User:Debate4life/sandbox

Aff case link Nick Nguyen Lanier 2019 -

--Aff case--

I affirm the resolution Resolved: the illegal use of drugs ought to be treated as a matter of public health, not of criminal justice. I value morality because the word ought in the resolution implies a moral obligation. The standard is minimizing structural violence. Focusing on high-magnitude impacts perpetuates structural violence – prefer probability weighing and systemic impacts

Jackson 12—Director of National Center for Peace and Conflict Studies @ uni of otago; Prof on International Politics @ Aberystwyth Uni, editor-in-chief of Critical Studies on Terrorism (Richard, “The Great Con of National Security,” 8/5/12, https://richardjacksonterrorismblog.wordpress.com/2012/08/05/the-great-con-of-national-security/)

The facts are simple and irrefutable: you’re far more likely to die from lack of health care provision than you are from terrorism; from stress and overwork than Iranian or North Korean nuclear missiles; from lack of road safety than from illegal immigrants; from mental illness and suicide than from computer hackers; from domestic violence than from asylum seekers; from the misuse of legal medicines and alcohol abuse than from international drug lords. And yet, politicians and the servile media spend most of their time talking about the threats posed by terrorism, immigration, asylum seekers, the international drug trade, the nuclear programmes of Iran and North Korea, computer hackers, animal rights activism, the threat of China, and a host of other issues which are all about as equally unlikely to affect the health and well-being of you and your family. Along with this obsessive and perennial discussion of so-called ‘national security issues’, the state spends truly vast sums on security measures which have virtually no impact on the actual risk of dying from these threats, and then engages in massive displays of ‘security theatre’ designed to show just how seriously the state takes these threats – such as the x-ray machines and security measures in every public building, surveillance cameras everywhere, missile launchers in urban areas, drones in Afghanistan, armed police in airports, and a thousand other things. This display is meant to convince you that these threats are really, really serious. And while all this is going on, the rulers of society are hoping that you won’t notice that increasing social and economic inequality in society leads to increased ill health for a growing underclass; that suicide and crime always rise when unemployment rises; that workplaces remain highly dangerous and kill and maim hundreds of people per year; that there are preventable diseases which plague the poorer sections of society; that domestic violence kills and injures thousands of women and children annually; and that globally, poverty and preventable disease kills tens of millions of people needlessly every year. In other words, they are hoping that you won’t notice how much structural violence there is in the world.

A single definition will be provided: Illegal use of drugs- Inappropriate, illegal, or excessive use of a drug. My first contention is that incarcerating drug addicts has numerous social and economic harms A is Costs

Incarcerating drug offenders costs the public more than $1 trillion every year – for every dollar we put in, we lose two thirds of that.

Nicholas Turner writes in 2013 Nicholas Turner, 9-5-2013, "The costs and benefits of incarcerating low-level drug offenders," Vera, https://www.vera.org/blog/the-costs-and-benefits-of-incarcerating-low-level-drug-offenders SJBE The Oregon report also highlighted how the cost-effectiveness of incarceration varies based on the severity of the offense. In 2005, each dollar the state spent to incarcerate a violent offender yielded $4.35 in public safety benefits. The cost of incarcerating drug offenders, however, far exceeded the benefits: every dollar invested in incarcerating drug offenders yielded $0.35 in public safety benefits, meaning that the costs were roughly three times more than the benefits. (See page 11 of Oregon’s report for more details.)

B is Recidivism

Statistics prove that incarceration causes more crime. Schrager writes in 2015 Allison Schrager, PRISON BLUES, In America, mass incarceration has caused more crime than it’s prevented, July 22, 2015//ASJ A new paper from University of Michigan economics professor Michael Mueller-Smith measures how much incapacitation reduced crime. He looked at court records from Harris County, Texas from 1980 to 2009.Mueller-Smith observed that in Harris County people charged with similar crimes received totally different sentences depending on the judge to whom they were randomly assigned. Mueller-Smith then tracked what happened to these prisoners. He estimated that each year in prison increases the odds that a prisoner would reoffend by 5.6% a quarter. Even people who went to prison for lesser crimes wound up committing more serious offenses subsequently, the more time they spent in prison. His conclusion: Any benefit from taking criminals out of the general population is more than off-set by the increase in crime from turning small offenders into career criminals. High recidivism rates are not unique to Texas: Within 5 years of release more than 75% of prisoners are arrested again. Why does prison turn people into career criminals? Prison obliterates your earnings potential. Being a convicted felon disqualifies you from certain jobs, housing, or voting. Mueller-Smith estimates that each year in prison reduces the odds of post-release employment by 24% and increases the odds you’ll live on public assistance. Time in prison also lowers the odds you’ll get or stay married. Being in prison and out of the labor force degrades legitimate skills and exposes you to criminal skills and a criminal network. This makes crime a more attractive alternative upon release, even if you run a high risk of returning to prison.

