Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

-8 Poor

About xtncshnoutways

  • Rank
    Longtime Member
  • Birthday 02/06/1992

Profile Information

  • Name
    tom pacheco
  • School
    loyola blakefield
  • Location
  1. how do you make the app work? sorry, i lack the tech savvy to figure it out
  2. jeff, thank you. i will talk to donovan. my problem is that he is primarily my problem- having no interest in policy or my concerns, he epitomizes my uphill battle. i find this funny. loyola blakefield has minimal renowned. this is the first year we ever sent anyone to the toc. we broke my sophomore year at ncfl. i find it offensive that you would contribute my wins to the fact that i visited the toc. the only thing not putting it on the pairing does is cost me strategy time before i get to the room and ask the team anyway. and this also does not justify judge codes, another triviality of the ncfl. first, let's be clear, look through my posts. i do not bash judges anywhere. i see value in adapting, whereas i see no value in your rant. i did a fine enough job adapting. your mentality is fostering a divide in the community, eerily similar to one that led to the creation of what is called public forum. i feel as though "the nation" was rather poorly represented at the ncfl and want that to change. i only want judges who evaluate what happens in the round, and ones that openly admit bias. i appreciated a judge who said she was repulsed by a gulliver swift irony aff in prelims because that influenced our decision to go neg. I never bashed Kansas and i am sorry you took it that way. 5 minutes of prep seems like very little time for the national tournament where some of the best debates happen. surprisingly, i think that given my partners's 2ar in which he could not have the evidence to reread because the other team was obnoxious (love you too vale) and did not give it to us, i dont think that is a reason to punish us. he quoted the card. without the ability to look at the texts of the plan and the counterplan, it became impossible for the judges. plus, they gave them a risk because they had offense and we only had defense. i really wish people addressing this point could address the context of the round as a basis for reading it. i ALSO think that we are failing to look at the reason for the banning of calling for evidence. to think that we are adhering to the great standards of kansas is absurd. the ban of ev calling was established to prohibit the taking of cases because a coach did that. now, given disclosure is a norm and a proven pedagogical benefit that also acts as an activity enhancer, clinging to this rule has zero benefits except as a roadblock to better debates. all the more reason to allow what i advocate if the day is a walk in the park. not sure what you are complaining about since you can't defend why things are the way they are, nor do you have reasons why my ideas are bad. my only purpose for this discussion is to enhance the competition of the tournament. i could bash the nfl for hours. jeff is an amazing man at what he does, and these rules are in no way a reflection upon him or durkin. otherwise, i know they would be different. and mr. hyland, interesting that you talk about the glenbrooks at all. but, given your insight, i have to disagree with your cynical protect-the-old-way or like-it-or-leave-it attitude. the proven impact to this is public forum. we should break down these divides in the community instead of creating these stark divisions. it shouldnt be "well blakefield happens to like reading 45 card 1acs so they have no place at my tournament." quite frankly, i dont even know what to say. your mentality is just exlusionary. in your attempt to prevent non-circuit debate from being destroyed, you are literally saying you dont want circuit debate to be a part of the cfl. i dont believe that i am saying non-circuit teams shouldnt be competitive. i think that the best debaters will prevail under any conditions. all i want is someone to TRY and defend the ncfl status quo rules. fortunately for me, no one has or can, which proves that something can and should be done. all i hope is that maybe there can be some spurred awareness or something, that people with similar concerns can realize that they should act and that it would be appreciated.
  3. in a world without the codes this would not have happened because they would have identified their name vs. believing they were in flight b. this is also not a justification for the use of codes. codes slow down the tournament. every round, even into outrounds, judges were messing up codes in our rounds. the tab room at to tell judges to fix codes, and on top of that, judges were putting the wrong codes on the ballots, which prevented me from checking on durkin and seeing how his stomach was feeling after round two. we shouldnt default to using codes just because. there is only a risk they are bad. there is minimal to no justification for them. personally, i spent no time thinking about how to use prep time more efficiently, given that every 1ar was stand-up and most 2ncs required less than a minute. i never said that any of this would benefit me, just that i would like to protest the rules to make the tournament better. i do not necessarily advocate giving 8 minutes, but a minute more to each team could probably be offset by the lack of codes. there is probably a minimal difference if you add a minute of prep to each team. we would just finish on-time with the lders. and none of this sounds like a justification for 5 mins of prep nor is it in anyway beneficial for debate to keep it that way. given that the round was fast-paced, i am glad that the tab room could bend the rules so far as to allow a panel of judges with less that 20 rds of experience on the topic each (excluding the judge who voted for us) to look at the texts of a plan vs a pic that i am fairly certain no judge understood until the block. we knew this because after the judges turned in their ballots, as with any and many of the judges after our rounds, the judges came to us and asked. and certainly we obliged because it doesnt hurt us to disclose evidence nor did it slow the tournament. they saw it and determined 2 would have voted aff on a dropped permutation that they didnt realized mattered. and i already preempted your argument. judges determined that because it was a pic, the evidence didnt matter because we had no offense. i really wish they had called for bccs ev because it was atrocious. My interpretation of the rules solves this. you still have to appeal to the worst judges who will not call for it. but judges who desire to can. there would be on-face less inequities. all i am suggesting is that i would like to change the rules for the future. i enjoyed the tournament, i think it is much better than nfls. that doesnt make it amazing. i just think that the cfl is worthwhile to put my effort into in order to make it better. all i asked was how to change the rules. thank you for responding to all of my post except the main point of it?
  4. xtncshnoutways


    There isn't a reason to. If the perm tests the competition of the counterplan, then winning one proves it not competitive. Although going for different permutations can be justified based upon the nature of the counterplan (if it is abusive) or if they all around mishandle the permutation debate. Or if you lack confidence in one. A specific situation would probably be best in order to assess whether it would be strategic.
