NEG - Industrial Hemp Legalization CON

NEG – Industrial Hemp CON Page |1
NEG – Industrial Hemp – CON

TOPICALITY – DEA Regulations = Drug Policy..................................................................2
SIGNIFICANCE........................................................................................................................4
1. A2: “Less Environmental Harm”...................................................................................................................4
2. A2: “No Pests, so no Pesticides”.....................................................................................................................4
3. A2: “Economic Benefit”..................................................................................................................................4
SOLVENCY...............................................................................................................................4
1. Generic..............................................................................................................................................................4
2. Processing.........................................................................................................................................................4
3. No Market.........................................................................................................................................................4
4. Market Collapse...............................................................................................................................................4
5. Monitoring/Regulating Costs..........................................................................................................................4
6. Didn’t Work in the Past...................................................................................................................................4
DISADVANTAGES...................................................................................................................4
1) Anti-Drug War Failure...................................................................................................................................4
3) US-Saudi Relations..........................................................................................................................................4
4) Covert Production of Marijuana....................................................................................................................4
MISCELLANEOUS...................................................................................................................4
Black/Voell PSDC/Vector
TOPICALITY – DEA Regulations = Drug Policy

A. Interpretation
1. Resolution
That the United States Federal Government should significantly reform its environmental policy
2. Definitions
a. Reform
- Reform is defined by the Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary as:
“To amend or improve by change of form.”
Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary, 2009, http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/reform
b. Environmental Policy
- According to Dr. Natalia Mirovitskaya, and Dr. William Ascher, environmental policy is:
“A government policy that explicitly intends to promote environmental protection, conservation, and rational use of
natural resources.”
Dr. Natalia Mirovitskaya [Ph.D. in Economics from the Russian Academy of Sciences; visiting Professor of Environmental Policy at Duke
University] & Dr. William L. Ascher [Ph.D. in Political Science from Yale University; Professor of Government and Economics at Claremont
McKenna College], “The Guide to Environmental Policy and Sustainable Development,” Book Published by the Duke University Press, 2001,
pg. 186 [Google Books]
c. Drug Policy
Using common sense, a government’s drug policy includes their way of regulating narcotics that they deem to be
harmful.
3. Conclusion
In order for the affirmative team’s plan to be Topical, it must be a reform of environmental policy – meaning that
the policy the reform was passed with the intent of helping the environment. If the intent was rather to regulate the
production or use of drugs, the affirmative team is obviously reforming a drug policy, and their plan is not Topical.
B. Standard
Brightline
Unlike the Affirmative, our interpretation provides a clear bright line that determines without a doubt whether the
affirmative is upholding the resolution. If they reform a policy that was intended to help the environment, they’re
topical. If the policy was intended to regulate narcotics, they’re not topical. A bright line provides clarity and clash,
and avoids confusion over the meaning of the resolution.
C. Violation
The violation of the affirmative team is clear. Their plan reforms the regulations on hemp. These regulations were
not passed with the intent of helping the environment, but to limit the production of a substance that the government
deemed to be a drug. “Vote Hemp,” a website promoting industrial hemp, cemented this fact when they said in 2009
that:
“The current government policy [on hemp] comes from the White House Office of National Drug Control Policy’s
National Drug Control Strategy Annual Reports from 1999, 2000 and 2001. This policy was set under the Clinton Administration and continued into the
Bush administration, which culminated in [the] D[rug] E[nforcement] A[gency] trying unsuccessfully to ban hemp foods.”
Vote Hemp, “How did the current U.S. policy on industrial hemp come to be?” 2009, http://www.votehemp.com/faqs.html [PB]
Notice several things. First of all, the current policy on hemp is a result of the Office of National Drug Control
Policy’s attempts to “control” hemp. Also, the Drug Enforcement Agency’s regulations on hemp stem from this
policy, which was passed not with the intent of helping the environment, but the intent of regulating drugs. That
being said, the affirmative team’s plan is obviously not Topical.
D. Impact
Fiat Power
The resolution states that the affirmative team must be resolved to reform as U.S. federal government environmental
policy. This means that their fiat power only extends to the realm of USFG environmental policy. Fiat power is the
tool that the affirmative team uses to assure you as the judge that if you vote for their plan then it will be
implemented in the imaginary world of debate. However, if the affirmative team’s plan is not a reform of
environmental policy, then even if you vote affirmative at the end of this round, they do cannot implement their plan
even in the imaginary world of debate. Since the regulations on hemp are drug policy, the affirmative team has no
fiat over that policy, and they cannot change it. Therefore, there is no reason for you to vote affirmative.
SIGNIFICANCE
1. A2: “Less Environmental Harm”
1. It is a faulty assumption that hemp and the hemp industry will be less harmful to the environment than SQ
2. Cannabis hemp is not a unique, environmentally friendly crop
3. Hemp requires abundant moisture
4. Hemp requires soils with high fertility
5. Hemp production does require fertilizers – in fact it requires liberal application of them
6. Hemp does require herbicides for production
7. Hemp is not environmentally beneficial – hemp yields prove
8. Hemp is not environmentally beneficial – trees prove
1. It is a faulty assumption that hemp and the hemp industry will be less harmful to the environment than SQ
Dr. Mark J. Cochran et. al. [Professor of Agricultural Economics at the University of Arkansas; Ph.D. from Michigan State
University; head of the Department of Agricultural Economics and Agribusiness at the University of Arkansas], Dr. Tony E. Windham [Ph.D. in
Agricultural Economic from Mississippi State University (1988); Associate Vice President for Agriculture-Extension and Director of the
Cooperative Extension Service at the University of Arkansas Division of Agriculture; Assistant Director of Agriculture and Natural Resources
and Community and Economic Development at the University of Arkansas Division of Agriculture] & Billy Moore [Area Extension Agent of
Alternative Agriculture both with Cooperative Extension Service and the University of Arkansas], “Feasibility of Industrial Hemp Production in
Arkansas,” University of Arkansas, May 2000, http://norml.uark.edu/Hemp-Feasability-UofA.pdf [PB]
It is a faulty
“Many people have thought that industrial hemp would be the miracle crop that would protect the environment and produce a visible, economic crop for farmers.
assumption that hemp is different from other crops in that it will require no pesticides and fertilizers and that the
industry developed from its production will be less harmful to the environment than those now being grown.”
2. Cannabis hemp is not a unique, environmentally friendly crop
Drug Watch International [a volunteer non-profit drug information network and advocacy organization that promotes the creation of
healthy drug-free cultures in the world; the organization upholds a comprehensive approach to drug issues involving prevention, education,
intervention/treatment, and law enforcement/interdiction], “Position Statement on Hemp (Cannabis sativa L.),” November 2002, accessed
December 23, 2009, http://www.drugwatch.org/Hemp.htm [ZV]
“Cannabis hemp is not a unique, environmentally friendly crop. Like any other agricultural commodity there are
fertilization requirements, the need to deal chemically with insect pests, and the use of fungicide treatment of hemp
seeds. Cannabis hemp causes more soil nutrient depletion than cotton, flax, and grain crops, and far greater soil
erosion than occurs with well managed and minimally disturbed forestlands. Additionally, a hemp field’s
possibilities for biodiversity and wildlife habitat are very limited in comparison to those of a forest.”
3. Hemp requires abundant moisture
“Hemp requires abundant moisture throughout the growing season, particularly while young plants are becoming
established especially during the first six weeks of growth (Dewey, 1913). After plants are well rooted, they can endure drier conditions, however,
severe drought hastens maturity and produces dwarfed plants. Studies in Europe indicate that hemp requires 20-28
inches of available moisture for optimum yield, and that 10-14 inches of moisture should be available during the
vegetative growth state. These amounts include both precipitation and available soil moisture. In Europe, hemp yield is strongly
dependent on the amount of rainfall during June and July (Bocsa and Karus, 1998). Crop water use will, of course, vary depending on local soil, climatic, and cultural conditions.”
4. Hemp requires soils with high fertility
hemp can be grown on a variety of soil types, it does best on loose, well-drained loam soils with high fertility and abundant organic matter
“Although
Hemp should not be grown on poor soils (Robinson, 1952). Repeated attempts to cultivate hemp on
(Dempsey, 1975, Van der Werf, 1991).
heavy, low-lying soils have demonstrated that, while these soils may produce some large hemp plants, it is practically impossible to raise a
good, even stand of hemp stalks that produce high quality fiber. ‘In Texas good crops of hemp have been produced on rich dark prairie soil, but on
upland soils, subject to drought, the crop has proved a failure’ (Dewey, 1901). ‘Fertile clay loam or silt loam soils, neutral or slightly alkaline, are best for hemp. It will not grow well in acid
sandy soils, heavy clay, gumbo soils, or gravelly soils that dry out quickly. All of these soil types exist in Arkansas.’”
5. Hemp production does require fertilizers – in fact it requires liberal application of them
“In addition to deep soils and adequate moisture, hemp requires high levels of nutrients to produce high biomass
yields. Even the earliest investigators in the United States and Europe noted that only soils maintained in a high state
of fertility produced good crops of hemp (Anonl., 1890; Dewey, 1901 and 1913; Dempsey, 1975; Van der Werf, 1991). Hemp responds well to nitrogen fertilization,
has some response to phosphorus and little response to potash. It is popularly believed that hemp does require little or no fertilization for
productive yields. This assumption is false. Over a wide range of soil and environmental conditions, hemp has been
shown to require liberal fertilization for maximum production. Although nutrient uptake by hemp is high, a substantial portion of
withdrawn nutrients are returned to the soil as leaves and roots, since only the stems are removed from the field. If
the crop is retted in the field, nearly all soluble nutrients are washed into the soil during retting (Dewey, 1913). This process in all
likelihood would not be practiced today. Uniform stem size is desirable for industrial processing of hemp as well as for mechanical harvesting, and stem uniformity is affected by nitrogen
fertilization.”
6. Hemp does require herbicides for production
in many areas, a pre-

