Death Penalty

NOTE: I have available on the NU debate wiki the .docx files for all briefs, so that one may correctly view the supplemental graphs and charts.

Death Penalty

THW instate a moratorium on the Death Penalty.

THW ban the Death Penalty.

Yes

No

Financial costs to taxpayers of capital punishment is several times that of keeping someone in prison for life. It is barbaric and violates the "cruel and unusual" clause in the Bill of Rights. The endless appeals and required additional procedures clog our court system. We as a society have to move away from the "eye for an eye" revenge mentality if civilization is to advance. Capital Punishment disproportionately affects racial minorities. It sends the wrong message: why kill people who kill people to show killing is wrong. Life in prison is a worse punishment and a more effective deterrent. Other countries (especially in Europe) would have a more favorable image of America. Some jury members are reluctant to convict if it means putting someone to death. The prisoner's family must suffer from seeing their loved one put to death by the state, as well as going through the emotionally-draining appeals process. It creates sympathy for the monstrous perpetrators of the crimes. It is useless in that it doesn't bring the victim back to life.

The Death Penalty upholds the social contract implicit between a government and its people. The death penalty gives closure to the victim's families who have suffered so much. It creates another form of crime deterrent. Justice is better served. A response to the racial stigma attached to Capital Punishment Our justice system shows more sympathy for criminals than it does victims. It provides a deterrent for prisoners already serving a life sentence. DNA testing and other methods of modern crime scene science can now effectively eliminate almost all uncertainty as to a person's guilt or innocence. Prisoner parole or escapes can give criminals another chance to kill. It contributes to the problem of overpopulation in the prison system. It gives prosecutors another bargaining chip in the plea bargain process, which is essential in cutting costs in an overcrowded court system.

Overview/Background

1,136 people were executed in the US from 1977 through 2008, primarily by means of lethal injection. The United States remains in the minority of nations in the world that still uses death as penalty for certain crimes. Many see the penalty as barbaric and against American values. Others see it as a very important tool in fighting violent pre-meditated murder. Two things have once again brought this issue to national debate. One is the release of some highly publicized studies that show a number of innocents had been put to death. The second is the issue of terrorism and the need to punish its perpetrators.

One of the most prominent and influential U.S. Supreme Court cases involving capital punishment was the 1972 case Furman v. Georgia. Concluding that the death sentence in thirty-five states had been applied unfairly, the Court placed a moratorium on executions until new standards could ensure evenhandedness in the administration of capital punishment. The Court's specific concerns were that states had applied the death penalty in a way that violated the Eighth Amendment's prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment. Several justices cited factors such as racial discrimination, the poor quality of court-appointed lawyers for the accused, and the risk of executing

the innocent as proof that the death penalty had become inhumane.

As a result of the Furman ruling, several states passed statutes designed to prevent arbitrariness and discrimination in death penalty cases. These statutes created significant capital-punishment reforms, including the abolition of mandatory death penalties, limiting state-level capital punishment to the crime of murder, and obligatory appeals of death sentences. The Supreme Court then reinstated the death penalty in 1976, enabling states to resume executions in 1977. During the 1980s and 1990s, a rise in the U.S. homicide rate apparently bolstered popular support for capital punishment. Polls reveal that since the mid-1990s, 60 to 75 percent of the American public has favored the death penalty, with many maintaining that it is the most just punishment for the crime of murder

Since 1977, more than 110 death-row inmates have been released after new information revealed that they had been erroneously convicted. Police misconduct, suppressed evidence, coerced confessions, inept legal representation, mistaken identification, false testimony, and juror prejudice can lead to wrongful convictions. Institutional discrimination based on race, class, or social status can also be a factor. Poor defendants are particularly disadvantaged, critics claim, because they cannot afford their own legal representation and may be assigned court-appointed lawyers who are inexperienced, overworked, or underpaid.

63% of Americans favor a moratorium on the death penalty.

80% Believe that the death penalty has been extended to an innocent person.

Yes

1. Financial costs to taxpayers of capital punishment is several times that of keeping someone in prison for life. Most people don't realize that carrying out one death sentence costs 2-5 times more than keeping that same criminal in prison for the rest of his life. The reason is that with the endless appeals, additional required procedures, and legal wrangling that drag the process out, it consumes far more money than it would cost to feed and house a prisoner. It's not unusual for a prisoner to be on death row for 15-20 years. Judges, attorneys, court reporters, clerks, and court facilities all require a substantial investment by the taxpayers.

2. The Death Penalty leaves no room for error or adjustment of sentencing. There has been an astounding number of cases were prior to, or after the administration of the death penalty, evidence was deemed insufficient or just overruled, and prisoners were let go, or already dead. In a justice system based upon evidence, we must not forget that oftentimes prosecutors and cops can and will fabricate evidence. We should never impose an irrevocable sentence, because evidence is always subject to change. As is the case with Anthony Graves, released from Death Row on October 27, 2010. He was convicted in 1992 of murdering an entire family, in Somerville, Texas. He was somehow convicted on the basis that some correctional officers supposedly heard him confess to the crime, which was apparently enough to convince 12 jurors that he was guilty.