  5. now jeff, what can i do to protest cfl rules? minorly bitter about losing, i am still motivated now to try to: 1) get rid of the ridiculous codes 2) potentially get more prep time 3) and most importantly, allow for the calling of evidence. a pf team of ours (granted they do pf) missed a round because of the stupid codes. and it does not promote better debating to not know who it is you are debating. at least being able to determine where your judge is from eliminates terrible rounds from happening where decent teams get 20s for no reason other than misinterpretting a paradigm. it is nationals. every other national circuit tournament has 8 minutes of prep, with the exception of those that provide 10 which is probably too much in high school. 2 judges would have changed their decisions in our semis round had they called for evidence. it became a question of directly what the card meant, and they leaned neg because we had no offense which is entire bull shit. i have nothing to benefit from changing the rules except for future rounds. how do we protest these archaic rules? i know there is a meeting with coaches, but if enough support is rallied, something could be done to enhance competition and even increase the draw of teams. let's be real, chicago sent no one to the tournament. i imagine it has something to do with these rules that prevent competition. btw, one of the mothers bought durkin a yellow colored clown wig for his bald head. it is fantastic.
  6. 1. Post TOCs, whoever moderates this forum should create a list keeping track of who is attending. 2. From Maryland Baltimore City SV Loyola Blakefield PM Loyola Blakefield FH Loyola Blakefield MN 3. I suggest to anyone attending that they post it somewhere in this forum in order make for better debates. I also suggest that people update their wikis if they choose. Comments like the previous one are immature regardless of their truth and stifle progressive discussion that actually enhances debates.
  7. eli, do you know if they read our p2p hierarchy turns? i gave them to them if they wanted to use them.
  8. lol btw thanks kyle. although, if you saw any of my 2nrs (rape discourse k, "the" pic, t-plip, t-social services twice, and a power relations k of vanguardism), you would probably question what happened and how we did that well lol. although the only loss was in semis with the power relations k. beacon is awesome and i love what they are doing. it is sad this community cannot respond to violence good...
  9. they have announced other at-larges. cedar rapids is one
  10. uchicago came out with a kappeler backfile. search uchicago big book of impacts in google and look for a link
  11. states can probably solve this aff. bad choice. sqo probably solves a greater risk of the impacts if you can win hcr will pass. also, health- probs not t. cut an aff not produced by camps- guarantees you sketch value and specificity unpreparedness if you lack a fed key warrant. like, have the courts rule that the international right to health stipulated in the iccpr guarantees medical services through community health centers to persons living in poverty. claim judicial independence stuff (plenty of affs do) and hedge that against states. you can also use ilaw stuff, but states may solve that.
  12. xtncshnoutways


    Also, the co lab from ddi last year put out a hemp file with warming solvency as well as peak oil which are really strong with the case. if you are looking for a straight-up version of the case, find bg's peak oil adv from last year on their solar aff or a warming adv (i could post one) and just fill in the internal links. hemp is a decent case.
  13. xtncshnoutways


    Hemp 1ac Plan: The Executive, through the Drug Enforcement Administration, should substantially increase alternative energy incentives in the United States by legalizing industrial hemp for the production of biomass. Enforcement guaranteed through normal means. We’ll clarify. Hemp 1ac Contention 1 is Inherency: Federal restrictions keep hemp illegal in the status quo Gayla Martindale, 08, “Is Hemp The Answer To Our Energy Problems?” http://www.stateuniversity.com/blog/permalink/Is-Hemp-the-Answer-To-Our-Energy-Problems-.html Industrial hemp has little in common with marijuana. While marijuana produces a high when smoked, hemp doesn’t. This is because the level of THC in hemp is below 1%. No THC, no high. As more people become educated of the benefits of hemp, there is more interest in examining its potential and legalizing it. Unfortunately, Federal anti-drug officials say that allowing such crops would create a slippery slope toward legalizing marijuana. Currently, the U.S. is the only developed nation that has not established hemp as a legal crop. Great Britain lifted its ban in 1993; Germany did so in 1996; and Canada followed two years later. The European Union has subsidized hemp production since the 1990s. Hemp 1ac The Advantage is Control: Scenario A: Biopolitical Status quo discourses of drug control policy are risk management in order to monitor knowledge and maintain utter power over the subject. Fischer et all, 2004 (Benedikt, Sarah Turnbull, Blank Poland, Emma Haydon, Dept of public health, university of Toronto, “Drug use, risk and urban order: examining supervised injection sites (SISs) as ‘governmentality’” International Journal of Drug Policy 15, Feb <www.elsevier.com/locate/drugpo>) Scientific and popular discourses over the past few decades have impressively shaped and reinforced the identity of the injection drug user as a ‘site’ of extensive and omnipresent risk. The constant forces of psychoactive dependence, contaminated drugs or paraphernalia, the stressors of enforcement, the lack of access to hygiene or housing present the injection drug user as a subject permanently confronted with death or disease (Alcabes & Friedland, 1995; Cherubin & Sapira, 1993; Coutinho, 1998). SISs present themselves as ‘helpful’, indeed, empowering, facilities or resources, with an omnipresent air of concern for the at-risk drug user. Implicit in the mechanics of SISs – and an overarching theme in ‘the new public health’ – is that users are encouraged to appreciate the realities of their health, and to “take responsibility for the care of their bodies and to limit their potential to harm” themselves or others through taking up various “preventative actions” (Petersen & Lupton, 1996, p. ix). SISs are thus socio-spatial environments with both an expressed and implicit agenda of ‘risk reduction’ and related norms, shaping both opportunities and expectations towards the subjects in their embrace. The expectation of SIS users to facilitate and secure “healthy bodies [by way of] health choices” (ibid.) – concretely, to avoid overdose deaths; to avoid transmission of infectious disease; to avoid drug amounts or combinations harmful to mental health; to wait for the immediate and intense psychoactive effects of the injection to pass in order to avoid risk of accidents; among others – is produced on the basis of thoroughly monitored and regulated knowledge of risk and behaviour. In