“When grown under favorable conditions, hemp is very competitive with weeds and no herbicides are generally used in fiber hemp production. However,
emergence herbicide would be necessary [for hemp] due to pressure from grasses such as crabgrass. Many authors have
commented on the exceptional ability of hemp to suppress weed populations (Dewey, 1901 and 1913; Robinson, 1935; Dempsey, 1975, Van der Werf, 1991). Weed suppression with minimal
pesticide use is potentially one of the greatest agronomic and environmental benefits of growing hemp in rotation with other crops. Thick stands of hemp have been reported to suppress
several climbing weeds have sometimes caused harvesting problems with hemp including
aggressive weed species, however
black bindweed (Polygonum convolvulus L.), vetch (Vicia sp.), and morning glory (Convolvulus sepium L.)( Dempsey, 1975). Morning glory is a
particular problem in hemp seed production because its seed is the same size as hemp and is very difficult to
separate by screening (Robinson, 1935a). These weeds would out of necessity need to be controlled in hemp. At present, there are no
labeled pesticides in this country or state for hemp production.”
7. Hemp is not environmentally beneficial – hemp yields prove
“Yield: Claims that hemp has ‘four times’ the pulp yield of forests are false. Joseph E. Atchison, a non-wood plant
fiber scientist, consultant, and winner of many industry awards, has stated that the yield of acceptable hemp pulp (0.5-
0.6 tons per acre) is only about half that of well managed pine plantations (.9 -1.2 tons) and only a small fraction of some
intensively managed, fast-growing hardwoods (4 - 6 tons).”
8. Hemp is not environmentally beneficial – trees prove
Nothing can compete with forests for pulp as far as saving energy and using the carbon dioxide in the
“Trees:
atmosphere, and forests are healthier if mature trees are harvested. Sustainable forestry practices, high efficiency,
and increasing recycling are in place in the wood products industry in most industrial countries. For instance, there
is no impending wood reserve/fiber crisis in the United States. Timber growth in the United States has exceeded
annual harvest by 33% since the 1940s, and in 1996 growth of commercial timber in its National Forests exceeded
harvest by 76%. Currently, the United States has about two-thirds of the forest area that it had in the 1600s.”
2. A2: “No Pests, so no Pesticides”

1. There are pests associated with industrial hemp
“Several species of nematodes are known to infest hemp including the southern root knot nematode , Meloidogyne incognita
(McPartland, 1996a), and, more rarely, the northern root knot nematode, Meloidogyne hapla Chitwood (Norton, 1966). Both species of these
nematodes are found on a large number of acres in Arkansas especially soybean and cotton ground.”
2. Birds feed voraciously on hemp seeds
“Birds feed voraciously on Cannabis seeds. Many bird species have been reported as pests in hemp, and their
feeding can lead to substantial crop losses (McPartland, 1996). Birds are a major problem in grain crops in Arkansas.”
3. The introduction of new crops and their increased production can and may result in unforeseen pest
problems – these problems should be anticipated with hemp
introduction of new crops to Arkansas and their increased production can and may result
“Although hemp is comparatively free of major pests,
in unforeseen pest problems. High-density planting, increased fertilizer use, and irrigation have often increased
incidence of pest problems in other crops, and such problems should be anticipated with intensive hemp
production.”
3. A2: “Economic Benefit”