C is poverty This creates inescapable poverty. DeFina and Hannon write in 2013 Hannon and DeFina “The Impact of Mass Incarceration on Poverty” Villanova University. 2013 https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/0011128708328864 //CCD This study examined how trends in mass incarceration have affected U.S. poverty rates. Conceptually, the overall impact of mass incarceration on poverty is ambiguous. On one level, increased incarceration rates may mean lower poverty rates simply because the poor are more likely to be imprisoned and imprisoned populations are not counted in official poverty statistics. On another level, increased incarceration may mean fewer household earners and ultimately higher poverty rates for the family members of the incarcerated who are trying to make ends meet outside of prison walls. From an empirical standpoint, the results from the current analysis are clear: Mass incarceration has played a major role in increasing poverty rates. Although previous research has documented the roles of such factors as changes in family structure, minimum wage policy, globalization, and deunionization, researchers have mostly ignored the implications of mass incarceration for poverty rates. Results from a state-level panel spanning 1980 to 2004 indicate that the implications of mass incarceration are not only significant in the statistical sense but also substantial in a practical sense. Indeed, estimates from a series of conservative tests using a variety of poverty indexes suggest that poverty would have fallen substantially more during the last few decades had it not been for the historic rise in incarceration. The magnitude of the impact of incarceration is especially pronounced when one focuses on the official headcount poverty rate, the most commonly used indicator of economic deprivation. After accounting for possible simultaneity bias, the coefficients for the official headcount rate indicate that had mass incarceration not occurred, poverty would have decreased by more than 20%, or about 2.8 percentage points. At the national scale, this translates into several million fewer people in poverty had mass incarceration not occurred. Given that institutionalized populations are excluded from the definition and calculation of official poverty rates and that the estimates reported in this article are only for the direct and contemporaneous impact of incarceration, it is likely that the effects of mass incarceration on poverty are even greater than those presented in this analysis. 582 Crime & Delinquency 59(4) The results from the current analysis of state panel data underscore the importance of fully considering the collateral consequences of mass incarceration, and they complement existing research at the individual level on the negative effects of incarceration on employment and earnings not only for those directly experiencing the incarceration but also for family members and neighbors (Freeman, 1991; Hagan, 1993; Holzer, Raphael, & Stoll, 2007; Oliver et al., 2005; Pager, 2003; Petitt & Western, 2004; Western, 2006; Western & Beckett, 1999; Western, Kling, & Weiman, 2001). More broadly, the results are in line with arguments emphasizing the need to carefully examine the costs and benefits of incarceration beyond the implications of prison expansion for state budgets and crime rates (Clear, 2007; Currie, 1998; Rose & Clear, 1998). That is, a thoughtful cost–benefit analysis should ask more than just how much crime reduction can we get out of our prison expenditures. It should ask questions about the positive or negative consequences of mass incarceration for other important aspects of society’s overall well-being. The results from the present study are important for researchers and policy makers who would like to evaluate the effectiveness of poverty-reduction strategies. Considering the robustness and magnitude of the effect of incarceration on poverty, future research attempting to explain variation in poverty rates in the United States should include incarceration rates in their models. Indeed, it is possible that failure to control for variation in incarceration rates may lead to erroneous conclusions about the effectiveness of antipoverty policy or the general structural covariates of poverty rates. Furthermore, considering the findings suggesting that poverty is both a cause and an effect of incarceration, the results are important for researchers and policy makers interested in better understanding the mechanisms driving mass imprisonment. The reported evidence of two-way causality between poverty and incarceration rates implies a type of positive feedback loop, where rising incarceration rates create conditions that beget even higher rates of imprisonment. There are several possibilities to consider for future research directed at specifying incarceration’s relationship to poverty. First, with appropriate data, hierarchical modeling techniques could be used to disentangle contemporaneous effects on poverty at the individual, family, and community levels. Second, experimentation with time-lagged models could shed light on the total effect of incarceration on poverty and might help more fully isolate the effect of incarceration via the employability of ex-inmates. Third, considering pronounced racial and ethnic disparities in incarceration rates in the United States, race-specific analyses, and especially racially comparative analyses, would contribute to our understanding of the association between incarceration and poverty. Finally, given the known significant variation in the use of incarceration among nations, future research might consider a cross-national investigation of the effects of incarceration on poverty. DeFina and Hannon 583 Despite U.S. prominence in the global economy, and despite some improvements in overall economic prosperity, poverty in the United States has remained stubbornly high over the last few decades. The present study suggests that the penal trends that have led the United States to have one of the highest incarceration rates in the world have also undoubtedly helped keep poverty high. Recent data suggesting that incarceration rates may be leveling off, after years of dramatic increases, could bode well for an arguably long-overdue reduction in poverty in one of the world’s richest nations. �My second contention is that incarceration increases addiction and is counter-productive A is addiction and withdrawal

