where chaos reigns, and it

flourishes where leaders can anticipate

lasting stability.

U.S. alliances are about security first, but they also provide the politicalframework and channels of communication for cooperation on nonmilitary issues. NATO, for example, has spawned new

institutions, such as the Atlantic Council, a think tank, that make it easier for Americans and Europeans to talk to one another and

do business. Likewise, consultations with allies in East Asia spill over into other policy issues; for example, when American

diplomats travel to Seoul to manage the military alliance, they also end up discussing the Trans Pacific Partnership.

Thanks to conduits such as this, the United States can use bargaining chips in one issue area

to make progress in others. The benefits of these communication channels are especially

pronounced when it comes to fighting the kinds of threats that require new forms of

cooperation, such as terrorism and pandemics. With its alliance system in place, the United

States is in a stronger position than it would otherwise be to advance cooperation and share

burdens. For example, the intelligence-sharing network within NATO, which was originally designed to gather information onthe Soviet Union, has been adapted to deal with terrorism. Similarly, after a tsunami in the Indian Ocean devastated surrounding

countries in 2004, Washington had a much easier time orchestrating a fast humanitarian response with Australia, India, and Japan,since their militaries were already comfortable working with one another. The operation did wonders for the United States' image

in the region. The United States' global role also has the more direct effect of facilitating the bargains among governments that get

cooperation going in the first place. As the scholar Joseph Nye has written, "The American military role in deterring threats to allies,

or of assuring access to a crucial resource such as oil in the Persian Gulf, means that the provision of protective force can be used in

bargaining situations. Sometimes the linkage may be direct; more often it is a factor not mentioned openly but present in the back

of statesmen's minds." THE DEVIL WE KNOW Should America come home? For many prominent scholars of international relations,

the answer is yes -- a view that seems even wiser in the wake of the disaster in Iraq and the Great Recession. Yet their arguments

simply don't hold up. There is little evidence that the U nited S tates would savemuch moneyswitching to a

8/21/2019 Trinity DU 1AC 3.0

12/25

smaller global posture. Nor is the current strategy self-defeating: it has not provoked the formation

of counterbalancing coalitions or caused the country to spend itself into economic decline.

Nor will it condemn the United States to foolhardy wars in the future . What the strategy does do ishelp prevent the outbreak of conflict in the world's most important regions, keep the global economy humming, and make

international cooperation easier. Charting a different course would threaten all these benefits. This is not to say that the United

States' current foreign policy can't be adapted to new circumstances and challenges. Washington does not need to retain every

commitment at all costs, and there is nothing wrong with rejiggering its strategy in response to new opportunities or setbacks. Thatis what the Nixon administration did by winding down the Vietnam War and increasing the United States' reliance on regional

partners to contain Soviet power, and it is what the Obama administration has been doing after the Iraq war by pivoting to Asia.

These episodes of rebalancing belie the argument that a powerful and internationally engaged America cannot tailor its policies to a

changing world. A grand strategy of actively managing global security and promoting the liberal

economic order has served the U nited S tates exceptionally well for the past six decades, and there is no

reason to give it up now .The country's globe-spanning posture is the devil we know, and a

world with a disengaged America is the devil we don't know. Were American leaders to

choose retrenchment, they would in essence be running a massive experiment to test how the world would work without

an engaged and liberal leading power. The results could well be disastrous.

No offense- Collapse causes lash-out

Goldstein 7(Avery, Professor of Global Politics and International Relations @ University of Pennsylvania, Power tran sitions,institutions, and China's rise in East Asia: Theoretical expectations and evidence, Journal of Strategic Studies, Volume 30, Issue 4 &