effect, the inner operations of SISs present themselves as infinitely detailed and regulated projects of knowing, tempering and reducing risks related to IDU. SISs are elaborate operations or ‘factories’ of health, facilitated by a diverse combination of ‘helping’ professions and experts (including public health nurses, addiction counsellors, social workers making up a widely dispersed continuum of ‘judges of normality’; see Foucault, 1977: 304). Hemp 1ac Government anti-drug policies will inevitably lead to normalization. Those who do not meet the health and behavioral ideals will be eliminated in the name of what is considered ideal. Fischer et all, 2004 (Benedikt, Sarah Turnbull, Blank Poland, Emma Haydon, Dept of public health, university of Toronto, “Drug use, risk and urban order: examining supervised injection sites (SISs) as ‘governmentality’” International Journal of Drug Policy 15, Feb <www.elsevier.com/locate/drugpo>) The production of order in the ‘new city’ is closely linked to mechanisms of exclusion, predominantly focusing on the concealment or exclusion of ‘disorderly populations’ (Fischer & Poland, 1998; Merry, 2001). This new urban order is increasingly defined through various forms of ‘gated communities’ of existence, work, leisure or consumption within the metropolis, with access restricted to select or privileged populations (Young, 2002). More importantly, these order efforts have actively begun to target and remove “urban undesirables” from commodified urban life-spaces, therefore linking forces of order with those of marginalisation (Feldman, 2001, p. 74; see Young, 2002). The new city is home to a strategic project of “cleansing [its environment] from evidence of social disarray”, systematically displacing the disorderly, and thus drawing strict boundaries of legitimate and illegitimate members “between centre and periphery within the metropole” (Feldman, 2001, p. 70ff). Many of these displacement efforts are occurring under rationales of ‘public safety’ targeting “quality of life” or ‘public order’ crimes, effectively construed as threats to “commodified units of space” (Feldman, 2001) and furthermore precursors to or incubators of crime and urban decay (Fischer, 2001; Wilson et al., 1996). As such, the new city has also become a project of the “purification of public space” (Fischer&Poland, 1998; Sibley, 1998), in which deviant and undesirable populations are increasingly marginalised into socio-spatial “ghettos” at the margin. While it may be argued that the (inner) city has traditionally and always – even under welfarist rule – been the home of the outcast and marginalised, we suggest a key difference is evident today. Whereas previously, the marginalised naturally filled void public spaces deserted by privileged classes who had retreated to privately delineated enclaves (Perry, 2000), today these ‘public spaces’ are being ‘taken back’ by the wide-scale efforts of commodified urban reordering (gentrification), thus further pushing the marginalised towards undesirable or concealed spaces at the margin (Blomley, 1994; Young, 2002). It should not be surprising that drug users have become a primary target for such efforts of urban order. Their defining activities – petty crime towards funds for illegal drug purchases and unaesthetic appearance and demeanour – in large concentration in urban business, residential and leisure cores highlighted them as major disturbance variables in the new city’s aspiration to be “attractive” to investment and urban renewal (K¨ubler & W¨alti, 2001). In addition, previous efforts to tackle “the drug problem” by way of repression had not only proven ineffective, but were increasingly perceived to worsen these negative consequences (Fischer, 1995; Nadelmann et al., 1997). In this context – regardless of or despite their benevolent intentions – we propose that the emergence of SISs is best understood in the context of their aim and value of spatially regulating – or “concealing or displacing [. . .] rather than eliminating” (Merry, 2001, p. 17) – the offensive activities of IDU in the context of socio-urban spaces. But the concealment or exclusion of drug users from commodified urban spaces is only one part Hemp 1ac of the governmental mechanisms mobilised by SISs (or other designated spaces for drug user populations that may contribute to these ‘out of the core’ peripheralizing effects, e.g., drop-in centres, shelters, etc., Feldman, 2001). One main aspect of the sociopolitical appeal of SISs has been that they powerfully promise to ‘do good’—both for their drug user clientele as well as ‘the community’ via the reduction of crime, disorder, health care costs, etc. (Dolan et al., 2000; Fischer et al., 2002). SISs’ productive internal disciplinary practices towards these objectives – beyond or in addition to their external efforts of population-based exclusion – can be seen to provide an illustrative example of Foucault’s “swarming of disciplinary mechanisms” (Feldman, 2001, p. 70) or the complementary strategies of governmentality by “making up and acting upon a population and its constituents to ensure good and avert ill” (Rose, 1996, p. 328). Under the benevolent – indeed ‘progressive’ – rationality of health promotion and public health, SISs act as a disciplinary panopticon towards shaping an informed, responsibilised and well disciplined drug-using agent (O’Malley, 1999). This new identity of the drug user as a ‘disciplined citizen’ (at the margins, nonetheless), shaped by the intrinsic order environment of the SIS, is in keeping with subjects’ responsibilisation and self-management involving the “inculcation and shaping of responsibility for good health and good order . . . by means of expert knowledge” (Merry, 2001, p. 19). In this ‘government at a distance’ in the context of the SIS, actors of the ‘helping’ or ‘supervising’ professions seldom decisively intervene, but mostly select, educate, inform, empower, advise, refer, and monitor; crucial intervention occurs primarily when the self-risk reducing agent has fatally failed (rescue) or broken fundamental rules (punishment or banishment) and consequences of institutional liability are looming. As such, SISs may also be well described as a “late 20th century postmodern form of social control that targets categories of people using actuarial techniques . . . and develops specific locales for prevention rather than the normalisation of offenders” (Merry, 2001, p. 19). Similar descriptors have been used to characterise the design and operations of late 20th century penology (Simon, 1993), illustrating, we believe, the increasing coalescence of overtly punitive and disciplinary practices and rationalities. Indeed, it should be emphasised that governmental and disciplinary mechanics as exemplified by SISs have not replaced the ‘privilege of the law’ shaping more traditional strategies of punitive control over drug use as deviance, i.e., by way of repression and law enforcement (compare Hunt &Wickham, 1994; O’Malley, 1999). Rather, as observed for other contexts, these governmental technologies