When addicts go to prison because of their addictions, two bad things happen – their addictions get worse and they are at threat of withdrawal. Skywood writes Skywood Recovery, "Why Imprisonment Is More Harm Than Help to Addicted Offenders," https://skywoodrecovery.com/why-imprisonment-is-more-harm-than-help-to-addicted-offenders/ SJBE The first problem with incarcerating addicted offenders is that incarceration does not prevent addicts from further abuse of alcohol and drugs. Approximately 95 percent of incarcerated addicts will return to substance abuse after their release from prison. 60 to 80 percent of them will commit new crimes.3 Others will become addicted while in prison due to access to smuggled drugs. This is because while incarceration may address the crime, it doesn’t address the underlying issues. It doesn’t treat the disease that contributes to criminal behavior. Approximately 65 percent of prison inmates in the US meet the diagnostic criteria for addiction. Only 11 percent of those individuals receive any form of treatment. There’s also the question of safety regarding withdrawal in prison. Although withdrawal doesn’t always put an addicted individual in danger, it can put a person’s health or even his or her life in jeopardy. There have been a number of reports of individuals dying from severe withdrawal while in prison.4 Despite the dangers of detoxing without medical supervision, offenders struggling with addiction are regularly imprisoned and then ignored. B is access within People do have access to drugs in prison – a study by the Washington Post found that, in California, drugs were discovered 1000 times annually, and there were 1132 cases of inmates testing positive to drug addiction. Even prison staff have an incentive to bring drugs into prison – they can make up to $7,000 off of one trip inside. This shows that people definitely do drugs in prison and prison does not restrict access to these drugs. Treating drug abuse as a matter of criminal justice targets minorities, who actually do drugs less than their white peers The drug policy alliance writes Drug Policy Alliance, no date, "Race and the Drug War," http://www.drugpolicy.org/issues/race-and-drug-war People of color experience discrimination at every stage of the criminal justice system and are more likely to be stopped, searched, arrested, convicted, harshly sentenced and saddled with a lifelong criminal record. This is particularly the case for drug law violations. Nearly 80% of people in federal prison and almost 60% of people in state prison for drug offenses are black or Latino. Research shows that prosecutors are twice as likely to pursue a mandatory minimum sentence for black people as for white people charged with the same offense. Among people who received a mandatory minimum sentence in 2011, 38% were Latino and 31% were black. Black people and Native Americans are more likely to be killed by law enforcement than other racial or ethnic groups. They are often stereotyped as being violent or addicted to alcohol and other drugs. Experts believe that stigma and racism may play a major role in police-community interactions. Other racial groups are also impacted by the drug war, but the disparities with these highlighted groups are particularly stark and well documented.

All statistics show that incarceration and imprisonment is ineffective at dealing with drug addiction – we should instead treat this issue as a matter of public health. Pew Research, an American think tank, writes on March 8 Pew Research, March 8, 2018, "More Imprisonment Does Not Reduce State Drug Problems," No Publication, https://www.pewtrusts.org/en/research-and-analysis/issue-briefs/2018/03/more-imprisonment-does-not-reduce-state-drug-problems SJBE The absence of any relationship between states’ rates of drug imprisonment and drug problems suggests that expanding imprisonment is not likely to be an effective national drug control and prevention strategy. The statelevel analysis reaffirms the findings of previous research demonstrating that imprisonment rates have scant association with the nature and extent of the harm arising from illicit drug use. For example, a 2014 National Research Council report found that mandatory minimum sentences for drug and other offenders “have few, if any, deterrent effects.”22 The finding was based, in part, on decades of observation that when street-level drug dealers are apprehended and incarcerated they are quickly and easily replaced. On the other hand, reduced prison terms for certain federal drug offenders have not led to higher recidivism rates. In 2007, the Sentencing Commission retroactively cut the sentences of thousands of crack cocaine offenders, and a seven-year follow-up study found no increase in recidivism among offenders whose sentences were shortened compared with those whose were not.23 In 2010, Congress followed the commission’s actions with a broader statutory decrease in penalties for crack cocaine offenders.24 These and other research findings suggest that the most effective response to drug misuse is a combination of law enforcement to curtail trafficking and prevent the emergence of new markets; alternative sentencing to divert nonviolent drug offenders from costly imprisonment; treatment to reduce dependency and recidivism; and prevention efforts that can identify individuals at high risk for substance use disorders. �My third contention is that rehabilitation programs are more effective at stopping drug abuse