1. The claimed advantages of cannabis hemp over other raw materials are false
2. Hemp is not economically beneficial – paper proves
3. Hemp is not economically beneficial – plastic and synthetic fibers proves
4. Hemp is not economically beneficial – vegetable oil/fuel proves
5. Hemp is not economically beneficial – food and cosmetic products proves
1. The claimed advantages of cannabis hemp over other raw materials are false
“The claimed advantages of cannabis hemp over other raw materials are false. Better alternative products exist in
every case. Reflecting these economics, world production of hemp is now only slightly more than one-fifth what it
was in the 1960s. Additionally, recent world market prices for hemp are below most estimated U.S. and Canadian
production costs. The U. S. Department of Agriculture has researched the economic potential for hemp grown by
American farmers and found that the U.S. market for hemp fibers ‘is, and will likely remain, only a small, thin
market.’ The long-term demand for hemp products is uncertain, and there is a high potential to quickly reach
oversupply. The market potential for hemp seed as a food ingredient will probably remain small. These outlooks
discount the prospects for hemp as an economically viable alternative crop.”
2. Hemp is not economically beneficial – paper proves
Most of the fibers from the hemp plant are not suitable for production of writing and printing paper. The usable
“Paper:
part of the plant has such a high processing cost that its use is restricted to extremely limited-demand, high-priced
specialty papers and is not economical for mass-production paper grades. Many fiber alternatives for paper-making
are available and more competitive.”
3. Hemp is not economically beneficial – plastic and synthetic fibers proves
Hemp fibers are inferior for making rope, twine, and other products where durability and strength
“Plastic and Synthetic Fibers:
are important. Unlike plastic and synthetics, hemp absorbs water, becomes heavy, and rots easily. ‘For every
proposed use of industrial (cannabis) hemp, there already exists an available product, or raw material, which is cheaper
to manufacture and provides better market results.”
4. Hemp is not economically beneficial – vegetable oil/fuel proves
Many plants such as corn, sorghum, and alfalfa produce more biomass per acre, are more soil building
“Vegetable Oil/Fuel:
than hemp, and are already meeting market demands for alternative fuels such as ethanol.”
5. Hemp is not economically beneficial – food and cosmetic products proves
Hemp seed containing THC is now being aggressively promoted and marketed for use in food,
“Food and Cosmetic Products:
cosmetics, and nutraceutical (so-called health supplements) products. However, THC is fat-soluble and accumulates
in the human body. The United Nations reports that the health effects of cannabis food products have not been
adequately researched. The European Union has reduced the allowable THC content of hemp and reports that there
is no nutritional justification for hemp food products.”
NEG – Industrial Hemp CON P a g e | 10
SOLVENCY
1. Generic
1. Many of the problems with hemp are seldom mentioned
Wendy R. Holm [Consulting Agrologist; named the Rosemary Davis Award for BC and Alberta (April 2009); was named one of the
nine UBC Agricultural Sciences Alumni to receive the Centenary Award for Outstanding Service to the Faculty, to UBC and to the Community],
“Blowin’ smoke - the hype on hemp,” Country Life in B.C. [the agriculture news source in British Columbia since 1915],
Referring to hemp production Canada, 1998, http://www.theholmteam.ca/col55.blowin'_smoke.pdf [PB] [brackets added]
“Much of the information currently circulating on this crop [hemp] is of anecdotal, not factual nature. Statements of
growing global demand and high economic returns are not supported by more objective analysis (Vantresse, Department of
Agricultural Economics, University of Kentucky, 1998). Similarly, harvesting difficulties encountered by farmers (partly due to the nature
of the crop, partly due to a lack of technology) are seldom mentioned.”
2. There are too many factors working against the use of hemp as a biodiesel feedstock
Biodesiel Magazine, “Hemp Biodiesel: When the Smoke Clears,” Article by Holly Jessen [Internet Professional], referring to Arthur Hanks
[Executive Director of the Canadian Hemp Trade Alliance], February 2007, http://www.biodieselmagazine.com/article.jsp?
article_id=1434&q=&page=1 [ZV]
“Arthur Hanks, executive director of the Canadian Hemp Trade Alliance, agrees that there are too many factors
working against the use of hemp as a biodiesel feedstock. ‘People talk about it, but there’s not really anything happening with that right now,’ he tells
Biodiesel Magazine. Price is the big issue, Hanks says , echoing Bobbee’s sentiments. The human nutritional market pays well for hemp seed. Currently, conventionally
grown hemp seed brings in about 45 Canadian cents a pound, he says. Certified organic seed garners 85 Canadian cents a pound, or nearly CAN$40 a bushel. Then there’s the
hurdle of limited supply. Although healthy demand has increased hemp production numbers in Canada, there’s just not enough quantity to go
around. In 2005, 24,000 acres of hemp were planted in Canada, more than doubling to 50,000 acres in 2006. ‘That particularly, is very much an issue of economies of scale,’ Hanks says.
‘We are still very much a specialty crop.’ Finally, there’s the relatively low oil productivity of hemp. Hemp seed does have a
relatively high oil content of about 33%, compared with canola at about 40%. However, it has a low seed per-acre
yield. Typically, an acre of hemp yields about 700 pounds of seed, although some farmers have enjoyed production numbers as high as 1,200 pounds an acre in good years, Hanks says.
Canola growers, on the other hand, can reap a crop of anywhere from 1,500 to 2,600 pounds an acre.”
3. The pro-drug lobby has made a wide array of false, misleading, and unsubstantiated claims about hemp
“In its pursuit of drug legalization, the pro-drug lobby has made a wide array of false, misleading, and
unsubstantiated claims, including allegations that cannabis hemp production can save the rain forests and protect the
environment by replacing tens of thousands of wood, plastic, oil, food, and textile products. Cannabis hemp plants containing less
than 0.3% THC (the main psychoactive ingredient in marijuana) became legal to grow in Canada in March 1998. In the United States, hemp lobbies have put
pressure on state legislatures or used the citizen initiative process in their efforts to effect legislation allowing the
production of cannabis hemp.”
2. Processing
1. Hemp processing is still more expensive than processing for alternatives
Referring to hemp production Canada, 1998, http://www.theholmteam.ca/col55.blowin'_smoke.pdf [PB]
“While hemp possesses some superior qualities for fiber and oil uses, processing remains relatively expensive as compared to other
alternatives. Outside of grain/oil seed applications, there exists little infrastructure to process industrial hemp in Canada. Undeniably a crop with
many valuable properties, the technology necessary to process hemp is expensive; without markets, capital investment in
infrastructure is unlikely.”
2. Processing for hemp remains more expensive than alternatives, and processing technology is antiquated
Valerie Vantreese [an economist with the Department of Agricultural Economics at the College of Agriculture at the
University of Kentucky], “Industrial Hemp: Global Markets and Prices,” June 1997, http://www.votehemp.com/PDF/hemp97.pdf [PB]
“Many have argued the merits of hemp fiber and oil – superior fiber length and strength, excellent oil quality for
both industrial and feed uses, and a myriad of other applications. Importantly, processing remains relatively
expensive as compared to other alternatives and processing technology remains antiquated. However, new innovative fiber separation
techniques are being tested, particularly in western Europe.”
3. It is unclear if hemp can be economically processed in the U.S.
Arkansas,” University of Arkansas, May 2000, http://norml.uark.edu/Hemp-Feasability-UofA.pdf [PB] [brackets added]
“In addition to the uncertainties about the farm level profitability and overall size of the hemp market, [USDA]
E[conomic] R[esearch] S[ervice] concludes that it is unclear if hemp can be economically processed in the U.S. The
technology of hemp processing has not advanced much in recent years and remains capital and labor intensive. While
research is underway to streamline the processing, few technological advances have yet to occur. Labor costs in the U.S. might impede the ability to
compete with established producers in countries such as China, Hungary, Poland and Romania. However, oilseed crushing
facilities could accommodate hemp seed (ERS) and some lumber and paper mills could be remodeled to handle hemp materials (The Boulder Hemp Initiative Project).”
4. The technology needed to process hemp is lacking majorly in the US
The United States Department of Agriculture, “Industrial Hemp in the United States: Status and Market Potential,” January 2000,
http://www.ers.usda.gov/publications/ages001E/ages001E.pdf [ZV]
there is some question as to whether hemp fibers can be profitably processed in the
“In addition to the uncertainty about yields,
United States. As was outlined earlier, the technologies used to process hemp fiber have not changed much and they require
capital investment and knowledgeable workers. Research is under way to streamline harvesting, retting, and fiber
separation, but those technological breakthroughs have yet to occur. Traditional retting and fiber-separation
processes – both labor and resource intensive – could limit the ability of U.S. hemp producers to compete against
major suppliers such as China, Hungary, Poland, and Romania. Specialty oilseed crushing mills that could accommodate hemp seed do exist in the
United States. According to the Soya & Oilseed Bluebook, companies in North Dakota, Minnesota, Georgia, and North Carolina mechanically crush flaxseed, borage, safflower, canola,
sunflowerseed, crambe, peanuts, and cottonseed (Soyatech, 1999).”
3. No Market
1. The world hemp market is contracting
“Although industrial hemp production has remained legal throughout most of the world and the private sector has
been free to invest in production research and processing facilities, the world hemp market continues to contract and is
dominated by many low-cost producers. Hemp fiber production is only one-sixth the volume of the early 1960s (China, South Korea and the Former
Soviet Union produce about 70% of world supply) and hempseed production has fallen by half during this period (China alone produces about three-
fourths of world supply). Although the hemp industry is heavily subsidized in the European Union, production there remains
negligible.”
2. Hemp exports (from other countries) and U.S. imports have fallen (i.e. demand has fallen)
world hemp fiber exports have fallen from more than $12 million ($US) in the early 1960s to currently less than $5
“Similarly,
million ($US). In 1996, the US imported $1.4 mil of hemp and hemp products. Of that amount, nearly all ($1.3 million)
was value-added hemp goods (woven fabrics and yarn).”
3. The market for hemp is insufficient and its potential is closer to the lower end
Arkansas,” University of Arkansas, May 2000, http://norml.uark.edu/Hemp-Feasability-UofA.pdf [PB] [brackets added]
“The report from the Economic Research Service of the U.S. Department of Agriculture assesses the potential
market for industrial hemp in the United States and concludes that it will be unlikely that markets will be able to
sustain adequate profit margins for a large production sector to develop. While the range of acreage possibly required to meet market demand for
hemp fiber, yarn and fabric extends from 2,000 to 250,000 acres, this reports suggests that the current potential [for hemp] is closer to the lower end. The
demand for hemp seeds and flour will likely remain a niche market similar to those for poppy and sesame seeds. Demand for hemp oil may be constrained by processing and regulatory problems
related to color, unsaturated fatty acid levels, shelf life and prices of competing materials (ERS).”
4. Market Collapse
1. Small increases in world hemp production caused export prices to fall by half in 1996
“Industry sources and some academic studies, such as Thompson et al. (1998) and Gardner and White (1998), cite numerous current and potential uses for hemp bast fiber and hurds. For these
hemp will have to compete with current raw materials and manufacturing practices. In the
applications to develop or expand,
market for nonwood fibers, hemp would have to compete with cotton, flax, abaca, sisal, and other nonwood fibers in
terms of fiber characteristics, fiber quality, and price. The U.S. market for hemp fibers is, and will likely remain, a
small, thin market. Changes in price or quantity could be more disruptive and have a greater adverse impact on
market participants than would be the case in a larger market. For example, small increases in world hemp fiber and tow
production caused export prices to fall by half to a world average of 35 cents per pound in 1996 (Vantreese, 1998). See Appendix II for a discussion and some
examples of oversupply in small, thin markets.”
2. Changes in price or quantity could be more disruptive and have a greater adverse impact on market
participants than would be the case in a larger market
“Current markets for bast fibers like industrial hemp include specialty textiles, paper, and composites. Hemp hurds, the inner woody portion of the plant stem, are used in various applications
such as animal bedding, composites, and low-quality papers. As joint products, finding viable markets for both hemp bast fiber and hurds may increase the chances of a successful business
for these applications to develop or expand,
venture. Hemp industry sources and some academic studies cite many potential uses for hemp fiber and hurds. However,
hemp will have to compete with current raw materials and manufacturing practices. The U.S. market for hemp fibers
is, and will likely remain, a small, thin market. Changes in price or quantity could be more disruptive and have a greater
adverse impact on market participants than would be the case in a larger market.”
3. Flooding the market with hemp destroys the industry – it destroys competition with other producers
T. Randall Fortenbery [Ph.D. in economics; Master’s of Science Degree in Economics], & Dr. Michael Bennett, M.D., “Is
Industrial Hemp Worth Further Study in the U.S.? A Survey of the Literature,” University of Wisconsin-Madison, July 2001, Staff Paper No.
443, http://www.aae.wisc.edu/pubs/sps/pdf/stpap443.pdf, [ZV]
The marginal profitability