appear to have become interlinked and complementary rather than sequential or substitutive. When outside the disciplining realm of SISs or other measures of ‘harm reduction’ – whether by choice or by exclusion – the illicit drug user continues to be subjected to repressive drug laws and their enforcement. In fact, given the intensified public order campaigns in urban spaces, these efforts of repression have become intensified rather than mellowed in many urban centres with illicit drug users as one main target population (see Fischer, 2001; Hermer & Mosher, 2002; K¨ubler & W¨alti, 2001). The seemingly contradictory dual thrust may, ironically, be very functional insofar as it effectively separates those who show promise of rehabilitation from those who cannot or will not submit to the new regimes of ‘progressive’ rationality. Those willing to utilise SIS facilities are bound more closely into existing and new systems of surveillance and control, and the system can celebrate their successful rehabilitation, presenting a benign and ‘helpful’ persona for the consumption of the middle class, suggesting benevolent intentions, efforts and effects. Meanwhile, those drug users who reveal themselves to be unable or unwilling to take advantage of the new Hemp 1ac progressive possibilities remain vulnerable to the more punitive measures in the name of public order and safety. They are more receptive targets for the labels of ‘high-risk’, ‘beyond help’, or even ‘dangerous’ to concepts like public safety and so on, and so repressive measures may appear all the more justified (and simultaneously concealed behind the ‘progressive’ face of the SIS) for use towards them. For example, in Vancouver’s downtown eastside following the announcement of the approval of the SIS facility, the police sought and implemented a substantively increased police contingent and presence in the area (Chief Constable of Vancouver, 2003). Thus, we can postulate that far from replacing punitive measures, the benevolent technologies of SISs – as well as other harm reduction measures – actually may enable and legitimise the maintenance or even amplification of repressive measures directed at those drug users (still considerable in numbers) who are unwilling or unable to partake of the new opportunities for ‘healthy self-transformation’, or, in other words, accentuate a separation between the ‘willing’ and the ‘lost’ or ‘better’ or ‘worse’ within this population at the margin. Hemp 1ac Power exercised at the level of life is the root cause of conflict, wars are fought and life is exterminated not because of a particular sovereign geopolitical interest but because of the biopolitical commitment to eradicate those deemed a threat to the established order. Elden, 2002 (Stuart, politics at University of Warwick, “Boundary” 2 29.2) The reverse side is the power to allow death. State racism is a recoding of the old mechanisms of blood through the new procedures of regulation. Racism, as biologizing, as tied to a state, takes shape where the procedures of intervention ‘‘at the level of the body, conduct, health, and everyday life, received their color and their justification from the mythical concern with protecting the purity of the blood and ensuring the triumph of the race’’ (VS, 197; WK, 149).37 For example, the old anti-Semitism based on religion is reused under the new rubric of state racism. The integrity and purity of the race is threatened, and the state apparatuses are introduced against the race that has infiltrated and introduced noxious elements into the body. The Jews are characterized as the race present in the middle of all races (FDS, 76).38 The use of medical language is important.Because certain groups in society are conceived of in medical terms, society is no longer in need of being defended from the outsider but from the insider: the abnormal in behavior, species, or race. What is novel isnot the mentality of power butthe technology of power (FDS, 230). The recoding of old problems is made possible through new techniques. A break or cut (coupure) is fundamental to racism: a division or incision between those who must live and those who must die. The ‘‘biological continuum of the human species’’ is fragmented by the apparition of races, which are seen as distinguished, hierarchized, qualified as good or inferior, and so forth. The species is subdivided into subgroups that are thought of as races. In a sense, then, just as the continuum of geometry becomes divisible in Descartes,39 the human continuum is divided, that is, made calculable and orderable, two centuries later. As Anderson has persuasively argued, to suggest that racism has its roots in nationalism is a mistake. He suggests that ‘‘the dreams of racism actually have their origin in ideologies of class, rather than in those of nation: above all in claims to divinity among rulers and to ‘blue’ or ‘white’ blood and breeding among aristocracies.’’40 As Stoler has noted, for Foucault, it is the other way around: ‘‘A discourse of class derives from an earlier discourse of races.’’41 But it is a more subtle distinction than that. What Foucault suggests is that discourses of class have their roots in the war of races, but so, too, does modern racism; what is different is the biological spin put on the concepts.42 Butas well as emphasizing the biological,modern racism puts this another way: to survive, to live, one must be prepared to massacre one’s enemies, a relation of war. As a relation of war, this is no different from the earlier war of races that Foucault has spent so much of the course explaining. But when coupled with the mechanisms of mathematics and medicine in bio-power, this can be conceived of in entirely different ways. Bio-power is able to establish, between my life and the death of the other, a relation that is not warlike or confrontational but biological:‘‘The more inferior species tend to disappear, the more abnormal individuals can be eliminated, the less the species will be degenerated, the more I— not as an individual but as a species—will live, will be strong, will be vigorous, will be able to proliferate.’’ The death of the other does not just make me safer personally, but the death of the other, of the bad, inferior race or the degenerate or abnormal, makes life in general healthier and purer (FDS, 227–28). ‘‘The existence in question is no longer of sovereignty, juridical; butthat of the population,biological. If genocide is truly the dream of modern powers, this is not because of a return today of the ancient right to kill; it is because power is situated and exercised at the level of life, the species, the race, and the large-scale phenomena of population’’ (VS, 180; WK, 136). ‘‘If the power of normalization wishes to exercise the ancient sovereign right of killing, it must pass through racism. And if, inversely, a sovereign power, that is to say a power with the right of life and death, wishes to function with the instruments, mechanisms, and technology of normalization, it must also pass through racism’’ (FDS, 228). This holds for indirect death—the exposure to death—as much as for direct killing. While not Darwinism, this biologicalsense ofpower is based on evolutionism and enables a thinking of colonial relations, the necessity of wars, criminality, phenomena of madness and mental illness, class divisions, and so forth. The link to colonialism is central: This form of modern state racism develops first with colonial genocide. The theme of the political enemy is extrapolated biologically. But what is important in the shift at the end of the nineteenth century is that war is no longer simply a way of securing one race by eliminating the other but of regenerating that race (FDS, 228–30). As Foucault puts it in La volonté de savoir : Wars are no longer waged in the name of a sovereign who must be defended; they are waged on behalf of the existence of all; entire populations are mobilized for the purpose of wholesale slaughter in the name of life necessity. Massacres have become vital [vitaux— understood in a dual sense, both as essential and biological]. It is as managers of life and survival, of bodies and the race, that so many regimes have been able to wage so many wars,causing so many men to be killed. (VS, 180; WK, 136) Hemp 1ac Scenario B: Corporate The DEA, combined with big businesses, have propagandized American people and blinded them from the powerful potential of hemp in an attempt to save their profits. Daniel Stanaway. Department of Community, Agriculture, Recreation, and Resource Studies. Nov 2002. The Political Hemp. http://www.carrs.msu.edu/greenpieces/2003/Stanaway.pdf The anti-legalize movement has two major forces. One force is the American metanarrative of government propagandized anti-marijuana rhetoric; the other is Corporate America’s influence in the politics of this nation. To begin with, the anti-marijuana propaganda has enlisted the majority of Americans to agree with the Drug Enforcement Agency and other anti-drug actors. Since there is very little education as to alternative methods of living, the conventional is taught in schools. This leads to the misconception that hemp and marijuana are the same thing. Therefore when a person initiates the industrial hemp concept, a poorly educated person will think that this person is advocating drug legalization, which is simply not true. The DEA capitalizes on this naivety with policies such as “zero THC” (Armstrong 2002), making the conservative sector of this country feel secure knowing that all products containing psychoactive substances, harmful or not, will not invade this country, and therefore the DEA is justified in not allowing hemp growth in the United States. Another example of effective anti-marijuana propaganda is the reasoning that hemp will encourage illegal drug growth. Exploiting the naivety of the hemp strand, the DEA has convinced local politicians that growers will infiltrate hemp fields with the marijuana. However, because of the close specie relation between hemp and marijuana, the two plants can cross pollinate making the drug qualities benign, and the black market crop is useless. Furthermore, Canada and Europe report no such incidents (Hickey, 1998, para. 7). To reconcile the damage that anti-drug propaganda to the hemp plant, an effective risk management program would have to be instituted. This would hopefully make the American public aware of what they are fighting against. Once people are educated on the matter, and realize that the hemp plant is harmless, farmers and the rest of the legalization advocates will be one step closer to realizing their goal. The second influence in the prohibition of industrial hemp is Corporate America. Major supporters of the MTA included players that had influential roles in the government. As Conrad (1994) states The promise that hemp held for the rest of the world was quickly perceived as a threat by a small core of powerful people in the elite special-interest oligarchy dominated by the Du Pont petrochemical company and its major financial backer and key political ally, oil man and Treasury Secretary Andrew Mellon (37). Just a few years before the Marijuana Tax Act was passed, Du Pont had created synthetic, petrochemical compounds that could substitute nature’s remedies. These include rayon, plastics, nylon, and a variety of chemicals. Hemp would destroy the synthetic market, along with the booming oil and timber businesses. That was sixty five years ago. Imagine the multi-billion dollar industry that has been created through big plastic, big timber and big oil industries at the expense of the hemp plant. With increasing environmental concern, these special interest groups are continually under fire, creating a niche for hemp once again. Allowing the hemp industry to commence would be economically disastrous for many influential figures in Big Business. Corporate America, so intricately tied to the United States government, has great influence in the policies of this country. In order to ensure that the conventional pathway is complied with, Big Business “sponsors” political allies who in turn create a sort of a monopolistic market for products that are capable of being produced in more than one way. It is in Big Business’ best interest for hemp to remain illegal, and in this country, Corporate America gets what Corporate America wants. Hemp 1ac Capitalism causes any and all injustices to be done in the name of self-preservation, causing ecological catastrophe, famine, disease, war, and finally extinction. Deborah Cook, Professor of Philosophy, University of Windsor, 2006, “Staying Alive: Adorno and Habermas on Self-Preservation Under Late Capitalism.” In the passage in Negative Dialectics where he warns against self-preservation gone wild, Adorno states that it is “only as reflection upon … self-preservation that reason would be above nature” (1973, 289). To rise above nature, then, reason must become “cognizant of its own natural essence” (1998b, 138). To be more fully rational, we must reflect on what Horkheimer and Adorno once called our underground history (1972, 231). In other words, we must recognize that our behavior is motivated and shaped by instincts, including the instinct for self-preservation (Adorno 1998a, 153). In his lectures on Kant, Adorno makes similar remarks when he summarizes his solution to the problem of self-preservation gone wild. To remedy this problem, nature must first become conscious of itself (Adorno 2000, 104). Adopting the Freudian goal of making the unconscious conscious, Adorno also insists that this critical self-understanding be accompanied by radical social, political, and economic changes that would bring to a halt the self-immolating domination of nature. This is why mindfulness of nature is necessary but not sufficient to remedy unbridled self-preservation. In the final analysis, society must be fundamentally transformed in order rationally to accommodate instincts that now run wild owing to our forgetfulness of nature in ourselves. By insisting on mindfulness of nature in the self, Adorno champions a form of rationality that would tame self-preservation, but