A is the Holland Treating the illegal use of drugs as a matter of public health works – countries such as Holland prove that the statistics are on our side CRC health group, a leader of drug treatment research, writes CRC health group, xx-xx-xxxx, "Drug Addiction is an Illness, Not a Crime," No Publication, https://www.crchealth.com/addiction/drug-addiction-rehab/drug-addiction-rehab-2/home-2/addiction_is_illness/ SJBE There is a widely-held belief in America that Holland has a permissive attitude towards drugs; it does not. Rather, the country has adopted a more practical approach. Large-scale drug trafficking is still vigorously prosecuted. Drug use, however, is considered to be a public-health issue, not a criminal one. Addicts who are caught stealing or breaking other laws are prosecuted, but they are not arrested for possession. The U.S.A. might be able to learn a few things about handling drug abuse by studying the Dutch. Thirty years ago the population of heroin addicts in the Netherlands was estimated to have been 25,000 to 30,000. While the country’s population has grown by 6 percent in the past three decades, the number of heroin addicts has remained virtually the same Very few new users have joined their ranks and as the “old-timers” age, they are dying off, leading to [but there has been] a further decline in heroin use. Wim van den Brink, a psychiatrist at the Academic Medical Center of the University of Amsterdam, sums up the country’s drug policy this way “The view is that addiction is a brain disease and it requires treatment, not incarceration”. This policy is responsible for a remarkable statistic: approximately 70 percent of Holland’s drug addicts are in treatment programs; only 10-15 percent of America’s are. B is how we solve for the prison problems Drug Treatment is more cost effective, improves post-addiction employment rates, reduces recidivism, and decreases drug addiction rates

Danyelle Solomon, the vice of the group American Progress, writes,

~Danyelle, Danyelle Solomon is the vice president of Race and Ethnicity Policy at American Progress. Previously, she served as policy counsel at the Brennan Center for Justice’s Washington, D.C., office, where she focused primarily on criminal justice issues, including sentencing reform, corrections reform, policing reform, commutations and pardons, and racial disparities in the justice system., "Substance Use Disorder Is a Public Health Issue, Not a Criminal Justice Issue", American Progress, June 12, 2017, https://www.americanprogress.org/issues/race/news/2017/06/12/433998/substance-use-disorder-public-health-issue-not-criminal-justice-issue/ /ghs-az~ On average, 1,000 Americans die every week from drug overdoses. Despite the growing drug epidemic, the Trump administration continues to ignore clear evidence supporting treatment over incarceration. Last month, Attorney General Jeff Sessions reignited the war on drugs by overturning smart on crime approaches and directing prosecutors to "charge and pursue the most serious, readily provable offense." The Trump administration also wants to target limited federal resources toward prosecuting marijuana offenses, increase healthcare premiums for people suffering from addiction, and slash federal funding for treatment and prevention providers. The administration’s actions will imprison countless Americans, disproportionately hurt communities of color, and waste taxpayer dollars. Here’s what you need to know about America’s drug epidemic. Opioid overdoses affect all communities With more than 80 percent of opioid overdoses occurring in white communities, some forget that this issue also hurts communities of color. Yet in 2010, Native Americans died from drug overdoses at higher rates than any other group, and this rate has increased by 236 percent since then. In 2015 alone, more than 5,000 black and Hispanic people died from opioid overdoses. Since 1999, overdose death rates among non-Hispanic black and Hispanic communities increased by 63 percent and 43 percent, respectively. From 2014 to 2015, the number of non-Hispanic black and Hispanic people who died from using synthetic opioids other than methadone—such as fentanyl and tramadol—increased by 87 percent. Incarceration is a wasteful tool for reducing substance use disorder According to Columbia University, 65 percent of prisoners—1.5 million people—suffer from addiction, but just 11 percent receive any treatment behind bars. As a result, most resume abusing drugs upon release. Attorney General Sessions’ recent instructions to prosecutors will only increase the number of addicted people behind bars—people who will not receive treatment. Incarceration costs nearly $32,000 per prisoner per year; it is not a cost-effective way to treat addiction. High-quality treatment services reduce drug addiction rates. According to the National Institute on Drug Abuse, drug treatment can reduce substance use disorder rates by 60 percent while improving employment prospects by 40 percent overall. Other studies show that treatment significantly reduces relapse and overdose death rates for just one-sixth of the cost of incarceration. In fact, every $1 invested in treatment programs produces $12 in benefits to society. Diversion programs save money and improve public safety Evidence suggests that diverting addicted offenders into court-supervised treatment programs instead of imprisoning them can reduce recidivism and save taxpayers millions of dollars. For example, the STOP Drug Diversion Program in Multnomah County, Oregon, reduced re-arrests by 76 percent and saved Oregon taxpayers nearly $80 million over a 10-year period. According to the Urban Institute, providing treatment to all U.S. arrestees at risk of abusing drugs would cost $13.7 billion but produce more than $46 billion in benefits to society. The Affordable Care Act increased access to treatment and prevention services The Affordable Care Act (ACA) included substance use disorder services as an essential benefit, and it expanded Medicaid to increase access to these services for low-income individuals. Because of the ACA, 1.8 million people with mental illnesses and substance use disorders are currently receiving treatment. The Trump administration threatens these gains by advancing a proposal that could increase costs for coverage for substance use disorder services by $1,000 to $8,500 per year. The administration has also proposed eliminating the Office of National Drug Control Policy, which produces a comprehensive national drug control strategy and coordinates drug activities and funding across 16 federal agencies. Marijuana is not driving the drug epidemic in America The Trump administration recently signaled its intent to punish people living in America for using marijuana. Most marijuana users, however, never go on to use narcotics, and studies have shown that medical marijuana laws are associated with a decrease in opioid use, addiction, and overdose death rates. With most states now allowing residents to use marijuana for medical or casual purposes and 1 in 8 Americans reporting using it regularly, a federal crackdown could put millions of people at risk. Such a policy would also disproportionately hurt black people, who are nearly four times more likely than whites to be arrested for marijuana possession despite equal rates of use. The Trump administration needs to reexamine its priorities. Instead of pursuing harsh sentences for low-level, nonviolent drug offenders; cracking down on marijuana; and cutting services, the administration should work to expand treatment for the millions of Americans facing addiction.