“The greatest research need for the commercialization of hemp appears to be in the development of harvesting and processing technology.
currently estimated combined with several substitute inputs in most industrial uses suggests that a significant
increase in the supply of hemp would adversely impact market prices to the point that US hemp production would
not be viable. Cost saving innovations would be necessary to overcome the price impact of increased supply if hemp
were to be a viable crop for US producers over the longer term.”
5. Monitoring/Regulating Costs
1. Any lifting of restrictions on cultivation of industrial hemp will most certainly be accompanied by strict
regulations governing licensing and certification, cultivation, testing and monitoring of hemp cultivation
T. Randall Fortenbery [Ph.D. in economics; Master’s of Science Degree in Economics], & Dr. Michael Bennett, M.D., “Is
Industrial Hemp Worth Further Study in the U.S.? A Survey of the Literature,” University of Wisconsin-Madison, July 2001, Staff Paper No.
443, http://www.aae.wisc.edu/pubs/sps/pdf/stpap443.pdf, [ZV]
“In the past, DEA has granted no registrations for the cultivation of hemp for industrial purposes, and under the Controlled Substances Act determination needs to be made that such production is
any lifting of restrictions on cultivation of industrial hemp will most
in the public interest (Industrial Hemp Taskforce, 2000). Consequently,
certainly be accompanied by strict regulations governing licensing and certification, cultivation, testing and
monitoring of hemp cultivation (this is currently the case in Canada). Compliance will likely be primarily born by individual producers. Given the potential
political and regulatory costs, combined with the broader tasks of stimulating the levels of investment in research,
market development and domestic processing capacity needed to make hemp a viable US crop, an important
consideration in determining its long-term feasibility is the level of collective state government interest in the crop.
The broader the degree of interest, the less the burden will be on individual state efforts. Though an in-depth discussion of this is beyond the scope of this paper, the current situation regarding
state efforts to legalize production is documented in Appendix I for reference.”
2. Hemp monitoring, licensing, or regulating costs are superly, massively, enormous
“None of the cost estimates include costs for monitoring, licensing, or regulating hemp production. These external
expenses would be part of the cost of producing industrial hemp and could be borne by taxpayers or passed on to
growers and/or processors. According to Thompson et al. (1998), Kenex Ltd. Estimates that Canadian farmers will pay US$50 annually for a background check and to obtain
the satellite coordinates for their hemp fields (fields are monitored via satellite as part of the Canadian program). The studies also present a range of revenue estimates, which is not surprising
given the uncertainty about demand and expected market prices. Overall, it seems questionable that U.S. producers could remain profitable at the low end of the estimated net returns. In addition,
given the thinness of the current U.S. hemp fiber market, any overproduction could lead to lower prices and lost profitability.”
3. Issues of legality increases incumbency
“Industrial hemp can be grown as a fiber and/or seed crop. Grown for fiber, it is planted in dense stands to maximize
stalk production. Grown for seed or for seed and fiber, plants are spaced farther apart to encourage branching and
seed production. Marijuana varieties are grown for their leaves and flower buds, and therefore are grown under low-
density conditions to maximize branching. Thus, planting density and other production characteristics do not offer a
reliable way to distinguish varieties for law enforcement purposes.”
6. Didn’t Work in the Past