5 August)

Two closely related, though distinct, theoretical arguments focus explicitly on the consequences for international politics of a shift in

power between a dominant state and a rising power. In War and Change in World Politics, Robert Gilpin suggested that peace

prevails when a dominant states capabilities enable it to governan international order that it has

shaped. Over time, however, aseconomic and technological diffusion proceeds during eras of peace and development, other

states are empowered. Moreover, the burdens of international governance drain and distract the reigning hegemon, and

challengerseventually emergewho seek to rewrite the rules of governance. As the power advantage of the erstwhile

hegemon ebbs, it may become desperate enough to resort to the ultima ratio of international politics, force, toforestall the increasingly urgent demands of a rising challenger. Or as the power of the challenger rises, it

may be tempted to press its case with threats to use force. It is therise and fall ofthe great powersthat createsthe

circumstances under which major wars, what Gilpin labels hegemonic wars, break out.13 Gilpins argument logicallyencourages pessimism about the implications of a rising China. It leads to the expectation that international trade, investment, and

technology transfer will result in a steady diffusion of American economic power, benefiting the rapidly developing states of the

world, including China. As the US simultaneously scurries to put out the many brushfires that threaten its far-flung global interests

(i.e., the classic problem of overextension), it will be unable to devote sufficient resources to maintain or restore its former

advantage over emerging competitors like China. While the erosion of the once clear American advantage

plays itself out, the US will find it ever more difficult to preservethe orderin Asia that it created duringits era of preponderance. The expectation is an increase in the likelihood for the use of forceeither by a Chinese challenger able to

field a stronger military in support of its demands for greater influence over international arrangements in Asia, or by a besieged

American hegemon desperate to head off further decline. Among the trends that alarm those who would look at Asia through the

lens of Gilpins theory are Chinas expanding share ofworld trade and wealth(much of it resulting from the gains made

possible by the international economic order a dominant US established); its acquisition of technology in key sectors

that haveboth civilian and military applications(e.g., information, communications, and electronics linked with the

revolution in military affairs); andan expanding military burden for the US(as it copes with the challenges of itsglobal war on terrorism and especially its struggle in Iraq) that limits the resources it can devote to preserving its interests in East

Asia.14 Although similar to Gilpins work insofar as it emphasizes the importance of shifts in the capabilities of a dominantstate and

a rising challenger, the power-transition theory A. F. K. Organski and Jacek Kugler present in The War Ledger focuses more closely on

the allegedly dangerous phenomenon of crossoverthe point at which a dissatisfied challenger is about to overtake the established

8/21/2019 Trinity DU 1AC 3.0

13/25

leading state.15 In such cases, when the power gap narrows, the dominant state becomes increasingly

desperate to forestall, and the challenger becomes increasingly determined to realize the

transition to a new international order whose contours it will define. Though suggesting why a risingChina may ultimately present grave dangers for international peace when its capabilities make it a peer competitor of America,

Organski and Kuglers power-transition theory is less clear about the dangers while a potential challenger still lags far behind and

faces a difficult struggle to catch up. This clarification is important in thinking about the theorys relevance to interpreting Chinas

rise because a broad consensus prevailsamong analysts that Chinese military capabilities are at aminimum two decades from putting it in a league with the USin Asia.16 Their theory, then, points

with alarm to trends in Chinas growing wealth and power relative to the United States, but especiallylooks ahead to what it sees as the period of maximum dangerthat time when a dissatisfied China could be in a position to overtake

the US on dimensions believed crucial for assessing power. Reports beginning in the mid-1990s that offered extrapolations

suggesting Chinas growth would give it the worlds largest gross domestic product (GDP aggregate, not per capita) sometime i n the

first few decades of the twentieth century fed these sorts of concerns about a potentially dangerous challenge to American

leadership in Asia.17 The huge gap between Chinese and American military capabilities (especially in

terms of technological sophistication) hasso far discouraged prediction of comparably disquieting trends

on this dimension, but inklings of similar concerns may be reflected in occasionally alarmist

reports about purchases ofadvanced Russian air and naval equipment, as well as concern that

Chinese espionage may have undermined the American advantagein nuclear and missile technology, and

speculation about the potential military purposes of Chinas manned space program.18 Moreover, because a dominant

state may react to the prospect of a crossover and believe that it is wiser to embrace the logic

of preventive war and act early to delay a transition while the task is more manageable, Organskiand Kuglers powertransition theory also provides grounds for concern about the period prior to the possible crossover.19