3. It is barbaric and violates the "cruel and unusual" clause in the Bill of Rights. Whether it's a firing squad, electric chair, gas chamber, lethal injection, or hanging, it's barbaric to allow state-sanctioned murder before a crowd of people. We condemn people like Saddam Hussein and Kim Jong Il when they murder their own people while we continue to do the same (although our procedures for allowing it are obviously more thorough). The 8th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution prevents the use of "cruel and unusual punishment". Many would interpret the death penalty as violating this restriction.

4. The endless appeals and required additional procedures clog our court system. The U.S. court system goes to enormous lengths before allowing a death sentence to be carried out. All the appeals, motions, hearings, briefs, etc. monopolize much of the time of judges, attorneys, and other court employees as well as use up courtrooms & facilities. This is time & space that could be used for other unresolved matters. The court system is tremendously backed up. This would help move things along.

5. We as a society have to move away from the "eye for an eye" revenge mentality if civilization is to advance. The "eye for an eye" mentality will never solve anything. A revenge philosophy inevitably leads to an endless cycle of violence. Why do you think the Israeli-Palestine conflict has been going on for 50+ years? Why do you think gang violence in this country never seems to end? It is important to send a message to society that striking back at your enemy purely for revenge will always make matters worse. ..

6. Capital Punishment disproportionately affects racial minorities. The fact that the death penalty is doled out to minorities more shows a severe bias in the justice system. It is very problematic that we continue to kill minorities at a higher rate than the majority, because it indicates that racism still exists in American society, and we fought for so long to end the persecution of minorities. We are killing people (or by converse, not killing white people) because of their race, and it really is affecting our society by further promoting racist notions.

Despite the fact that African Americans make up only 13 percent of the nation’s population, almost 50 percent of those currently on the federal death row are African American. And even though only three people have been executed under the federal death penalty in the modern era, two of them have been racial minorities. Furthermore, all six of the next scheduled executions are African Americans.

The U.S. Department of Justice’s own figures reveal that between 2001 and 2006, 48 percent of defendants in federal cases in which the death penalty was sought were African Americans.

Taken from NAACP article, “NAACP Remains Steadfast in Ending Death Penalty & Fighting Injustice in America’s Justice System”.

7. It sends the wrong message: why kill people who kill people to show killing is wrong. Yes, we want to make sure there is accountability for crime and an effective deterrent in place; however, the death penalty has a message of "You killed one of us, so we'll kill you". The state is actually using a murder to punish someone who committed a murder. Does that make sense?

8. Life in prison is a worse punishment and a more effective deterrent. For those of you who don't feel much sympathy for a murderer, keep in mind that death may be too good for them. With a death sentence, the suffering is over in an instant. With life in prison, the pain goes on for decades. Prisoners are confined to a cage and live in an internal environment of rape and violence where they're treated as animals. And consider terrorists. Do you think they'd rather suffer the humiliation of lifelong prison or be "martyred" by a death sentence?

9. Other countries (especially in Europe) would have a more favorable image of America. It's no secret that anti-Americanism is rampant around the world. One of the reasons is America's continued use of the death penalty. We're seen as a violent, vengeful nation for such a policy. This is pretty much the same view that Europeans had of America when we continued the practice of slavery long after it had been banned in Europe.

10. Some jury members are reluctant to convict if it means putting someone to death. Many states require any jury members to be polled during the pre-trial examination to be sure they have the stomach to sentence someone to death before they're allowed to serve. Even if they're against the death penalty, they still may lie in order to get on the panel. The thought of agreeing to kill someone even influences some jury members to acquit rather than risk the death. Some prosecutors may go for a lesser charge rather than force juries into a death-or-acquit choice. Obviously, in all these situations, justice may not be served.

11. The prisoner's family must suffer from seeing their loved one put to death by the state, as well as going through the emotionally-draining appeals process. One victim's innocent family is obviously forced to suffer from a capital murder, but by enforcing a death sentence, you force another family to suffer. Why double the suffering when we don't have to?

12. It creates sympathy for the monstrous perpetrators of the crimes. Criminals usually are looked down upon by society. People are disgusted by the vile, unconscionable acts they commit and feel tremendous sympathy for the victims of murder, rape, etc. However, the death penalty has a way of shifting sympathy away from the victims and to the criminals themselves. An excellent example is the 2005 execution of former gang leader "Tookie" Williams. This is one of the original members of the notorious Crips gang, which has a long legacy of robbery, assault, and murder. This is a man who was convicted with overwhelming evidence of the murder of 4 people, some of whom he shot in the back and then laughed at the sounds they made as they died. This is a man who never even took responsibility for the crimes or apologized to the victims -- NOT ONCE! These victims had kids and spouses, but instead of sympathy for them, sympathy shifted to Tookie. Candlelight vigils were held for him. Websites like savetookie.org sprung up. Protests and a media circus ensued trying to prevent the execution, which eventually did take place -- 26 years after the crime itself! There are many cases like this, which makes a mockery of the evil crimes these degenerates commit.