C is underfunding The only problem with current rehabilitation programs is that they’re underfunded and aren’t regulated by the government – the affirmative would change this and increase meaningful oversight over these programs Nicole Lee, drug and alcohol addiction reporter, writes Nicole Lee, 4-12-2017, "What is 'success' in drug rehab? Programs need more than just anecdotes to prove they work," Conversation, https://theconversation.com/what-is-success-in-drug-rehab-programs-need-more-than-just-anecdotes-to-prove-they-work-76081 SJBE Government-funded alcohol or drug treatment services, and public and private hospital services, are at least required to maintain quality standards through established health accreditation processes. But anyone can set up a private rehab clinic, and the ABC has previously reported how some unscrupulous operators prey on people who are desperate for help and unable to access the overstretched, underfunded public system. What this shows us is that rehabilitation programs have worked in the past. The only reason they have trouble treating individuals is because they are underfunded and understaffed. The affirmative would change this by taking money away from mass incarceration and instead spending it on treating the root cause of drug addiction.

I urge an affirmative ballot

A/T Rehab doesn't work

Take Andrew as an example – he was forced into criminal practices by his addiction and was alienated from his friends and family, but rehab worked to take him out of this vicious cycle of addiction The US addiction services write on January third US addiction services, 1-3-2018, "How Rehab Works Wonders: How Andrew Overcame Addiction," US Addiction, https://usaddiction.com/success-stories/rehab-was-the-answer-to-andrew-p/ SJBE How rehab works wonders is evident in this testimonial. Success stories like this one are proof that rehab works. Before Andrew arrived at rehab, he was homeless and robbing people so he could get his next heroin fix. He was in such a mess that his friends had left him and his family no longer trusted him, leaving him with himself on the streets. The fact that he was homeless, and everything leading up to that point, made him feel like his only option was to get high so he could relieve at least some of the pain he was feeling. Before he knew it, heroin had taken over his life completely and felt as if it were his only friend. When Andrew entered rehab, he had doubts that it would work for him as it was his 13th rehab center. He thought that if the other 13 didn’t work, there wasn’t a single rehab center that would allow him to stay clean for a long period of time. He felt as if his addiction was going to be around for life. Although Andrew felt like a failure from his past attempts at getting sober, he noticed there was something different about this [in] rehab. He was able to overcome some of the most difficult parts of his life that he had never truly looked at before. Through the help of the staff members and other patients, he was able to solve some of the problems that got him into using heroin in the first place and was able to forgive himself for everything he had done to himself and others, which was one of the most challenging things he had done. Other Ways Rehab Works Wonders in Andrew’s Recovery The hardest lesson Andrew had to learn was taking responsibility for his actions. It may sound simple, but it was an eye-opening moment when he realized that he had created the situation he was in. After realizing this, he started to make amends to his friends and family. He now has recovered friends he had lost due to his addiction and proved that he was a changed man. He has also strengthened the relationships between him and his family members and he has been welcomed back into the family. This is just one more way that Andrew found our how rehab works wonders in a person’s life.

Programs such as the salvation army that focus on rehabilitating the entire person and stopping the root cause of drug addiction work to stop addiction and abuse Jess Grotjahn, correspondent for WHNT, writes in 2016 Jess Grotjahn, 9-12-2016, "Salvation Army provides adult rehabilitation program for men with substance abuse problems," WHNT, https://whnt.com/2016/09/12/salvation-army-provides-adult-rehabilitation-program-for-men-with-substance-abuse-problems/ SJBE In addition to assisting with natural disasters locally and in the Southeastern region, the Salvation Army provides an adult rehabilitation program year round. It's intended to help adults recover from drug and/or alcohol addiction. This is one of the programs sustained by community donations and earning money from the Family Thrift store. The purpose of the Corps Salvage Rehabilitation Center, or CSRC, is to provide rehabilitative services to adult men with substance abuse issues and/or addictions. The beneficiaries receive room and board, clothing as necessary, and appropriate medical and dental referrals at no cost, thus providing a healthy and safe environment to begin recovery. The program is designed to help the 'whole person' recover from his addiction physically, mentally, emotionally and spiritually. The Salvation Army provides the opportunity to those wishing to rid themselves of the bondage and yoke of addiction a six-month to a year rehabilitation program. The program is a faith-based work therapy program in which there are attendance requirements for group meetings, 12-step meetings and church services. The Salvation Army maintains a complex with four apartments, in order to provide an opportunity for men who have completed the primary rehabilitation program to re-enter our community as productive members of society, while affording the men an opportunity to clear up any debt or restitution owed.