8/21/2019 Trinity DU 1AC 3.0

14/25

1AC Investment

Advantage 2 is Investment

Global food insecurity rising due to increasing urbanizationmarijuana critical

to sustainable urban ag transition through knowledge transfer, growing

methods, and new technologies

Mist 12(Kali, The Urban Farm Revolution, 4-18, http://www.cannabis.info/USA/library/5246-the-urban-farm-revolution/)

As the world's population racesin ever greater numbers to our sprawling and polluted metropolises,

the problem of how best to feed the swelling ranks of city-dwellers becomes ever more

pressing. Providing a suitable habitat forthe fruits and vegetables we depend on can be

extremely difficult in an urban setting.Beyond the high cost of land, local climatic conditions canbe

greatly altered by the growth of a city, and can have adverse effects upon agriculture. But it is a pressing

issue - food prices are currently at record global highs, and significant numbers of the

urban poor are facing rising food insecurity , a problem shared by an increasing number

of nations as the global recession deepens. A beautiful juxtaposition of the organic and the artificial (Tim Gonzalez) To assist in

counteracting this rising insecurity, various city farm schemes have been proposed throughout the world, and many have been

implemented already. Most major US cities now have some form of scheme in place; a few of the very largest conurbations, such as

New York City, Philadelphia, Los Angeles and the Bay Area, have seen great successes. By redeveloping derelict

spaces and thinking creatively(rooftop vegetable gardens are a great example), it is possible to get a lot

back from a relatively small input - but despite the many success stories, we are very

far from achieving self-sufficient cities. Over the years, the transfer of knowledge

between legal agriculturalists and (largely) illegal cultivators of Cannabis has been great.

The first indoor Cannabis gardeners were greatly supported by the wealth of pre-existing knowledge of indoor growing in general,and due to massive selection pressures on establishing efficient, covert and low-impact systems, they and their descendants have

become leaders in the field. Now their knowledge is proving valuable to the urban farming

industry, and liaisons between Cannabis growers and various urban farm initiatives

are becoming more commonin some parts - although for obvious reasons remain largely

unpublicized. The art of producing a high yield from a limited space, without sacrificing quality, is

without doubt the specialty of the pot farmer. 'Sea of Green' is a classic example of a

Cannabis cultivation technique that has been successfully applied to various other

fruiting plants, such as tomatoes, beans and peas. This technique is suitable for plants

that can be planted very close together, and will flower and fruit after very little vegetative

time.Examples of such knowledge transfer in this direction are few, but Cannabis growers are important for other reasons also.

The Cannabis market is worthalmost $120 billion in the US alone, according to some estimates, and

growers are often among the earliest adopters of new and experimental techniques, which

helps to encourage further research and development and ultimately leads to improved

products. Lighting systems are a good example: the need to reduce heat, power consumption,

and visibility to law enforcement meant that LED lighting technologies were eagerly taken up by the

Cannabis world, even in their earliest stages of development, helping to reach our current highly

competitive standards. Now LEDs are the sole lighting source for many productive commercial enterprises, including

8/21/2019 Trinity DU 1AC 3.0

15/25

PlantLab, a vertical farm scheme in Den Bosch, the Netherlands, whose managers report up to three times the yield from

conventional systems using their specially-tweaked high-efficiency LED rigs. Similarly, hydroponics as a technique for

high-yield, intensive cultivation was adopted by the earliest indoor growers, so avidly that the

methodsoon became inextricably linked to Cannabis. This is still the case: pioneers of new hydroponic urbanfarming schemes have occasionally found their suggestions summarily rejected by investors on the basis of an uncomfortably strong

perceived association. However, ignoring these schemes may well prove hugely short-sighted, as they

show several signs of being truly viable options for a sustainable future .