13. It is useless in that it doesn't bring the victim back to life. Perhaps the biggest reason to ban the death penalty is that it doesn't change the fact that the victim is gone and will never come back. Hate, revenge, and anger will never cure the emptiness of a lost loved one. Forgiveness is the only way to start the healing process, and this won't happen in a revenge-focused individual.

No

1. The Death Penalty upholds the social contract implicit between a government and its people. Immanuel Kant, when discussing capital punishment said, “A society that is not willing to demand a life of somebody who has taken somebody else’s life is simply immoral.” What Kant meant by this is that as a governing body, a society is inherently part of a ‘social contract’. Social contract is the implicit ‘contract’ between a government and the people under it. John Locke, Jean Jacques Rousseau, and Thomas Hobbes discuss how a government is established and legitimized by the ‘will of the people’. The idea is that humans, being naturally wild (living in nature) were in a constant state of war with nature, but out of a desire for survival, began to live together. In the wild, every man/woman has the ability to kill another (I can come up to you and slit your throat… it’s that simple), but in a sort of, “I won’t kill you if you don’t kill me” fashion, we suspend our abilities to kill or harm another individual in assurance of ‘mutual survival’. When a person breaks this social contract, it is up to the government, which is given authority by the people, must respond in kind to remove that right. The thought goes, “since this person had an inherent agreement not to kill the now deceased individual, someone must hold them to the broken end of the deal. Since a government is the body invested with power by the masses, it is best suited to uphold the contract for the now deceased person.” If a government does not do this, then they do not uphold the contract implicit in society, and is thus immoral, according to Kant.

In the instance of death penalty for espionage/treason, similar logic would also follow, being that the government also has the duty to protect its people from other governing bodies that might desire to force the people in the other country into a different social contract. This is talked about in Hobbe’s Leviathan, and Machiavelli’s The Prince.

2. The death penalty gives closure to the victim's families who have suffered so much. Some family members of crime victims may take years or decades to recover from the shock and loss of a loved one. Some may never recover. One of the things that helps hasten this recovery is to achieve some kind of closure. Life in prison just means the criminal is still around to haunt the victim. A death sentence brings finality to a horrible chapter in the lives of these family members.

3. It creates another form of crime deterrent. Prison time is an effective deterrent, but not as effective as Capital punishment.

4. Justice is better served. The most fundamental principle of justice is that the punishment should fit the crime. When someone plans and brutally murders another person, it make sense that the punishment for the perpetrator also should be death. This can also follow similar logic as the social contract theory.

5. A response to the racial stigma attached to Capital Punishment. According to Roger Clegg (JD) in an article entitled “The Color of Death: Does the Death Penalty Discriminate?” He maintains that the reason minorities are disproportionately represented in those on Death row is because they commit more crimes. He cites Randall Kennedy, an African American professor of law at Harvard as saying that there is a higher rate of street crime in terms of minorities. He further goes on to say that criminals are disproportionate in a number of other arenas, such as the majority on death row being males, in their 20’s, and poor. He also goes on to show that crime rates are much higher for the poor than for other socioeconomic groups, and links the fact that minorities are more highly represented in the poor.

6. Our justice system shows more sympathy for criminals than it does victims. It's time we put the emphasis of our criminal justice system back on protecting the victim rather than the accused. Remember, a person who's on death row has almost always committed crimes before this. A long line of victims have been waiting for justice. We need justice for current and past victims.

7. It provides a deterrent for prisoners already serving a life sentence. What about people already sentenced to life in prison. What's to stop them from murdering people constantly while in prison? What are they going to do--extend his sentence? Sure, they can take away some prison privileges, but is this enough of a deterrent to stop the killing? What about a person sentenced to life who happens to escape? What's to stop him from killing anyone who might try to bring him in or curb his crime spree?

8. DNA testing and other methods of modern crime scene science can now effectively eliminate almost all uncertainty as to a person's guilt or innocence. One of the biggest arguments against the death penalty is the possibility of error. Sure, we can never completely eliminate all uncertainty, but nowadays, it's about as close as you can get. DNA testing is over 99 percent effective. And even if DNA testing and other such scientific methods didn't exist, the trial and appeals process is so thorough it's next to impossible to convict an innocent person. Remember, a jury of 12 members must unanimously decide there's not even a reasonable doubt the person is guilty. The number of innocent people that might somehow be convicted is no greater than the number of innocent victims of the murderers who are set free.

9. Prisoner parole or escapes can give criminals another chance to kill. Perhaps the biggest reason to keep the death penalty is to prevent the crime from happening again. The parole system nowadays is a joke. Does it make sense to anyone outside the legal system to have multiple "life" sentences + 20 years or other jiverish? Even if a criminal is sentenced to life without possibility of parole, he still has a chance to kill while in prison, or even worse, escape and go on a crime/murder spree.

10. It contributes to the problem of overpopulation in the prison system. Prisons across the country face the problem of too many prisoners and not enough space & resources. Each additional prisoner requires a portion of a cell, food, clothing, extra guard time, and so on. When you eliminate the death penalty as an option, it means that prisoner must be housed for life. Thus, it only adds to the problem of an overcrowded prison system.