Treating drug addiction as a matter of public health would save a lot of money, both in the short term with incarceration costs AND in the long term with lower social programs The Foundations Recovery Network writes, xx-xx-xxxx, "Drug Rehab Instead of Prison Could Save Billions," https://www.dualdiagnosis.org/drug-rehab-instead-of-prison-could-save-billions-says-report-2/ SJBE If only 10 percent of drug-addicted offenders received drug rehabilitation instead of jail time, the criminal justice system would save $4.8 billion compared to current costs.1 If 40 percent of addicted offenders received treatment instead of jail, those savings would rise to $12.9 billion.1 How Does Rehab Save Your Personal Money? Treatment for addiction doesn’t just save money for communities. Looking at the big picture of recovery also saves money for individuals and families. No matter how expensive treatment is, it’s nothing compared to the costs that add up over years of drug addiction, including: Medical care and health costs for overdose, accidental injury under the influence, and chronic illness caused by drug use Bail, court costs, lawyer fees, and other legal fees caused by drug-related arrest Lost productivity due to active addiction, including a lowered ability to work and bring in money Cost of supporting someone who is unable to support themselves Cost of supporting any children born to the addicted person Cost of long-term health complications due to substance use, that often appear later in life if a person manages to avoid overdose or immediate illness It is estimated that about half of all people who are incarcerated are there at least in part due to an active drug or alcohol problem, yet only about 10 percent of them receive the drug rehabilitation they need to heal while they are behind bars.2 When drug offenders are released, they often immediately return to active drug abuse and within days, weeks, or months find themselves again in front of a judge and returning to jail for the same or similar crimes.

--Neg case--

I negate the following resolution Resolved: The illegal use of drugs ought to be treated as a matter of public health, not of criminal justice Observation 1: Because the resolution states “ought to be treated as a matter of public health and, NOT of criminal justice:, the affirmative has the burden to prove disadvantages of Criminal Justice and advantages of public health.

The only definition provided by the negative is of “Illegal Use Of Drugs” Cornell Law School writes, https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/42/12210 What the U.S. defines Illegal use of drugs

The term “illegal use of drugs” means the use of drugs, the possession or distribution of which is unlawful under the Controlled Substances Act [et seq.]. Such term does not include the use of a drug taken under supervision by a licensed healthcare professional, or other uses authorized by the Controlled Substances Act or other provisions of Federal law.

I value lives

The standard is consequentialism Cartels Treating drugs as a public health issue would mean drug cartels would further diversify their sources of profit McArdle 16 McArdle, Megan. Bloomberg View columnist. "When drugs are legal, gangs will diversify". https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2016-04-04/when-drugs-are-legal-gangs-will-diversify. 4 Apr 2016. Accessed 19 Feb 2019 SM

But while in theory, theory is the same as practice, in practice, it often isn’t. Will legal marijuana, and the accompanying decline in profits, really mean the demise of the gangs -- particularly the Mexican cartels -- that trade in it? We seem to have a handy test case: Prohibition. Starting around the end of World War I -- a period that roughly coincides with the Volstead Act -- homicide started to spike in America. Probably some of that was because of the demobilization of large numbers of soldiers at once, rather than the black market in alcohol, but a significant portion of the homicides were driven by gang wars over bootlegging profits. How can we be sure of that? Because right around 1933, when Prohibition was repealed, the homicide rate begins a rapid collapse. That’s good fodder for today's legalizers. On the other hand, we should be modest about how much the end of Prohibition achieved. Because the Mafia did not simply disappear along with the source of its biggest profits. Instead, like any business, it sat back, took stock, and opened up new lines of business. Labor racketeering, gambling, extortion -- these things might once have been sidelines, but they became the main show. In other words, policy outcomes have a lot of path dependence. The Mafia was not created by Prohibition; it seems to have been an outgrowth of post-feudal Sicily, and it made its way to America along with Sicilian immigrants. But the advent of Prohibition greatly increased their profits and power, and by the time Prohibition ended, they were far too big and well-organized to simply slip softly and silently away into the night. Had we never passed the Eighteenth Amendment, the Mafia might have remained a local problem in Italian neighborhoods, and slowly died along with the ethnic enclaves where it had its foothold. But repealing Prohibition was not the same thing as never having had it in the first place. We created a monster, and the monster outlived its initial habitat. It’s too early yet to know what effect marijuana legalization will have on the gangs that got rich on marijuana prohibition. But given the scale and ferocity of the violence that has convulsed Mexico in recent years, it’s hard to imagine that the gangs will simply fold up if they’re deprived of their revenue. Indeed, they are already moving into other drugs. They may also try to take over currently legal operations, as the Mafia did with many labor unions. This offers a lesson for policymakers -- and not just those who focus on drug policy. Often in policymaking there are no backsies; undoing some policy mistake gives you very different outcomes from the ones that you would have gotten if you’d never tried it in the first place. That’s not an argument for never experimenting, but it is an argument for caution. You break it, you own the outcome. Since the Justice Department began prosecuting fewer drug offenders, trends of lessening violent crime have shown a major reversal, and opioid overdose death rates have tripled. Contrary to popular belief only 3% of people in prison for federal drug crimes were convicted of simple possession which answers their impact.