Insecurity guarantees conflict and the biggest threat to global stability-

Heightened political tensions and nation break downs ensure escalating conflict

Brown 9(Lester R, Founder of the Worldwatch Institute and the Earth Policy Institute Can Food Shortages Bring DownCivilization? Scientific American, May, http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=civilization-food-shortages)

The biggest threat to global stabilityis the potential for food crisesin poor countries to cause government

collapse. Those crises are brought on by ever worsening environmental degradation One of thetoughest things for people to do is to anticipate sudden change. Typically we project the future by extrapolating from trends in the past. Much of the time this approach works

well. But sometimes it fails spectacularly, and people are simply blindsided by events such as today's economic crisis. For most of us, the idea that civilization itself could

disintegrate probably seems preposterous. Who would not find it hard to think seriously about such a complete departure from what we expect of ordinary life? What evidencecould make us heed a warning so dire--and how would we go about responding to it? We are so inured to a long list of highly unlikely catastrophes that we are virtually

programmed to dismiss them all with a wave of the hand: Sure, our civilization might devolve into chaos--and Earth might collide with an asteroid, too! For many years I have

studied global agricultural, population, environmental and economic trends and their interactions. The combined effects of those trends and

the political tensions they generate point to the breakdown of governments and societies. Yet I,

too, have resisted the idea that food shortages could bring down not only individual governments but also our global civilization. I can no longer ignore that risk. Our

continuing failure to deal with the environmental declines that are undermining the world

food economy--most important, falling water tables, eroding soils and rising temperatures--

forces me to conclude that sucha collapse is possible. The Problem of Failed States Even a cursory look at the vital signs of ourcurrent world order lends unwelcome support to my conclusion. And those of us in the environmental field are well into our third decade of charting trends of environmental

decline without seeing any significant effort to reverse a single one. In six of the past nine years world grain production has fallen short of consumption, forcing a steady

drawdown in stocks. When the 2008 harvest began, world carryover stocks of grain (the amount in the bin when the new harvest begins) were at 62 days of consumption, a near

record low. In response, world grain prices in the spring and summer of last year climbed to the highest level ever. As demand for food rises faster

than supplies are growing, the resulting food-price inflation puts severe stress on thegovernments of countries already teetering on the edge of chaos.Unable to buy grain or grow their own, hungry peopletake to the streets. Indeed, even before the steep climb in grain prices in 2008, the number of failing states was expanding [see sidebar at left]. Many of their problem's stem

from a failure to slow the growth of their populations. But if the food situation continues to deteriorate, entire nations will

break downat an ever increasing rate.We have entered a new era in geopolitics. In the 20th century the main threat

to international security was superpower conflict; today it is failing states.It is not the concentration of powerbut its absence that puts us at risk. States fail when national governments can no longer provide personal security, food security and basic social services such as education and

health care. They often lose control of part or all of their territory. When governments lose their monopoly on power, law and order begin to disintegrate. After a point,

countries can become so dangerous that food relief workers are no longer safe and their programs are halted; in Somalia and Afghanistan, deteriorating conditions have already

put such programs in jeopardy. Failing states are of international concern because they are a source of

terrorists, drugs, weapons and refugees, threatening political stability everywhere.Somalia, number oneon the 2008 list of failing states, has become a base for piracy. Iraq, number five, is a hotbed for terrorist training. Afghanistan, number seven, is the world's leading supplier of

heroin. Following the massive genocide of 1994 in Rwanda, refugees from that troubled state, thousands of armed soldiers among them, helped to destabilize neighboring

Democratic Republic of the Congo (number six). Our global civilization depends on a functioning network ofpolitically healthy nation-statesto control the spread of infectious disease, to manage the international monetary system, to control international

terrorism and to reach scores of other common goals. If the system for controlling infectious diseases--such as polio, SARS or avian flu--

breaks down, humanity will be in trouble. Once states fail, no one assumes responsibility for their debt to outside lenders. If

enough states disintegrate, their fall will threaten the stability of global civilization itself.

8/21/2019 Trinity DU 1AC 3.0

16/25

Marijuana industry possesses huge potential for entrepreneurship and

investment that secure sustainable ag practices, but federal legalization key to

remove climate of uncertainty

Tangel 13(Andrew, Wall Street sees opportunity in marijuana, March 23,http://articles.latimes.com/2013/mar/23/business/la-fi-0324-wall-street-marijuana-20130324)

To do it, Terra Tech needs to raise $2 million. And like a number of small businesses in the

burgeoning U.S. cannabis industry, it's trying to enlist Wall Street's help. Business

owners have been pitching their ideas to potential investors,coming to New York in some cases tomeet with would-be financiers. Wall Street has good reason to smell potential profits. Washington, D.C., and 18 states, including