11. It gives prosecutors another bargaining chip in the plea bargain process, which is essential in cutting costs in an overcrowded court system. The number of criminal cases that are plea bargained (meaning the accused admits guilt in return for a lesser sentence or some other concession) can be as high as 80 or 90 percent of cases. With the time, cost, and personnel requirements of a criminal case, there really isn't much of a choice. The vast majority of people that are arraigned are in fact guilty of the crime they are accused. Even if you believe a defendant only deserves life in prison, without the threat of a death sentence, there may be no way to get him to plead guilty and accept the sentence. If a case goes to trial, in addition to the enormous cost, you run the chance that you may lose the case, meaning a violent criminal gets off scot free. The existence of the death penalty gives prosecutors much more flexibility and power to ensure just punishments.

http://proquest.umi.com/pqdweb?index=4&did=2182661291&SrchMode=1&sid=2&Fmt=3&VInst=PROD&VType=PQD&R

http://deathpenalty.procon.org/view.resource.php?resourceID=002000

http://proquest.umi.com/pqdweb?index=53&did=2166023751&SrchMode=1&sid=2&Fmt=3&VInst=PROD&VType=PQD&RQT=309&VNa

http://socialissues.wiseto.com/Articles/FO3020640047/

Affirmative Action

NOTE: I would like to finish updating this, and fully fleshing out the arguments in it, but I felt it was sufficient enough in case the team needs it over the weekend.

Affirmative Action

What is Affirmative Action?

Affirmative action refers to policies that take factors including "race, color, religion, sex or national origin"[1] into consideration in order to benefit an underrepresented group, usually as a means to counter the effects of a history of discrimination. The focus of such policies ranges from employment and education to public contracting and health programs. “Affirmative action” is action taken to increase the representation of women and minorities in areas of employment, education, and business from which they have been historically excluded. It’s an attempt to give historically disenfranchised social groups “equal opportunity.”

THW ban Affirmative Action

This house could be either Federal or state government. There have also been cases of Affirmative action in countries besides the US, but I will focus mostly on US examples. The philosophical arguments for and against go for any country though.

PRO	CON
Affirmative Action promotes racism. Racism,‘a policy, system of government, etc., based upon or fostering such a doctrine.’ When a government shows race to be a deciding factor, whether in negative or affirmative policy making, it further entrenches the idea of race as an inherently differentiating quality. The whole goal of the Civil Rights movement was to create equality, a sense of color-blindness, if you will. What affirmative action does is to essentially tell the group attempting to be affirmed that they cannot do it on their own. This is summed up by Alan Keyes, ““Preferential affirmative action patronizes American blacks, women, and others by presuming that they cannot succeed on their own. Preferential affirmative action does not advance civil rights in this country.”	“In order to get beyond racism, we must first take account of race. There is no other way. And in order to treat some persons equally, we must treat them differently.”- Harry A. Blackmun Affirmative action is necessary, because for so long we as a nation mistreated and discriminated against certain groups, such as blacks, Mexicans, women, and Asians, and now because of that fact, they are entrenched in impoverished situations. Those minority groups are overrepresented in poverty, low education levels, lower paying jobs, and government welfare programs. We are striving for equality, and in order for equality to take place, we must try to level the playing field as much as possible, so every person can begin at the same place.
Affirmative action is leading to less qualified workers gaining positions over more skilled workers. In a case brought before the Supreme Court of New York, 13 white firefighters were denied promotions they had earned by scoring well on promotional testing, because the City of Buffalo had contested that the testing was prejudicial simply because minorities were not as successful on the exams. A similar case occurred in New Haven, and Sonia Sotomayor was on the court then, and ruled against the firefighters. Affirmative action values RACE over CAPABILITY.	The American Association for Affirmative Action Received More Than 90,000 Employment Discrimination Complaints Last Year, clearly showing that we still need affirmative action…. Poverty rates for blacks and Hispanics greatly exceed the national average. In 2009, 25.8 percent of blacks and 25.3 percent of Hispanics were poor, compared to 9.4 percent of non-Hispanic whites and 12.5 percent of Asians. This shows that there is still much that we need to do to level the playing field. Affirmative action actually works at leveling the playing field. From 1955-1969, there was no growth in the percentage of college students who were black, it stayed a steady 4.9%! Only once Affirmative Action was put into place did we see any substantive percentage increases. Before the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the median black male worker earned only about 60 percent as much as the median white male worker; (10) by 1993, the median black male earned 74 percent as much as the median white male. (11) The male-female wage gap has also narrowed since the 1960s: median female earnings relative to median male earnings rose from about 60 percent during the 1960s to 72 percent in 1993.
Furthermore, Affirmative action actually lowers the standards to the level of the disenfranchised, rather than raise the disenfranchised up to the standards, which is the ultimate goal of affirmative action.	Charles J. Ogletree was a poor black boy, growing up in Merced, CA. His parents were both products of a segregated south, and thus had menial education, but they pushed their son to try as hard as he could to get into college. Charles went to his school counselors, and they suggested Stanford. He worked as hard as he could in school, but still couldn’t reach the level of Standardized testing Stanford required, because his school in Merced was underfunded and had a large number of black students. He was finally able to make it into Stanford because of Affirmative action. Once there, he was able to work hard, and obtain a BA in 3 years, an MA the next year, and go on to get a Law Degree from Harvard. He now teaches at Harvard, and is on the Board of Trustees at Stanford.
	Less than 3% of federal contracts go to women-owned firms. In Washington, less than 10% of state contracts and purchasing dollars go to women-owned firms — even though women own 39% of firms.