in contrast to Habermas, he thinks that the taming of self-preservation is a normative task rather than an accomplished fact. Because self-preservation remains irrational, we now encounter serious environmental problems like those connected with global warming and the greenhouse effect, the depletion of natural resources, and the death of more than one hundred regions in our oceans. Owing to self-preservation gone wild, we have colonized and destabilized large parts of the world, adversely affecting the lives of millions, when we have not simply enslaved or murdered their inhabitants outright. Famine and disease are often the result of ravaging the land in the name of survival imperatives. Wars are waged in the name of self-preservation: with his now notoriously invisible weapons of mass destruction, Saddam Hussein was said to represent a serious threat to the lives of citizens in the West. The war against terrorism, waged in the name of self-preservation, has seriously undermined human rights and civil liberties; it has also been used to justify the murder, rape, and torture of thousands. As it now stands, the owners of the means of production ensure our survival through profits that, at best, only trickle down to the poorest members of society. Taken in charge by the capitalist economy, self-preservation now dictates that profits increase exponentially to the detriment of social programs like welfare and health care. In addition, self-preservation has gone wild because our instincts and needs are now firmly harnessed to commodified offers of satisfaction that deflect and distort them. Having surrendered the task of self-preservation to the economic and political systems, we remain in thrall to untamed survival instincts that could well end up destroying not just the entire species, but all life on the planet. Hemp 1ac Contention 3 is Solvency Hemp usage revolves around alternative energy. Even the fiber it produces is made from carbon dioxide it captures. Angelique van Engelen. BA Journalism Netherlands. May 28, 2008. “US Hemp Lobby Grows Stronger, Books Successes” < http://www.triplepundit.com/pages/us-hemp-lobby-grows-stronger-b-003183.php> Take in these facts; hemp scrubs the atmosphere of more carbon dioxide than any other plant because it has the highest known quantities of cellulose for annuals. Hemp has at least four times (some sources suggest 50-100x) the biomass potential of similar plants (cornstalks, sugarcane, kernaf and trees). It grows at a phenomenal speed, so is an excellent solution to the deforestated areas of the Amazon and Asia. The carbon dioxide that hemp absorbs is turned into incredibly rich wood and massively strong fibers. Legalization is the incentive by which hemp production will increase Paul Von Hartmann, founder of Project P.E.A.C.E. Planet Ecology Advancing Conscious Economics, Cannabis scholar, and Natural rights activist, February 19th 2006 wondermark.com/ Earth Island is now polluted and the barrel is almost empty. If we don't snap out of "Reefer Madness" our species will become extinct as the result of synergistic collapse of the Natural Order. If we acheive global consensus on the urgency of initiating a shift to organic agricultural solutions to the equation of survival, we may yet be able to secure a liveable future. I believe that ending Cannabis prohibition is the first step to finding our way back to balance and harmony with the ancient, abiding forces that govern this planet. Drug control policy is a focus of state power in which disciplinary power is exerted to control the population. Eliminating repressive policies, such as incentivizing the production of hemp, would change the current disciplinary strategy. Fischer et all, 2004 (Benedikt, Sarah Turnbull, Blank Poland, Emma Haydon, Dept of public health, university of Toronto, “Drug use, risk and urban order: examining supervised injection sites (SISs) as ‘governmentality’” International Journal of Drug Policy 15, Feb <www.elsevier.com/locate/drugpo>) Nevertheless, despite appearances to the contrary, these disciplinary strategies never fully replaced traditional tools of punitive control aimed at the drug user. Indeed, by making drug users less visible (through the presentation of a more ‘inclusive’ and ‘empowering’ face associated with controversial and ‘progressive’ interventions such as SISs), the continuation of repressive drug control laws and their enforcement as a central technology of state power aimed at drug users as deviant identities has been made possible and sustained. Therefore, the current landscape of substance use control describes itself as one in which both traditional repressive and emerging disciplinary technologies of control have formed a pervasive embrace in the contemporary government of substance use (Fischer, 2003). Hemp 1ac Political action is necessary. Private sector action, especially in the context of hemp, will only muddle the issue, leaving nothing to ever get done. Daniel Stanaway. Department of Community, Agriculture, Recreation, and Resource Studies. Nov 2002. The Political Hemp. http://www.carrs.msu.edu/greenpieces/2003/Stanaway.pdf This political battle is fought in the legislative branch of both Federal and State government. Grassroot organizations lead the battle for the pro-legalize advocates. These organizations are at a disadvantage because of lack of political power and lack of resources. Lobbying for this cause comes in the form of citizen involvement. Individuals have to attend legislative hearings, write letters, make phone calls, and be active in the pursuit of legalizing hemp. Information on these organizations can be found on the internet, as this type of media is used very efficiently. Pressure for legalization is also coming from international sources. A Canadian company, Kenex Ltd., was shipping sterilized hemp seed across the Canadian-United States border. The shipment was delayed for three days by U.S. Costumes, but was finally allowed through. Kenex Ltd. is filing a North American Free Trade Agreement Notice of Arbitration with the U.S. State Department. The three member Arbitration committee will decide whether Kenex is entitled to 20 million dollars in compensation for the DEA’s attempt to ban hemp seed food (U.S. Newswire, 2002). This intractable conflict will have to be resolved through political action and court injunctures. The DEA and high stakes businesses are willing to spend millions of dollars to keep the status quo. The power of the people, demonstrated in the growing number of legal states, is strongly emerging and the need for alternative materials in products and energy is becoming more prevalent. The evidence points toward legalizing this harmless plant, yet high powered bureaucracy mandates the law of the land, and it is not in their best interest to allow public opinion in this matter. The tools used in this battle, citizen involvement and political lobbying, are time and resource demanding. For all the efforts and obstacles that need to be overcome, the turning point in this controversy may come out of necessity as the