California, have already legalized medical marijuana; there are formal measures pending in 10 additional states, according to the

National Cannabis Industry Assn. Colorado and Washington legalized recreational marijuana use in November. In addition, a

measure allowing "adult use" of pot has been proposed in Maryland, according to the association's tally. Various bills to legalize

marijuana and hemp have been proposed in Congress too. Although pot remains contraband under federal law, some entrepreneurs

see marijuana heading down the same path as Prohibition, which banned the manufacture, transportation and sale of alcohol from

1920 until it was repealed in 1933. "More and more people see the inevitability," said Brendan Kennedy, chief executive of the

Seattle private equity firm Privateer Holdings, which targets cannabis-focused start-ups. "They see that the Berlin Wall of cannabis

prohibition is going to come down." Privateer is raising $7 million to acquire small companies that have a hand in the trade but don'tgrow or distribute marijuana. Its first acquisition: Leafly, a Yelp-style online rating site in Seattle for dispensaries and varying strains

of marijuana. With pot still federally outlawed, others are makingsimilar betsfunding firms

that supply equipment or ancillary services while steering clear of marijuana farming

and sales. Take Lazarus Investment Partners, a $60-million hedge fund in Denver, for example. One of

Lazarus' investments is in AeroGrow International Inc., a maker of hydroponic kitchen

appliances geared toward growing herbs, lettuce and tomatoes. Lazarus, which owns 15% ofAeroGrow's shares, has suggested that the company tweak its products to accommodate taller plants, including marijuana, said

Justin Borus, the fund's managing partner. "We want to be selling the bluejeans to the gold miners ,"Borus said. "We don't want to take a bet on which state is going to get legalized and which dispensary is going to succeed, or [which]

cannabis growers are going to be successful. We want tojust make a bet on overall legalization." In

California, MedBox, a West Hollywood maker of automated dispensing machines for doctors' offices, pharmacies and potdispensaries, is on the hunt for funding. Vincent Mehdizadeh, MedBox's founder, said the company is actively exploring raising $20

million in equity to boost staffing and fund research and development, acquisitions and marketing. Mehdizadeh said he's seen a

"major spike" in interest from potential financiers looking to invest in the small company since Colorado and Washington legalized

recreational pot use last year. "Everybody's loosening up a lot because they realize the

momentum has shifted and the financial world is going to have to make room for this

industry," he said. "Wall Street and investment banks are going to have to come along for

the ride, eventually." Derek Peterson, president and chief executive of Terra Tech, is working to get his company's shareslisted on a stock exchange by the end of the year. The company may try for NYSE MKT, which was formerly known as the American

Stock Exchange and is geared toward smaller companies, or perhaps the Nasdaq Stock Market, he said. "The stodgier Wall

Street types are starting to realize there's money to be made here," said Peterson, who worked inwealth management at Wachovia Securities and Morgan Stanley Smith Barney. The company has taken steps to get the word out to

investors. It tapped Midtown Partners, a small New York boutique investment bank, to help it explore financing options as it planned

the New Jersey greenhouse expansion. Terra Tech is merging with the farm's owner, NB Plants, and retail gardening center and

nursery. Both are owned by VandeVrede's family. Initially, the vast majority of Terra Tech's revenue will come from cultivating fresh

herbs and flowers from the New Jersey farm, with the rest coming from equipment sales. The idea is to first feed urban consumers'

growing appetite for pesticide-free produce, then add pot or hemp when the legal climate is right. "There is this huge

demand for organic food ," said Prakash Mandgi, Midtown Partners' director of investment banking. "Marijuana

cultivation, in my opinion, is a potential driver in the future , but it's so tied to government rule

8/21/2019 Trinity DU 1AC 3.0

17/25

and regulations .... Federally it's illegal." Estimates for the marijuana industry's size

range widely, since much of the trade remains on the black market. Bloomberg Industriesrecently pegged it at $35billion to $45 billion. Still, Wall Street is by no means opening the floodgates of capital. Companies in this

space are still quite tiny, not to mention risky, compared with large corporations trading on the New York Stock Exchange or the