Mexican Drug War

Mexican Drug War:

Sample resolutions:

THBT the US should do more to help fight the drug war in Mexico.

THW legalize Marijuana.

THBT Mexico should not be abandoned.

THBT the war on Drugs is a lost cause.

Background:

Taken from Wikipedia

The Mexican Drug War is an armed conflict taking place among rival drug cartels who fight for regional control, and between the drug cartels and the Mexican government, which seeks to reduce drug trafficking. Although Mexican drug cartels have existed for a few decades, they have become more powerful since the demise of Colombia's Cali and Medellín cartels in the 1990s. Mexican drug cartels now dominate the wholesale illicit drug market in the United States.^[13] Arrests of key cartel leaders, particularly in the Tijuana and Gulf cartels, have led to increasing drug violence as cartels fight for control of the trafficking routes into the United States.^[14][15][16]

Mexico, a major drug producing and transit country, is the main foreign supplier of cannabis and a major supplier of methamphetamine to the United States.^[13]Although Mexico accounts for only a small share of worldwide heroin production, it supplies a large share of the heroin distributed in the United States.^[13][17]Drug cartels in Mexico control approximately 70% of the foreign narcotics that flow into the United States.^[18]

The US State Department estimates that 90% of cocaine entering the United States transits Mexico, with Colombia being the main cocaine producer^[19]—and that wholesale of illicit drug sale earnings estimates range from $13.6 billion to $48.4 billion annually.^[13][20] Mexican drug traffickers increasingly smuggle money back into Mexico in cars and trucks, likely due to the effectiveness of U.S. efforts at monitoring electronic money transfers.

Pro and Cons with a sample model:

NOTE: Feel free to adjust these models as you see fit, they are just sample ideas with which you may run a gov/opp case.

Send more troops to US border, finish building the fence, and increase border protection so the drugrunners no longer have a market. Send 10k troops to border.

Legalize Marijuana in the US (Mexico too, if you want to take on the extra burden… I would suggest just the US).

THW legalize Marijuana

THBT the war on Drugs has failed

THW free the reefer

Sample model:

House= United States Congress

Fully legalize the growth, processing, sale, and consumption of marijuana. There would be a regulatory committee establishing levels of purity necessary for sale and establishing a tax on it. There would be a cap on the maximum amount a person can have in possession, being 3g, following the model of Denmark. The age limit would be 21 years old, and there would be restrictions on operation of motor vehicles while intoxicated with marijuana.

PROS	CONS
Help in the fight against the Drug cartels in Mexico. The legalization would cause farmers to be able to grow pot legally, therefore effectively eliminating the need to buy marijuana from Mexican cartels (see the points about the study done by RAND). **This is a huge point, obviously, and would need to be very much developed. The speaking points/evidence for this point is the main point of the brief.	Legalizing pot would actually put more money into the cartel’s pockets. Because of the wholesale legalization of pot, more people will be willing to try it, and therefore demand will go up, furthering the drug cartel’s business. This view is espoused by the two leaders who are hardest hit by the drug war, Fillipe Calderon (President of Mexico) and Juan Carlos (President of Colombia).
Legalizing would decriminalize the sale and consumption of marijuana, therefore freeing up the Police force and the Prison system from imprisoning otherwise law-abiding citizens.	Legalizing marijuana would lead to many social harms currently seen by Denmark, such as increased youth use of marijuana, declining school participation, and an increase in drug Tourism. This Drug tourism is an inevitable side effect which has brought about many problems for Denmark, as illustrated by a study shown in this brief.
Legalizing would allow the Government to regulate the sale of marijuana, and tax it, adding extra revenue, making the drug more safe, and helping to create new agricultural industry. **This point can, and should be backed up with a case study of Prohibition. Further evidence from this brief regarding total revenue gained through taxation could also be used.	We shouldn’t be legalizing a substance which has been proven in many different scientific studies to be harmful for humans. The social effects caused by marijuana are far reaching, and the government shouldn’t be endorsing such a socially problematic substance. Even if we could make money from it, we shouldn’t because it would be wrong for the government to take advantage of such a harmful product.
This would allow for freedom of Choice, that is, one’s right to choose autonomously whether or not they want to use a substance. Tobacco and Alcohol are both legal, and have been shown to actually be more harmful than marijuana. We are a free society that values the ability to pursue happiness anyway one so chooses, regardless of whether or not it is bad for you. Furthermore, criminalizing pot has brought about far worse harms, such as the 28,000 dead in Mexico, and the huge toll to our prison/court systems, than the nominal “social harms” presented by legal pot.	Legalizing could look weak in the international community. It would show that America and Mexico have admitted defeat in the face of adversity. Given up on a battle simply because it got too difficult. America, as the leader of the free world, has an obligation to democratic values and traditions to stand for what’s right in the world.