Hemp is unimportant as a fuel source in the EU, despite being legal there
Professor Semida Silveira [Professor of Energy and Climate Studies], “Bioenergy: Realizing the Potential,” 2005,
[Accessed via Google Books] [ZV]
“Energy, environment, agricultural and forestry-based drivers are contributing to a rediscovery of bioenergy in industrialized nations with access to biomass resources. In fact, bioenergy offers
Currently, commercial and
the possibility to harness a domestic, rural-based, low-carbon and sustainable energy source in both industrialized and developing countries.
noncommercial uses of biomass represent about 13.5% of the world’s primary energy consumption (see also Figure 1.1). In
the European Union (EU), bioenergy comprises some 3.5% of the total primary energy mix. Figure 2.1 shows the primary energy consumption in
the European Union, including details of renewable energy sources. Notably, biomass is the largest renewable energy source in the European
Union. The biomass resources commonly used in the EU are fuelwood, wood residues from the wood-processing
industry, used wood products (e.g. demolition wood), and also straw in some countries. Various modern technologies are being applied.”
- Notice that while industrial hemp production is totally legal in the EU, it has not been used as a source of biofuel
DISADVANTAGES
1) Anti-Drug War Failure
Shell:
A. Link: The Affirmative Team’s Plan Legalizes Hemp
B. Uniqueness: The U.S. is Succeeding in the Fight Against Drugs
United Nations Drug Control Efforts And Reports, “International Harm Reduction, Demand Reduction, Supply Reduction,”
July 28, 2009, http://www.csdp.org/news/news/undrug.htm#top [ZV]
“The United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime released its 2007 World Drug Report on June 26, 2007, to coincide with the International Day Against Drugs. According to the UNODC’s news
release, (‘UN Drugs Agency Reports “Significant And Positive Changes” In World Drugs Markets’), ‘Whereas a few years ago the world appeared to be
heading for an epidemic of drug abuse, growing evidence suggests that the problem is being brought under control,
the Executive Director of the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime, Antonio Maria Costa, said on Tuesday. ‘ Recent data show that the run-away train of
drug addiction has slowed down,’ he said in a statement marking the launch of UNODC’s 2007 World Drug Report. The Report shows global markets for
illicit drugs remained largely stable in 2005-06. ‘For almost all drugs – cocaine, heroin, cannabis and amphetamines – there are signs of
overall stability, whether we speak of production, trafficking or consumption,’ Mr. Costa said.”
C. Internal Link: Legalizing Hemp would Undermine U.S. Efforts

Kirk Kicklighter [a freelance writer and former U.S. Marine Corps captain], “Getting Hemp Over the Hump,”
Article Published by the News and Observer, July 4, 1998, http://www.hempforus.com/233.htm [ZV]
legalizing hemp would

“‘You couldn’t get high off industrial hemp even if you smoked a joint the size of a telephone pole,’ says Byrd, 36. But according to the DEA,
undercut the government’s drug enforcement efforts. ‘The cultivation of hemp is not economically feasible in the
U.S.,’ says Barry McCaffrey, the ‘drug czar’ who heads the White House Office of National Drug Control Policy.
‘What it would do is completely disarm all law enforcement from upholding anti-marijuana production laws. The
bottom line here is a thinly-disguised attempt… to legalize [marijuana].’ DEA officials are worried that pot growers
might sneak onto legalized hemp fields to grow their illicit weed. They say police helicopters wouldn’t be able to
distinguish between the two in the field.”
D. Impact #1: Hegemony

The war to prevent the illegal drug trade preserves U.S. hegemony
Catalina Rojas [Political Scientist at the Institute for Conflict Analysis and Resolution at George Mason University], “What is the War
on Terrorism,” June 2002, http://redalyc.uaemex.mx/redalyc/pdf/110/11040707.pdf [ZV]
the war on drugs was a

“The military and economic engagement increased constantly as more countries were targeted and a more direct military participation developed. Hence,
characterized by low-intensity intervention and democracy assistance projects. Those operations
typical post-cold war operation
serve also the following purposes: domestically it showed a ‘tough’ attitude towards drugs, necessary to justify to
the taxpayers the billions of dollars that they have been paying ever since Internationally, the war on drugs serves
the purpose of maintaining U.S. hegemony over the region in which regional security and internal order merge into one.”
E. Impact #2: Terrorism