Washington Post 17 The Washington Post; Jeff Sessions: Being soft on sentencing means more violent crime. It’s time to get tough again.; Jeff Sessions; June 16, 2017; https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/jeff-sessions-being-soft-on-sentencing-means-more-violent-crime-its-time-to-get-tough-again/2017/06/16/618ef1fe-4a19-11e7-9669-250d0b15f83b_story.html?noredirect=on&utm_term=.2edb680f70b6

Drug trafficking is an inherently violent business. If you want to collect a drug debt, you can’t, and don’t, file a lawsuit in court. You collect it by the barrel of a gun. For the approximately 52,000 Americans who died of a drug overdose in 2015, drug trafficking was a deadly business. Yet in 2013, subject to limited exceptions, the Justice Department ordered federal prosecutors not to include in charging documents the amount of drugs being dealt when the actual amount was large enough to trigger a mandatory minimum sentence. Prosecutors were required to leave out objective facts in order to achieve sentences lighter than required by law. This was billed as an effort to curb mass incarceration of low-level offenders, but in reality it covered offenders apprehended with large quantities of dangerous drugs. The result was that federal drug prosecutions went down dramatically — from 2011 to 2016, federal prosecutions fell by 23 percent. Meanwhile, the average sentence length for a convicted federal drug offender decreased 18 percent from 2009 to 2016. Before that policy change, the violent crime rate in the United States had fallen steadily for two decades, reaching half of what it was in 1991. Within one year after the Justice Department softened its approach to drug offenders, the trend of decreasing violent crime reversed. In 2015, the United States suffered the largest single-year increase in the overall violent crime rate since 1991. And while defenders of the 2013 policy change point out that crime rates remain low compared with where they were 30 years ago, they neglect to recognize a disturbing trend that could reverse decades of progress: Violent crime is rising across the country. According to data from the FBI, there were more than 15,000 murders in the United States in 2015, representing a single-year increase of nearly 11 percent across the country. That was the largest increase since 1971. The increase in murders continued in 2016. Preliminary data from the first half of 2016 shows that large cities in the United States suffered an average increase in murders of nearly 22 percent compared with the same period from a year earlier. As U.S. attorney general, I have a duty to protect all Americans and fulfill the president’s promise to make America safe again. Last month, after weeks of study and discussion with a host of criminal-justice participants, I issued a memorandum to all federal prosecutors regarding charging and sentencing policy that once again authorizes prosecutors to charge offenses as Congress intended. This two-page guidance instructs prosecutors to apply the laws on the books to the facts of the case in most cases, and allows them to exercise discretion where a strict application of the law would result in an injustice. Instead of barring prosecutors from faithfully enforcing the law, this policy empowers trusted professionals to apply the law fairly and exercise discretion when appropriate. That is the way good law enforcement has always worked. Defenders of the status quo perpetuate the false story that federal prisons are filled with low-level, nonviolent drug offenders. The truth is less than 3 percent of federal offenders sentenced to imprisonment in 2016 were convicted of simple possession, and in most of those cases the defendants were drug dealers who accepted plea bargains in return for reduced sentences. Federal drug offenders include major drug traffickers, gang members, importers, manufacturers and international drug cartel members. To be subject to a five-year mandatory sentence, a criminal would have to be arrested with 100 grams or more of heroin with the intent to distribute it — that is 1,000 doses of heroin. The truth is that while the federal government softened its approach to drug enforcement, drug abuse and violent crime surged. The availability of dangerous drugs is up, the price has dropped and the purity is at dangerously high levels. Overdose deaths from opioids have nearly tripled since 2002. Overdose deaths involving synthetic opioids rose an astonishing 73 percent in 2015. The impact is twofold: First, cartels would switch to newer, deadlier drugs to maintain profit levels of drugs that are no longer criminalized. Second, this would increase violence caused by cartels as a result of power vacuums