Important Facts about Drug War:

· 28,000 Deaths since Fillipe Calderon took office in 2006. This is more than the Iraq and Afghanistan war combined.

· It can cost as little as $35 to have an opponent murdered. There were more than 300 beheadings in 2009, becoming so commonplace most don’t even get mentioned in the news.

· On January 1^st, a 36 year old gang member was captured, dismembered, and his face was skinned off his skull, and sewn onto a soccer ball, kicked onto the lawn of a rival gangmember’s home with a message written on the other side, “Happy New Year, it’ll be your last.”

October 1 – 2 2010, 34 lives were claimed in a shootout in Juarez Mexico, right across the border from El Paso, TX.

· A man who goes by the name, ‘The Stewmaker’ confessed to dissolving more than 300 bodies in caustic acid, just in 2009!

· Joaquin Guzman is the leader of the Sinaloa cartel, the largest cartel in Mexico. The US currently has a bounty of $5m on his head, yet have been unsuccessful at capturing him. The Sinaloa cartel operates in the Juarez valley, directly south of El Paso, and he has become quite wealthy. Forbes put him on their billionaires list, as well as ranking him the 41^st most powerful man on the planet. He’s responsible for thousands of deaths, including many mayors of Juarez.

· On October 16, 2010 the Mexican army seized a huge haul of Marijuana packed for sale in Tijuana. They seized 134.2 tons of packaged marijuana, making it the largest seizure of packaged, for sale, marijuana. This marijuana has a street value over $336 million

· A report into the results of the first four months of Caldern's presidency showed the capture of 1,102 drug dealers, the seizure of about $500m, 556kg of marijuana, 1,419 military grade weapons, two airplanes, 630 automobiles, and 15 sea ships that transported drugs. This stopped the distribution of 17,728,000 doses of cocaine, 193,922,000 doses of heroin, and 6,996,000 toxic pills, stopping the intoxication of 647,771,000 people.

· Fillipe Calderon has deployed 50,000 armed troops the help contain the violence of the cartels. Many feel this exacerbates the violence, This was demonstrated in the massive protests of hundreds of people at the US/Mexican border in February of 2009, because many citizens of Mexico feel that the armed forces are actually committing human rights violations against the civilians.

· Cartels often “buy” police officers, according to an article posted by Wales on Sunday, roughly around $6m has been spent to buy police officers off. This is because police officers are considered 2^nd class citizens, not afforded the same rights to minimum wage, nor are they given protections against more than a 40 hour work week.

· Fillipe Calderon of Mexico and Juan Carlos of Colombia both urged against California Prop 19, saying that it would only increase the profits of the cartels, however former President of Mexico, Vincente Fox has given hourly twitter updates espousing the benefits of California legalizing. Analysts argue that the discrepancy is a result of politics, since the US gives both Presidents $9B in funds, they don’t want to jeopardize that cash flow. Calderon is quoted as saying, “drugs kill in production, drugs kill in distribution, and drugs kill in consumption.”

· California only makes up 1/7 of the marijuana market in the U.S., according to a study done by RAND, they found that the only way California legalizing marijuana could significantly undercut the cartel’s profits would be if drug runners began smuggling marijuana grown in California to other states.

· RAND found that even if sinsemilla marijuana (the most potent type of marijuana with a THC concentration of 10-18%, vs normal marijuana imported from Mexico at around 4-6%) was taxed heavily, at $25 dollars per ounce, the wholesale price would still be comparable to Mexican marijuana prices… so legal, twice as powerful, and taxed marijuana would still be about the same price as weaker, bloodstained marijuana.

· RAND also found, however, that through their transparent study (meaning their methods could be analyzed by any reader of the study) Marijuana sales only comprised 15-26% of Drug Cartel’s profits. They do concede the point that the government may have access to classified information, and government organizations have released the often quoted figure that marijuana sales comprise 60% of Drug Cartel’s profits.

· A little over 30% of marijuana users 18 and older are either dependent or abuse the drug, according to a 2004 study done in the Journal of the American Medical Association. They found serious correlations between marijuana use and cognitive impairment such as ability to think, reason and process information, it decreases motor functions, and has been shown to cause respiratory (lung cancer) and mental illnesses.

· A study done by the Ministry of Health, Welfare, and Sport which is a Dutch organization caused the Dutch government to reduce the size limits on “coffee houses” which are essentially weed bars, because of the negative effects of drug tourism, and the societal harms associated with drug use/abuse. They found that the ease of access to marijuana led to underage students being able to easily obtain the drug, which affected their school performance, caused mass truancy issues, and in many cases caused permanent brain damage to their underdeveloped brains.