1. The terrorists benefit from the lucrative trade of illegal drugs
Sebastian Rotella [journalist for the Los Angeles Times], “U.S. prosecution links drugs to terrorism,”
Article Published in the Los Angeles Times, December 19, 2009, http://www.latimes.com/news/nation-and-world/la-na-al-
qaeda-cocaine19-2009dec19,0,1837370.story [ZV]
“‘We’ve known about this for a long time, but this is the first actionable thing we’ve done in response to it,’ DEA spokesman Rusty Payne said.The stakes are high because
of the potential for Al Qaeda in the Maghreb to use cocaine profits in attacks on the West. Anti-terrorism
investigators cite a harbinger: An Al Qaeda-connected cell of North Africans financed their 2004 Madrid train
bombings, which killed 190 people, by dealing hashish and Ecstasy. Moreover, officials said, conversations among
informants and suspects have suggested that the lawless region around the Gulf of Guinea is a crossroads for groups
united by hatred of the United States – Al Qaeda, Mexican gangsters, Colombian guerrillas and Lebanese militant
groups. ‘For the first time in that part of the world, these guys are operating in the same environment in the same place at the same time,’ said Michael Braun, a former chief of DEA
operations. ‘They are doing business and cutting deals. What’s most troubling about this is the personal relationships that
these guys are making today, between drug organizations and terror organizations, will become operational alliances
in the future.”
2. Terrorists make money on drugs and create weapons with that money
Armen Keteyian [journalist for CBS News Online], “Inside The Afghan Poppy Wars; Is The U.S.-Led War On Drugs In Afghanistan
Undermining The War On Terror?” Article Published by CBS News Online, June 25, 2008,
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/06/25/cbsnews_investigates/main4210600.shtml [ZV]
“It’s been called the world’s deadliest flower. ‘Because that flower turns into heroin, which turns into money ,’ said Eric
Sherepita. ‘That money turns into weapons used against us.’ Sherepita spent a year supervising a small army of private contractors and hundreds of Afghans
cutting down fields of poppies all over the country – at a cost of more than $6,800 per acre. But despite their best efforts and more than a billion in taxpayer dollars poured into the war on drugs
on all fronts since 2004 – poppy production is up 300% in the last six years. It now totals more than 470,000 acres.”
Extensions:
A) Uniqueness: The U.S. is Succeeding in the Fight Against Drugs
1. The top U.S. drugs official has said anti-drug efforts are having the best results of the past 20 years
BBC News, “US claims success in war on drugs,” October 3, 2007, http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/7025308.stm [ZV]
“The top U.S. drugs official has said anti-drug efforts are having the best results of the past 20 years. John Walters, head of the
Office of National Drug Control Policy, said cocaine shortages had led to a jump in prices in 37 American cities. Efforts on both sides of the Mexican border have disrupted the flow of all drugs
into the US, Mr. Walters said. But he said it had not yet been proven if the results could be sustained over the long term. Mexican traffickers extradited Mr. Walters was speaking as the US and
Mexico work out the details of an aid plan – expected to total $1 billion – for Mexico to help combat drug cartels. About 90% of the cocaine entering the US comes through Mexico. ‘What’s
happened for the first time in two decades is we now see widespread reports of cocaine shortages in the United States ,’ Mr.
Walters said. Thirty-seven cities had reported ‘the lack of the ability to receive wholesale amounts, kilo amounts, of cocaine in the quantities previously supplied at prices previously charged,’ he
the price of cocaine had increased by 24% and nearly doubled in some cities.
said. As a result of the drop in supply, The drugs tsar credited
Mexican President Felipe Calderon for some of the success. He said US investigators had been working closely with Mexican authorities in their fight against the drug cartels. Since Mr. Calderon
took office in December he has sent 25,000 soldiers and police to Mexican provinces plagued by drug violence and it seems to be working, says the BBC’s Duncan Kennedy in Mexico City.
Several high-profile Mexican traffickers have been extradited to the US in recent months. Mr. Walters also said that fewer American workers were showing positive on drug tests and that there
were fewer cocaine-related hospital admissions. The real challenge, he said, would be maintaining the results over the long term.”
2. The U.S. is succeeding in suppressing illegal drug use, Washington state proves
The Economist [a widely respected newspaper], “Speedy decline,” May 1, 2008,

http://www.economist.com/world/unitedstates/displaystory.cfm?story_id=E1_TTNJPSTG&source=login_payBarrier [ZV]
“A few years ago Pierce county, in Washington state, [there] was in the grip of a methamphetamine epidemic. Toothless addicts
roamed quiet rural roads, stealing everything that was not nailed down, as well as a few things (such as a garage) that were. The child of a meth cook fell into a bucket of chemicals and was
severely burned. Barb Dolan, who set up a neighborhood watch group, points out a cul-de-sac near her bungalow where a sheriff’s deputy walked into a methamphetamine laboratory and was
met with gunfire. ‘It was behind every bush,’ she says. No longer. The drug is disappearing. In 2001 no fewer than 589 methamphetamine
labs and dump sites were discovered in Pierce county. Last year just 76 were. Washington’s police stopped 39%
fewer meth-addled drivers in the first three months of this year, compared with the same period last year. Fewer
addicts are turning up in local hospitals. This is not just a local trend: across America, workplace drug tests suggest
methamphetamine use has been falling since 2005. It is a rare success in the war on drugs, and an oddly unheralded
one. Particularly in the West, televisions flicker with alarming documentaries such as ‘Montana Meth’ and ‘Crystal Darkness,’ which chronicle addiction and rising crime in rural districts.
Almost 95% of Western police forces polled last year by the National Drug Intelligence Centre cited
methamphetamine as the most serious drug problem in their area. It will not be so for long.”
B) Impact #2: Terrorism