conventional methods of material and energy acquisition grow old. Through conflict, new ideas of life and social change emerge. Both of these are good for the evolution of a society. It’s the ones who have amassed great prestige through the mundane that resist change the most, while the 200 million dollar market proves the rest of society is thirsty for innovative techniques that improve the status quo. The green revolution is gaining momentum. Here lies an opportunity for economic gains and ecological betterment, if only the government could step outside itself and realize that they are causing more harm than benefits in their elementary battle of keeping a bountiful resource at bay. The people are speaking it is time the government listened. Hemp 1ac Legalization allows people to use hemp for all of its potential purposes, thereby effectively destroying almost every industry and toppling capitalism. The power will be returned to the individual. Nayar, staff writer for We Campaign, a branch of The Alliance for Climate Protection, June 15th 2008 “A Peaceful Solution with Hemp” http://www.wecansolveit.org/page/community/group/HempForVictory Beyond any doubt or debate, hemp can be used in over 25,000 useful and essential products. Some researchers insist upon a much higher number with as many as 50,000 practical uses for hemp. These products threaten the cartels now making obscene profits with petroleum, textiles and pharmaceuticals. This potential of hemp was the motivation behind the powerful interests that moved to have the plant declared illegal and tried to eradicate hemp from the face of the planet. After decades of secrecy this truth can no longer be suppressed. The cartels follow a logic that leads from a simple observation. They observed that the wealth and power of all nations depended upon controlling people and production. All people and production depend upon basic resources. The cartels sought to control all basic resources. Through the control of all basic resources the cartels sought to control all nations and people. Monopolies grew around fuel, lumber, textiles, communication and health care then merged into multinational corporations. But control over these basic resources did not cover all the bases. It was still possible for individuals and communities to live quality lives without using the products of the multinational corporations and hemp served many uses in this alternative lifestyle. To shut down those outside of their control the hemp plant was criminalized. Perhaps you are satisfied with the way things are now but many are not. The power of the multinational corporations is exercised with money from their control over basic resources. The military and police are hired with the money they extract from everyone dependent upon the basic resources they control. Deny them their profits and their power and control vanish. Now you can understand the true potential of hemp. The true potential of hemp goes far past 50,000 possible products. The true potential of hemp is to neutralize the global control of the multinational corporations over the basic resources of life. The peaceful resolution, the peaceful revolution and the peaceful solution that can save America and the rest of the world may well pivot around the decriminalization of hemp. Hemp 1ac The argument that we cannot overcome capitalism saps the critical energy from revolution – the system is only strong because we think it is Zizek, 1995 Slavoj, Ideology Between Fiction and Fantasy, Cardozo Law Review, page lexis The problematic of "multiculturalism" that imposes itself today is therefore the form of appearance of its opposite, of the massive presence of Capitalism as universal world system: it bears witness to the unprecedented homogenization of today's world. It is effectively as if, since the horizon of social imagination no longer allows us to entertain the idea of an eventual demise of Capitalism - since, as we might put it, everybody seems to accept that Capitalism is here to stay - the critical energy found a substitute outlet in fighting for cultural differences which leave the basic homogeneity of the capitalist world-system intact. So we are fighting our PC battles for the right of ethnic minorities, of gays and lesbians, of different "life-styles," etc., while Capitalism pursues its triumphant march - and today's critical theory, in the guise of "cultural studies," is doing the ultimate service to the unrestrained development of Capitalism by actively contributing in the ideological effort to render its massive presence invisible: in a typical postmodern "cultural critique," the very mention of Capitalism as world system tends to give rise to the accusation of "essentialism," "fundamentalism," etc. Federal action is key. Only by passing a new federal law can a previous one be effectively overturned. State legalization won’t cause anything. Daniel Stanaway. Department of Community, Agriculture, Recreation, and Resource Studies. Nov 2002. The Political Hemp. http://www.carrs.msu.edu/greenpieces/2003/Stanaway.pdf Many states have taken action to account for public opinion in this matter by legalizing hemp within state borders. Hawaii, North Dakota, Minnesota, Arkansas, Kentucky, Illinois, Maryland, New Mexico, and Montanahave all enacted legislation that would permit the cultivation of industrial hemp (Associated State Press 2002). The only remaining roadblock for the citizens of these states is federal regulation. Even though the constituents of these states have voted in favor of hemp production, federal mandate trumps lowly state legislation. As of this point, only Hawaii has been given federal permission to test grow ¼ of an acre. Hawaii’s Governor Cayetano explains, “My administration supports stimulating Hawaii's economy and keeping our agricultural lands productive. Industrial hemp could meet both of these objectives" (Mitchell, 1999, para. 2). The $200,000 for the project have been secured through Alterna’s Professional Hair Care Products, a Los Angeles based company specializing in hemp hygiene products. This political battle is fought in the legislative branch of both Federal and State government. Grassroot organizations lead the battle for the pro-legalize advocates. These organizations are at a disadvantage because of lack of political power and lack of resources. Lobbying for this cause comes in the form of citizen involvement. Individuals have to attend legislative hearings, write letters, make phone calls, and be active in the pursuit of legalizing hemp. Information on these organizations can be found on the internet, as this type of media is used very efficiently. Pressure for legalization is also coming from international sources. A Canadian company, Kenex Ltd., was shipping sterilized hemp seed across the Canadian-United States border. The shipment was delayed for three days by U.S. Costumes, but was finally allowed through. Kenex Ltd. is filing a North American Free Trade Agreement Notice of Arbitration with the U.S. State Department. The three member Arbitration committee will decide whether