· According to the Economist, in 2007, 1/3 of Mexicans thought the death toll was a reasonable price to pay, whereas now, only 1/4 believe so. The death toll has been increasing rapidly, with twice as many deaths in the first half of this year as opposed to the first half of last year.

The high-profile cartels:

SINALOA CARTEL The Sinaloa Cartel is the largest drug trafficking cartel in Mexico. Its leader, Joaqun Shorty Guzmn, has become one of the richest men in the world and Mexico's most wanted. Since 2003, the cartel has waged war with its main rivals - the Gulf Cartel, Jurez Cartel and Tijuana Cartel - to control the coveted southwest Texas corridor. Also known as Federation or Golden Triangle, the cartel is responsible for importing nearly 200 tonnes of cocaine into the United States between 1990 and 2008.

GULF CARTEL Based in the city of Matamoros, the Gulf Cartel has been one of Mexico's two dominant cartels in recent years. In the late 1990s, it hired a private mercenary army called Los Zetas, which in 2006 stepped up as a partner. In February 2010, their partnership was dissolved and both gangs engaged in widespread violence across several cities of Tamaulipas state, turning several border towns into "ghost towns".

JUREZ CARTEL The Jurez Cartel controls one of the main transportation routes for illegal drug shipments entering the US. Its power has weakened, however, since it become locked in a vicious battle with its former partner, the Sinaloa Cartel, for control of the city of Ciudad Jurez. Headed by Vicente Carrillo Fuentes, the ruthless organisation has been known to decapitate rivals, mutilate their corpses and dump them in public and has an enforcement gang of former Chihuahua police officers.

TIJUANA CARTEL Featured in the Hollywood film Traffic, the Tijuana Cartel has been the least powerful of northern Mexico's gangs since its leader, Javier Arellano Felix, was arrested by the US Coast Guard on a boat off the coast of southern California four years ago. But in one of the bloodiest shoot-outs of the drugs war, 14 gang members were killed and eight others injured in a gun battle in Tijuana near the US border in April 2008.

The U.S. and the Mexican Drug war:

A brief History of Marijuana in the US:

In 1619, the Jamestown Colony actually had a law requiring farmers to grow cannabis. However, it was more for the other purposes of hemp, such as textile making, rope, paper, etc. In the US Census of 1850 there were 8,327 plantations growing marijuana.

Due to the previous Mexican war, and the Mexican revolution in 1910 which caused a spill over of violence when the Mexican army chased the bandit Pancho Villa (as a side note, my great-grandpa ran him off of our family dairy in Duncan, AZ) into US territory. Propaganda seized the “differences” between Mexicans and Americans, one of which was that they smoked “loco” (crazy) weed… or marijuana, which made them crazy. California, ironically enough, was the first state to pass a ban on smoking marijuana, merely based upon the fact that Mexicans smoked it. A few other states began to follow suit because Mormons also brought back marijuana from Mexico, and as Mormons were another persecuted group, this worked well for the propaganda machine (This source comes from Dr. Charles Whitebread, USC law professor). Examples of such rhetoric and propaganda come from the Butte Montana Standard, when it reported a legislator’s comment: “When some beet field peon takes a few traces of this stuff… he thinks he has just been elected president of Mexico, so he starts out to execute all his political enemies.” In Texas, a senator said on the floor of the Senate: “All Mexicans are crazy, and this stuff [marijuana] is what makes them crazy.”

Other propaganda began to target Black Jazz musicians (Cab Calloway’s ‘That Funny Reefer Man’ is a quick example of a song title bearing a reference to marijuana), with propaganda saying such things as, “Marihuana influences Negroes to look at white people in the eye, step on white men’s shadows and look at a white woman twice.” –Taken from an editorial in 1934. Then politicians and propagators connected Hasheesh, a form of marijuana, with the story of the “hasheesh-eaters” or ‘hashashin’ the root of the English word, ‘Assassin.’ They told stories of how the assassins would “rush at their enemies and ruthlessly massacre everyone in the area” because of the hasheesh (Dr. A. E. Fossier wrote this in 1931 for the New Orleans Medical and Surgical Journal), but the original stories say that they would eat hasheesh in the garden to get a glimpse of paradise, and then after the effects wore off, they could serve Marco Polo better.

Then in 1930 Harry J. Anslinger took the newly created position of director of the Federal Bureau of Narcotics. Anslinger was a phenomenally racist man who took advantage of his position to impose regulations based upon ideals such as:

“There are 100,000 total marijuana smokers in the US, and most are Negroes, Hispanics, Filipinos, and entertainers. Their Satanic music, jazz, and swing, result from marijuana use. This marijuana causes white women to seek sexual relations with Negroes, entertainers, and any others.”

“…the primary reason to outlaw marijuana is its effect on the degenerate races.”

“Marijuana is an addictive drug which produces in its users insanity, criminality, and death.”

“Reefer makes darkies think they’re as good as white men.”

“Marihuana leads to pacifism and communist brainwashing”

“You smoke a joint and you’re likely to kill your brother.”

“Marijuana is the most violence-causing drug in the history of mankind.”