1. There are links between terrorism and illegal drug trafficking
The International Centre for Criminal Law Reform and Criminal Justice Policy , Article by Yvon Dandurand [Criminologist;
Dean of Research and Industry Liaison at the University College of the Fraser Valley; Senior Associate at the International Centre for Criminal
Law Reform and Criminal Justice Policy], & Vivienne Chin [Associate at the International Centre for Criminal Law Reform and Criminal
Justice Policy], “Links Between Terrorism and Other Forms of Crime A report submitted to: Foreign Affairs Canada and The United Nations
Office on Drugs and Crime,” April 2004, http://www.icclr.law.ubc.ca/Publications/Reports/TNOC_LINKS_STUDY_REPORT.pdf [ZV]
“Criminal activities with suspected links to terrorism are mainly related to individuals connected with suspected networks, notably within the Islamic world. With respect to money laundering
and the financing of terrorism, it appears that the same channels (including sometimes the use of the banking system) are used as for other crimes. Germany also drew attention to the concern that
there is also some evidence to suggest that there are links
financial intermediaries may be abused by terrorists as part of money laundering schemes. In that country,
between terrorism and illegal drug trafficking insofar as terrorism is being partly financed by the funds generated
from that illicit market. There are clear links between terrorist activities and various criminal activities relating to the
smuggling of illegal migrants and the falsification of travel and other official documents. The falsified documents used by
extremists/terrorists generally originate from criminal sources. The documents can be traced to workshops abroad that specialize in forging documents and to other sources that are the focus of
analyses currently being conducted by the Federal Criminal Police Office. Islamic extremists/terrorists do not have any ‘production workshops’ of their own for the production of falsified
documents. Persons close to them or related to them modify blank stolen or completely falsified documents.”
2. Three African terrorists are accused of being Al Qaeda associates and conspiring to smuggle cocaine
Article Published in the Angeles Times, December 19, 2009, http://www.latimes.com/news/nation-and-world/la-na-al-qaeda-
cocaine19-2009dec19,0,1837370.story [ZV]
“The case – the first of its kind – portrays northwest Africa as a new danger zone. Three men are accused of being Al Qaeda associates and conspiring to smuggle cocaine. Reporting from
Three men alleged to be Al Qaeda associates were charged Friday with conspiring to smuggle cocaine
Washington –
through Africa – the first U.S. prosecution linking the terrorist group directly to drug trafficking. The three suspects, who were charged in federal
court in New York, are believed to be from Mali and were arrested in Ghana during a Drug Enforcement
Administration sting. Although U.S. authorities have alleged that Al Qaeda and the Taliban profit from
Afghanistan’s heroin trade, the case is the first in which suspects linked to Al Qaeda have been charged under severe
narco-terrorism laws, federal officials said.”
3. Western and African investigators have pointed to concrete signs of the convergence of drugs and
terrorism
Article Published in the Angeles Times, December 19, 2009, http://www.latimes.com/news/nation-and-world/la-na-al-qaeda-
cocaine19-2009dec19,0,1837370.story [ZV]
“In recent years, Western and African investigators have pointed to concrete signs of the convergence of drugs and
terrorism in the region. In 2007, two accused operatives of the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia, or FARC, a major player in cocaine trafficking, were arrested in Guinea-
Bissau – described by many as Africa’s first ‘narco-state.’ And last year, Morocco’s interior minister asserted that Al Qaeda in the Maghreb
fighters were enriching themselves by taxing the cocaine smuggling routes in Mali and Mauritania to the south. ‘It is
a zone where there is a lot of money circulating, with cocaine traffic that is growing fast ,’ Interior Minister Chakib Benmoussa said.
‘A certain number of terror networks exploit this situation because these groups guarantee, secure the routes.”
3) US-Saudi Relations
Shell:
A. Link: The Affirmative Team Legalizes Hemp as an Alternative Energy Source
B. Internal Link: U.S. Oil Usage is Key to U.S.-Saudi Relations
Michael T. Klare [Professor of Peace and World Security Studies at Hampshire College in Amherst, Massachusetts; the author
of “Resource Wars: The New Landscape of Global Conflict”], “Oil Moves the War Machine,” Website the Progressive, Accessed
December 22, 2009, http://www.progressive.org/node/1547 [ZV]
the Bush Administration has launched two great foreign policy initiatives: a global war against
“Since its inception,
terrorism, and a global campaign to expand American access to foreign oil. Originally, each possessed its own rationale and mode of operation.
As time has passed, however, they have become increasingly intertwined, so that today the war on terrorism and the
struggle for oil have become one vast enterprise. The underpinnings of the Bush foreign policy can be found in the national
energy policy paper of May 17, 2001, known as the Cheney report. This report became infamous for two reasons: Cheney wouldn’t release the names of the
people he consulted for it, and the report recommends drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. But these controversies distracted attention away from the gist of the report, which is
The report
spelled out in chapter eight, ‘Strengthening Global Alliances.’ There, the report ‘recommends that the President make energy security a priority of our trade and foreign policy.’
says the United States will become increasingly reliant on foreign oil. At present, we obtain about half of our petroleum from foreign sources; by
2020, imports will account for two-thirds of U.S. consumption, the report predicts. From this, it draws two conclusions: The United States must
maintain good relations with Saudi Arabia and other oil producers in the region, and the United States must diversify
oil suppliers around the world. ‘Middle East oil producers will remain central to world oil security ,’ it says, but ‘our engagement
must be global.’ This means developing close ties with major suppliers in all oil-producing areas, including the Caspian region, Africa, and Latin America, which the report calls ‘high-priority
areas.’ The Administration was already poised to act on this policy when Arab hijackers struck New York and Washington on September 11. These plans were then put aside, as the White House
concentrated its attention on efforts to immobilize Al Qaeda and to topple the Taliban regime in Afghanistan. By December, however, the Administration was ready to focus again on the security
The primacy of oil is clear in several places, most obviously, Saudi Arabia. Though fifteen of the
aspects of growing U.S. dependence on imported oil.
eighteen hijackers were Saudi, though Osama bin Laden himself is Saudi, though the Saudis practice Wahhabism and finance some of the most
reactionary madrassas around the world, the Bush Administration is in no position to break relations with the kingdom. Saudi Arabia
possesses 25% of the world’s known oil reserves. And, as the Cheney report notes, ‘Saudi Arabia, the world’s largest exporter, has been a linchpin of supply reliability to world oil markets.’”
C. Impact: Regional Stability Devastated

A strong relationship with Saudi Arabia remains indispensable because of their role in regional stability
Shibley Telhami [Professor of Government and Politics at the University of Maryland; senior fellow at the Brookings Institution],
“A Need for Prudence in the Persian Gulf,” Article Published in the New York Times, January 29, 2002,
http://www.sadat.umd.edu/pub/oped/A%20need%20for%20prudence%20in%20the%20Persian%20Gulf.htm [ZV]
a strong relationship with Saudi Arabia remains indispensable, even if the military presence there is reduced. First, a necessary
“Nonetheless,
American presence in Bahrain, Qatar, Oman and elsewhere in the Persian Gulf will continue to require Saudi acquiescence.
Saudi Arabia remains the central power in the Gulf Cooperation Council, and its position will ultimately affect the decisions of the smaller states.
Second, Saudi Arabia has the ability to use its oil production capacities to reduce the effect of short-term spikes in the oil market. In this respect, Saudi Arabia is likely to become even more
It would be unwise to alter our policy dramatically while
important in the future because it controls more than a quarter of the world's proven oil reserves.
the war on Al Qaeda continues. Indeed, a sharp change now might be seen as rewarding Osama bin Laden. But quietly,
over time, the United States and Saudi Arabia should begin talks to reduce the American military presence, because our mutual interests will require that change.”
Extension:
Close U.S.-Saudi relations are a keystone of U.S. Middle East policy
J. Robinson West [Former Assistant Secretary of the Interior; Chairman of the Petroleum Finance Company], “The Saudi
problem: ignore the press reports. If the goal is stability, Saudi Arabia is becoming more stable today than in years past (Brief Article),” Article
Published by the International Economy, November 1, 2001, http://www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1G1-82005574.html [ZV]
“The American public has recently been served up a stream of articles about strains in the U.S. relationship with Saudi Arabia and the imminent demise of the Saudi royal family. Americans are
troubled by regions of violent opposition, as well as the fact that many of Osama bin Laden's terrorists were born in Saudi Arabia, and funded from there. The impression has been created that
Close U.S.-Saudi relations
America is bearing the consequences of Saudi incompetence, corruption, and inaction. This picture is outdated and complicates U.S.-Saudi relations.
are a keystone of U.S. Middle East policy. The two countries enjoy a long-standing strategic alliance, founded on a simple exchange: Saudi Arabia would provide an
uninterrupted flow of oil to the United States, which in return would insure regional security, guaranteeing that Saudi resources would not fall prey to hungry predators. Since the alliance was
formed by President Roosevelt and King Abdul Aziz near the end of World War II, differences of opinion have occurred from time to time, but the underlying foundation remained solid. The
kingdom does have serious economic and political problems. Sentiment on the ground is certainly more charged than before September 11th. But this is a long way from concluding that Saudi
The kingdom has begun to put internal and external policies in place in
Arabia is an unreliable partner, or that the royal family’s days are numbered.
recent years to stabilize the situation they now face. Media reports partly reflect frustration in Washington political circles with Saudi
Arabia’s hesitant cooperation in the U.S.-led war on terrorism. In actual fact, the kingdom has provided cooperation, albeit not as
publicly as the Bush administration might have liked. And it’s most important contribution has been on the oil side, cajoling OPEC into
accepting lower prices immediately after September 11th.”
4) Covert Production of Marijuana
A. Link: The Affirmative Team’s Plan Legalizes the Production of Industrial Hemp
B. Internal Link: Hemp Legalization Increases the Likelihood of Covert Production
of Marijuana Making it Harder for the DEA to Enforce Existing Drug Laws
Representative John Fleming [M.D. (1976); a Minden, Louisiana physician; author of the book “Preventing Addiction”; the Republican
U.S. representative from Louisiana’s 4th congressional district; attended college at the University of Mississippi in Oxford and medical school in
Jackson],“Rep. John Fleming (R-LA) on Industrial Hemp and Marijuana,” December 24, 2009, http://www.marijuana.bz/2009/12/24/rep-
john-fleming-r-la-on-medical-marijuana/ [PB] [brackets added]
“I am opposed to efforts to legalize [hemp]. I believe that raising hemp for fiber or oilseed would increase the likelihood
of covert production of marijuana plants with a higher concentration of [THCs] in fields of industrial hemp,
hindering the Drug Enforcement Agency’s surveillance and enforcement activities, and sending the wrong message
to the American public concerning the government’s position on drugs.”
C. Impact: Marijuana is BAD