Nasdaq. Moreover, Wall Street firms face a significant disincentive to investing in the industry:

federal law. Growing and distributing marijuana can still lead to raids by federal

agents not to mention prison time and huge fines. Major banks have come under intense scrutiny bythe federal government in recent years for violating laws aimed at preventing money-laundering. The British banking giant HSBC

paid $1.9 billion to end a U.S. investigation into its role processing cash for drug cartels and customers in rogue nations. Marijuana

dispensary owners have complained of difficulty opening bank accounts, forcing them to operate in cash only. "This is messy," said

Dan Richman, a former federal prosecutor who handled narcotics cases and now teaches at Columbia Law School in New York. "This

might be complex politically. It's not complex as a matter of federal criminal law." Investors in businesses involved

in growing or distributing cannabis could face civil forfeiture actions to seize their

investments or other assets, Richman said. "I would think the prospectus would have to say: 'The

government might come and take all of your money and possibly go after you,'" Richmansaid.

Supply is the biggest internal link and conventional practices will never solve,

only investment spurred by the plan facilitates hydroponic innovations that

secure global food supplies

GBR 13(The Green Baron Report, The Future of Farming! Technology and Agriculture in Perfect Harmony, 1 -23-13,http://www.thegreenbaron.com/A_A_A_greenbaron_stock_picks_reports/01-23-13.htm)

Through its wholly-owned subsidiary GrowOp Technology, Terra Tech Corp. specializes in controlled environment

ag ricultural tech nologies. The company integrates best-of-breed hydroponic equipment with proprietary

software and hardware to provide sustainable solutions for indoor agriculture enterprises

and home practitioners. We work closely with expert horticulturists, engineers, and plant scientists to develop and

manufacture advanced proprietary products for the fast-growing urban agricultural industry as well as

individual hobbyists. Large companies, small urban farmers, home enthusiasts, and traditional greenhouse growers utilizeour products. Our complete product line is available at specialty retailers throughout the United States, and via our website. Terra

Tech Corp. was incorporated in July 2008 in the State of Nevada; its subsidiary GrowOp Technology was founded March 2010, in

Oakland, California. At Terra Tech the vision is simple: To help transform, through innovation, the way we

feed the global population with methods that are both sustainable as well as

environmentally friendly. We have the team, the products, and the resources to assist the "urban"

farmer in increasing production with minimal environmental impact. By utilizing our processes and bestpractices in conjunction with our manufacturing capabilities and products our customers can be assured their agriculture goals can

be achieved. Terra Tech is dedicated to a Greener World. Industry While the Hydroponic Farming industry issmall compared with others in the agricultural sector, it has been gaining momentum during

this current economic downturn,with revenue growing in four of the past five years. IBIS World reported expectedrevenue increases at an average annual rate of 7.8% from 2006 to 2011. The aging and health-conscious baby boomer population,

an increased focus on healthy eating and changing weather conditions have cushioned most of the recession's ill effects. Most

spending cuts have been directed toward discretionary purchases rather than fresh food. Rising food prices also

support revenue growth because food is largely a non-discretionary necessity.With a global

8/21/2019 Trinity DU 1AC 3.0

18/25

population of approximately 7 Billion scarcity of food and the resources to produce it are

rapidly becoming a concern . This increased need to sustain our population puts a strain on

other global resources as the production and transportation of food significantly increases

greenhouse gas emissions.This coupled with greater access to information and understanding that locally grown produceis not only better for the environment but also has a higher degree of nutrition has led to this current surge in hydroponically grown

crops. The Paradigm Shift In addition to our rising population, every year the world loses significant portions of

its' arable land due to climatic factors, desertification , diminishing water supplies, and

urbanization .In order to accommodate the food demands of the increasing world

population, agricultural production is moving indoors and we are now utilizing hydroponics to

meet world food demands. Indoor cultivation enables farmers to cultivate throughout the

year, resulting in a perpetual harvest.For example, over 40% of all fresh tomatoes sold in U.S. retail stores are now

greenhouse grown. The percentage of produce grown both locally and indoors is increasing on an annual basis. Continued

innovation of indoor cultivation systems will allow us to maximize harvests and to grow

locally effectively cutting down on our carbon footprint. Multiple trends have brought attention to urbanagriculture: The "Green Movement"-Consumers are concerned with sustainability and earth friendly products. Higher

expectations of freshness Health conscious Baby Boomer generation The demand for ready to eat greens Preference for produce

grown without pesticides and herbicides Concerns about food safety, E. Coli and other life threatening contaminates Commercial