He employed the work of William Hearst, owner of a huge chain of newspapers. Hearst had many good reasons (detect the sarcasm here) to help Anslinger… he hated Mexicans… a lot. He invested heavily into timber companies to support his newspaper chain, and so Hemp threatened the timber industry because it was so cheap. He lost 800,000 acres of timber to Pancho Villa, which was valuable land to grow trees on. And he could sell more newspapers when he published lies about the Satanic Mexicans who smoked their Devil weed before murdering people.

So, in all reality, marijuana was made illegal on the grounds of racism and greed of timber corporations. So the burden that one who wishes to legalize marijuana is the health and productivity argument. There is a mild ‘religious’ morality

A look at Prohibition:

Prohibition in the United States, also known asThe Noble Experiment, was the period from 1920 to 1933, during which the sale, manufacture, and transportation of alcohol were banned nationally^[1]as mandated in the Eighteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution.

Under substantial pressure from the temperance movement, the United States Senate proposed the Eighteenth Amendment on December 18, 1917. Having been approved by 36 states, the 18th Amendment was ratified on January 16, 1919 and effected on January 16, 1920. Some state legislatures had already enacted statewide prohibition prior to the ratification of the 18th Amendment.

The "Volstead Act", the popular name for the National Prohibition Act, passed through Congressover President Woodrow Wilson's veto on October 28, 1919, and established the legal definition of intoxicating liquor, as well as penalties for producing it.^[2] Though the Volstead Act prohibited the sale of alcohol, the federal government did little to enforce it. By 1925, in New York City alone, there were anywhere from 30,000 to 100,000 speakeasy clubs.^[3]

While Prohibition was successful in reducing the amount of liquor consumed, it tended to destroy society by other means, as it stimulated the proliferation of rampant underground, organized and widespread criminal activity.^[4] Prohibition became increasingly unpopular during the Great Depression, especially in large cities. The bulk of America became disenchanted after the St. Valentine's Day massacre in 1929. Until then, they felt that, even with setbacks, Prohibition was working.

On March 22, 1933, President Franklin Roosevelt signed into law an amendment to the Volstead Act known as the Cullen-Harrison Act, allowing the manufacture and sale of certain kinds of alcoholic beverages. On December 5, 1933, the ratification of the Twenty-first Amendment repealed the Eighteenth Amendment.

Many social problems have been attributed to the Prohibition era. Mafia groups limited their activities to gambling and theft until 1920, when organized bootlegging manifested in response to the effect of Prohibition.^[20] A profitable, often violent, black market for alcohol flourished. Powerful gangs corrupted law enforcement agencies, leading to racketeering. Stronger liquor surged in popularity because its potency made it more profitable to smuggle.

To prevent bootleggers from using industrial ethyl alcohol to produce illegal beverages, the government ordered the poisoning of industrial alcohols. In response, bootleggers hired chemists who successfully renatured the alcohol to make it drinkable. As a response, the Treasury Department required manufacturers to add more deadly poisons, including the particularly deadlymethyl alcohol. New York City medical examiners prominently opposed these policies because of the danger to human life. As many as 10,000 people died from drinking denatured alcohol before Prohibition ended.^[21]

Making alcohol at home was very common during Prohibition. Stores sold grape concentrate with warning labels that listed the steps that should be avoided to prevent the juice from fermenting into wine. Home-distilled hard liquor was referred to as “bathtub gin” in northern cities, and moonshine in the rural areas of North Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia and Tennessee. Since selling privately distilled alcohol was illegal and bypassed taxation by the government, the law relentlessly pursued manufacturers.^[22] In response, the bootleggers in southern states started creating their ownsouped-up, stock-looking cars by enhancing their cars’ engines and suspensions to create a faster vehicle. Having a faster vehicle during Prohibition, they presumed, would improve their chances of outrunning and escaping agents of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms (BATF), commonly called "revenue agents' or "revenooers". These cars became known as “moonshine runners” or "'shine runners"

Prohibition created a black market that competed with the formal economy, which already was under pressure. Roosevelt was elected based on the New Deal, which promised improvement to the economy that was only possible if the formal economy competed successfully against various economic forces, including the effects of prohibition's black market. This influenced his support for ratifying the 21st amendment, which repealed the 18th amendment that had established prohibition.^[18]

http://proquest.umi.com/pqdweb?index=13&did=2172428571&SrchMode=1&sid=1&Fmt=3&VInst=PROD&VType=PQD&RQT=309&VName=PQD&TS=1288652722&clientId=20972

http://www.drugwarrant.com/articles/why-is-marijuana-illegal/

http://proquest.umi.com/pqdweb?index=20&did=2164815761&SrchMode=1&sid=1&Fmt=3&VInst=PROD&VType=PQD&RQT=309&VName=PQD&TS=1288654851&clientId=20972

http://www.rand.org/pubs/occasional_papers/2010/RAND_OP325.pdf

http://www.csmonitor.com/Commentary/the-monitors-view/2010/1014/California-voters-should-reject-legalizing-marijuana/(page)/2