1. Marijuana in itself is bad for humans
Peter Lavelle [studied medicine at Sydney University and graduated in 1983; he practiced as a General Practitioner in medicine for several
years before becoming a full-time medical writer], “Fact File: Cannabis,” Article Published on the ABC Health and Wellbeing
Website, Last Updated in 2009, http://www.abc.net.au/health/library/stories/2002/08/22/1829503.htm [PB] [brackets added]
“When under the influence of [marijuana] the drug (or to use the terminology, when a user is ‘stoned’, ‘whacked’ or ‘off their tree/dial/face’) people
experience alterations of mood and perception. These can be mildly pleasant or disorientating and disturbing, depending on the dose and on the experience of the
user… There are some physical effects too. [Marijuana] decreases coordination and balance, making it dangerous to
drive or operate machinery. Other common immediate effects include increased heart rate, low blood pressure,
faintness and reddened eyes. There also can be a ‘hangover’ effect – drowsiness and poor coordination – lasting a couple of hours. All these effects increase as the dose
increases. If someone uses too much cannabis, or smokes a stronger batch than they’re used to, they can have a bad time, becoming fearful, confused and paranoid. There isn’t really anything that
can be done except wait until the effects wear off, preferably in the company of another person. Unlike heroin and cocaine, there are no known deaths from an overdose of cannabis… Currently,
there is no available scientific evidence that occasional use of small quantities of cannabis causes any permanent health damage. But use it often, over a long period of time, and it’s a different
story. Here’s how [marijuana] can damage your health [if used often]: [Marijuana] causes bronchitis . Marijuana cigarettes have more tar than tobacco, and marijuana smokers
often inhale deeply, holding the smoke in the lungs longer, to increase the effects of the drug. This damages the airways. Marijuana smokers have increased susceptibility to chest infections like
bronchitis (which then take longer to clear up), and a greater chance of developing chronic bronchitis. If marijuana and tobacco are combined, the risk is greater still, and the user probably also
has a greater risk of developing lung cancer than someone who only smokes tobacco. It saps your energy. Some regular users report that they have less energy and motivation than
impairs your
people who don't use, and their performance at work or school suffers accordingly. When these users stop smoking, their energy and motivation usually returns. It
mental performance. Regular cannabis use (using daily, and perhaps more than weekly in younger users) diminishes a user's concentration, memory and the ability to learn. Even
after stopping use, these effects can last for several months… [And] may contribute to a psychotic episode. There’s a lot of debate about this, but it seems that a
person who is prone to psychosis is more likely to have a psychotic episode if they use cannabis. It is unclear whether cannabis alone can cause psychosis in those without this vulnerability.”
2. Marijuana is a ‘gateway’ drug
The United States Drug Enforcement Administration, “Exposing the Myth of Smoked Medical Marijuana; Marijuana: The Facts,”
On their website, accessed December 26, 2009, http://www.justice.gov/dea/ongoing/marijuana.html [ZV]
“Yes. Among marijuana’s most harmful consequences is its role in leading to the use of other illegal drugs like heroin
and cocaine. Long-term studies of students who use drugs show that very few young people use other illegal drugs
without first trying marijuana. While not all people who use marijuana go on to use other drugs, using marijuana sometimes lowers inhibitions about drug use and exposes
users to a culture that encourages use of other drugs. The risk of using cocaine has been estimated to be more than 104 times greater for
those who have tried marijuana than for those who have never tried it.”
MISCELLANEOUS
DEA concerns about commercial cultivation of hemp
Jean M. Rawson [Specialist in Agricultural Policy from the Resources, Science, and Industry Division at the Congressional Research
Service], “Hemp as an Agricultural Commodity,” Congressional Research Service Report for Congress, January 5, 2005,
http://www.votehemp.com/PDF/CRS_Hemp_Report.pdf [PB] [brackets added]
“DEA officials express the concern that commercial cultivation [of hemp] would increase the likelihood of covert
production of high-THC marijuana, significantly complicate DEA’s surveillance and enforcement activities, and
send the wrong message to the American public concerning the government’s position on drugs.”

NEG - Industrial Hemp Legalization CON

Cargado por

Información del documento

Derechos de autor

Formatos disponibles

Compartir este documento

Compartir o incrustar documentos

Opciones para compartir

¿Le pareció útil este documento?

¿Este contenido es inapropiado?

Copyright:

Formatos disponibles

NEG - Industrial Hemp Legalization CON

Cargado por

Copyright:

Formatos disponibles

NEG – Industrial Hemp CON Page |1

NEG – Industrial Hemp – CON

TOPICALITY – DEA Regulations = Drug Policy

2. Cannabis hemp is not a unique, environmentally friendly crop

3. Hemp requires abundant moisture

4. Hemp requires soils with high fertility

6. Hemp does require herbicides for production

in many areas, a pre-

7. Hemp is not environmentally beneficial – hemp yields prove

8. Hemp is not environmentally beneficial – trees prove

2. A2: “No Pests, so no Pesticides”

2. Birds feed voraciously on hemp seeds

3. A2: “Economic Benefit”

2. Hemp is not economically beneficial – paper proves

3. Hemp is not economically beneficial – plastic and synthetic fibers proves

4. Hemp is not economically beneficial – vegetable oil/fuel proves

5. Hemp is not economically beneficial – food and cosmetic products proves

3. It is unclear if hemp can be economically processed in the U.S.

4. The technology needed to process hemp is lacking majorly in the US

The marginal profitability

2. Hemp monitoring, licensing, or regulating costs are superly, massively, enormous

3. Issues of legality increases incumbency

6. Didn’t Work in the Past

C. Internal Link: Legalizing Hemp would Undermine U.S. Efforts

legalizing hemp would

D. Impact #1: Hegemony

the war on drugs was a

E. Impact #2: Terrorism

The Economist [a widely respected newspaper], “Speedy decline,” May 1, 2008,

B) Impact #2: Terrorism

C. Impact: Regional Stability Devastated

4) Covert Production of Marijuana

C. Impact: Marijuana is BAD

2. Marijuana is a ‘gateway’ drug

También podría gustarte