Kenex is entitled to 20 million dollars in compensation for the DEA’s attempt to ban hemp seed food (U.S. Newswire, 2002). Hemp 1ac Strategically finite demands that cannot be rejected out of necessity can break down capitalism. Slavoj Zizek, 2007, Professor of Psychoanalysis and Philosophy at the University of Ljubljana, Eastern European OG, “Resistance is Surrender”, London Book Review, November 15, http://www.lrb.co.uk/v29/n22/zize01_.html) What should we say to someone like Chávez? ‘No, do not grab state power, just withdraw, leave the state and the current situation in place’? Chávez is often dismissed as a clown – but wouldn’t such a withdrawal just reduce him to a version of Subcomandante Marcos, whom many Mexican leftists now refer to as ‘Subcomediante Marcos’? Today, it is the great capitalists – Bill Gates, corporate polluters, fox hunters – who ‘resist’ the state. The lesson here is that the truly subversive thing is not to insist on ‘infinite’ demands we know those in power cannot fulfil. Since they know that we know it, such an ‘infinitely demanding’ attitude presents no problem for those in power: ‘So wonderful that, with your critical demands, you remind us what kind of world we would all like to live in. Unfortunately, we live in the real world, where we have to make do with what is possible.’ The thing to do is, on the contrary, to bombard those in power with strategically well-selected, precise, finite demands, which can’t be met with the same excuse. Hemp 1ac Contention 4: Kato Thinking that nuclear war as a singular event that will lead to extinction ignores the systemic nuclear war waged against indigenous peoples. Masahide Kato, 1993, anti-nuclear advocate and fun-loving guy, “Nuclear Globalism: Traversing Rockets, Satellites, and Nuclear War via the Strategic Gaze” Hemp 1ac Contention 5: Cuomo Evaluations through cost-benefit analysis allow rampant militarism in the justification of security threats, which inevitably leads to ecocide. Chris Cuomo, 1996 - Professor of Philosophy and Women's Studies, and Director of the Institute for Women's Studies at the Univerity of Georgia – “War Is Not Just an Event: Reflections on the Significance of Everyday Violence” Published in Hypatia 11.4 nb, pp. 30-46 Thomas argues that even "peace" entails a dramatic and widespread war on nature, or as Joni Seager puts it, "The environmental costs of militarized peace bear suspicious resemblance to the costs of war" (Thomas 1995, xi). All told, including peacetime activities as well as the immense destruction caused by combat, military institutions probably present the most dramatic threat to ecological well-being on the planet. The military is the largest generator of hazardous waste in the United States, creating nearly a ton of toxic pollution every minute, and military analyst Jillian Skeelclaims that, "Global military activity may be the largest worldwide polluter and consumer of precious resources" (quoted in Thomas 1995, 5). A conventionally powered aircraft carrier consumes 150,000 gallons of fuel a day. In less than an hour's flight, a single jet launched from its flight deck consumes as much fuel as a North American motorist burns in two years. One F-16 jet engine requires nearly four and a half tons of scarce titanium, nickel, chromium, cobalt, and energy-intensive aluminum (Thomas 1995, 5), and nine percent of all the iron and steel used by humans is consumed by the global military (Thomas 1995, 16). The United States Department of Defense generates 500,000 tons of toxins annually, more than the world's top five chemical companies combined. The military is the biggest single source of environmental pollution in the United States. Of 338 citations issued by the United States Environmental Protection Agency in 1989, three-quarters went to military installations (Thomas 1995, 17). The feminization, commodification, and devaluation of nature helps create a reality in which its destruction in warfare is easily justified. In imagining an ethic that addresses these realities, feminists cannot neglect the extent to which military ecocide is connected, conceptually and practically, to transnational capitalism and other forms of human oppression and exploitation. Virtually all of the world's thirty-five nuclear bomb test sites, as well as most radioactive dumps and uranium mines, occupy Native lands (Thomas 1995, 6). Six multinationals control one-quarter of all United States defense con*tracts (Thomas 1995, 10), and two million dollars per minute is spent on the global military (Thomas 1995, 7). One could go on for volumes about the effects of chemical and nuclear testing, military-industrial development and waste, and the disruption of wildlife, habitats, communities, and lifestyles that are inescapably linked to military practices. There are many conceptual and practical connections between military practices in which humans aim to kill and harm each other for some declared "greater good," and nonmilitary practices in which we displace, destroy, or seriously modify nonhuman communities, species, and ecosystems in the name of human interests. An early illustration of these connections was made by Rachel Carson in the first few pages of The Silent Spring (1962), in which she described insecticides as the inadvertent offspring of World War II chemical weapons research. We can now also trace ways in which insecticides were part of the Western-defined global corporatization of agriculture that helped kill off the small family farm and made the worldwide system of food production dependent on the likes of Dow Chemical and Monsanto. Military practices are no different from other human practices that damage and irreparably modify nature. They are often a result of cost-benefit analyses that pretend to weigh all likely outcomes yet do not consider nonhuman entities except in terms of their use value for humans and they nearly always create unforeseeable effects for humans and nonhumans. In addition, everyday military peacetime practices are actually more destructive than most other human activities, they are directly enacted by state power, and, because they function as unquestioned "givens," they enjoy a unique near-immunity to enactments of moral reproach. It is worth noting the extent to which everyday military activities remain largely unscrutinized by environmentalists, espe*cially American environmentalists, largely because fear allows us to be fooled into thinking that "national security" is an adequate excuse for "ecological military mayhem" (Thomas 1995, 16). If environmental destruction is a necessary aspect of war and the peacetime practices of military institutions, an analysis of war which includes its embeddedness in peacetime militarism is necessary to address the environmen*tal effects of war. Such a perspective must pay adequate attention to what is required to prepare for war in a technological age, and how women and other Others are affected by the realities of contemporary military institutions and practices.
  14. Can anyone who saw either round post about them?
  • Create New...