AG - Commercial agriculture is beginning to migrate to controlled indoor environments. Every

year, the U.S. loses significant portions of its' fertile agricultural land due to urbanization. In an

effort to sustain our population cultivation is moving both indoors as well as vertical. Indoor cultivation allows urban

farmers to have multiple harvests throughout the year while maximizing their production of

healthy and nutrient dense fruits and vegetables. For example, over 40% of all fresh tomatoes sold in U.S. retailstores are now greenhouse grown.

Specifically, hydroponic marihuana practices trigger a transition to vertical

farming

Mist 12(Kali, The Urban Farm Revolution, 4-18, http://www.cannabis.info/USA/library/5246-the-urban-farm-revolution/)

Although on a much smaller scale, the vertical systems now being implemented have been tested and

made viable by Cannabis farmers(among others) over the last two or three decades. While the

scale of the projects now being proposed is much larger than those used by Cannabis

cultivators, the concepts are very much the same. For example, the lighting, airflow and irrigation

systems likely to be used would be familiar to any hydroponic weed grower. A 30-story

skyscraper would comprise various different environments on individual floors, and the

individual floors would operate on a scaled-up version of the stacked systems available today.

Stacked systems are suitable for growing a wide variety of crops including lettuce, micro-greens and

mushrooms. Beyond all consideration of economic factors, Cannabis uniquely provides a reason for people to

get involved with plants, to understand the basic concepts and apply them to growing other

crops when needed, and to rekindle the natural interest in plant husbandry that so many

urban-dwellers have lost. An excellent example comes from the Farm:Shop collective in London, England, which hasstriven to include community members of every status - almost entirely volunteer-run, they are regularly paid visits by local

Cannabis growers keen to offer advice, and are not averse to taking it! A multitude of durable, well-designed

8/21/2019 Trinity DU 1AC 3.0

19/25

products is available to assist the urban gardener. For a minimal outlay, it is possible to

establish a small garden wherever there is space. Simple vertical stack systems, such as the

HydrostackerTM or Vertigro, provide customizable solutions for all requirements - these are easiest to find

online, but any local garden supply center should have a similar system for home cultivation projects. Anyone who has

successfully set up a Cannabis farm will have little problem figuring out any other type of

system,and the only significant extra knowledge needed is that of each crop's own specific

requirements.Looking at the Old Farmer's Almanac or similar resources will provide most of the needed information - beyond

that, all that's required is a small amount of time for initial setup and and even smaller amount

every day or two for maintenance. How much time is needed depends upon the chosen crops and the size of the

project, so it is advisable to keep it small and simple at first. Because of Cannabis, many people who would

never otherwise have any reason to learn have become experts in the intricacies of plant

cultivation, and their expertise is needed. If every Cannabis cultivator could spare a few hours a week to volunteerat a local community farm shop, or to find a spare balcony or rooftop to convert to a fecund paradise of succulent edible greenery,

we could collectively make a huge difference to our communities, as well as doing our part to shatter the

lingering negative connotations of Cannabusiness.

Vertical farming is key to slow encroachment on the environment due to

population growthsolveszoonotic diseasesand ecosystem collapse

Despommier 14(Dickson Despommier, microbiologist, ecologist and Professor of Public Health in Environmental HealthSciences at Columbia University, Vertical Farming, April 2, http://www.eoearth.org/view/article/51cbef257896bb431f69cb45/,

CMR)

The advent of agriculture ushered in an unprecedented increase in the human population and their domesticated animals. Farming

catalyzed the transformation of hunter-gatherers into urban dwellers. Today, over 800 million hectares is

committed to agriculture, or about 38% of the total landmass of the Earth.Farming hasre-

arranged the landscape in