Argen 18 Argen, David. "Mexican cartels pushing more heroin after U.S. states relax marijuana laws". https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2018/02/20/mexican-cartels-switch-gears-after-u-s-states-relax-u-s-states-legalize-marijuana-mexicos-cartels-sw/343389002/. 20 Feb 2018. Accessed 19 Feb 2019 SM

CHIHUAHUA, Mexico — As more U.S. states legalize, the use of marijuana, Mexico's violent drug cartels are turning to the basic law of supply and demand. That means small farmers, or campesinos, in this border state's rugged Sierra Madre who long planted marijuana to be smuggled into the United States are switching to opium poppies, which bring a higher price. The opium gum harvested is processed into heroin to feed the ravaging U.S. opioid crisis. “Marijuana isn’t as valuable, so they switched to a more profitable product,” said Javier Ávila, a Jesuit priest in this region rife with drug cartel activities. Laws allowing marijuana in states like Colorado, Washington and California are causing shifts in the Mexican underworld that have also led to increased violence as the cartels move away from its cash cow of marijuana to traffic more heroin and methamphetamines. Parker McMillan looks over products at MedMen in West Parker McMillan looks over products at MedMen in West Hollywood, Calif., on Jan. 1, 2018, when it became legal in to sell recreational marijuana. Laws allowing marijuana in states like Colorado, Washington and California are causing shifts in the Mexican underworld that have also led to increased violence as the cartels move away from its cash cow of marijuana to traffic more heroin and methamphetamines. (Photosoto: ROBERT HANASHIRO/USA TODAY) U.S. Customs and Border Protection statistics show that marijuana seizures fell by more than half since 2012, while heroin and methamphetamine seizures have held steady or markedly increased. The switch in illegal drugs coincides with Mexico hitting a record 29,168 murders in 2017, the most since the country started keeping homicide statistics in 1997. The jump in violence stems from several factors: cartels splintering into smaller factions, power struggles within the formidable Sinaloa Cartel after leader Joaquín “El Chapo” Guzmán was arrested and extradited to the U.S., plus the rise of the violent Jalisco New Generation Cartel, which expanded nationally and moved in on El Chapo’s turf. Few attribute Mexico's rising violence just to legalized marijuana north of the border or the increasing opioid crisis, but those changes in the U.S. are causing problems here. The bodies of women lie on the sidewalk in the Rufo The bodies of women lie on the sidewalk in the Rufo Figueroa neighborhood of Acapulco city port, Guerrero state, Mexico, on Feb. 15, 2018. They were killed in a wave of violence due to fighting between drug cartels. (Photo: FRANCISCO ROBLES, AFP/Getty Images) In Chihuahua, state prosecutor César Peniche said criminal groups on Mexico’s Pacific Coast used to traffic marijuana to California. Now those groups are “looking for other routes to continue their trafficking” by using border crossings farther inland, he said. “Criminal groups … enter the state of Chihuahua, and this causes confrontations,” Peniche explained. “It’s creating conflicts between criminal organizations to win control of the routes because some markets have closed, but others have stayed open. This sparks violence.” In Mexico’s heroin-producing heartland of southern Guerrero state, the violence is so bad that the morgues are full and unable to handle all the bodies brought in for autopsies. The U.S. government recently toughened its travel warning to Americans against visiting Guerrero, which includes the tourist resorts of Acapulco and Ixtapa, in addition to remote villages that rely on planting opium poppies. Growers in Guerrero, like those in northwest Mexico, also moved away from marijuana to focus on opium poppies. And they have no problem selling their harvests. “In talking with middlemen and others (selling illegal drugs), the U.S. has an almost insatiable demand. ... The cartels are never sitting on product,” said Myles Estey, producer of the Showtime series The Trade, which filmed in Guerrero. He said the cartels “saw a lot more demand for heroin (in the United States) and responded.” The cartels also freelance in non-drug crimes, such as kidnapping and extortion, to make quick money and “meet payroll” for their foot soldiers, said Guerrero state government spokesman Roberto Álvarez Heredia. Álvarez also blames Mexico's northern neighbor for Guerrero's increased violence, saying it stems from lax U.S. gun laws and “a public health problem from the consumption of heroin.” “Guerrero’s problem is not a problem originating in the (Mexican) state. It’s a problem linked to what happens in the United States,” Álvarez told USA TODAY. But Catholic Bishop Salvador Rangel and others criticize the Mexican and local governments, pointing to corruption and accusing police of colluding with criminals. Rangel, in the state capital of Chilpancingo, claimed “all of Guerrero is in the hands of narcotics traffickers” and called for the army to stop eradicating poppy crops until the government offers campesinos another way to make a living. “Kids don’t know how to read, but they know how to pick poppies,” said Abel Barrera, director of the Tlachinollan Mountain Human Rights Center in Guerrero. “People speak of plant varieties, how one variety produces more than another. There’s a specialization,” Barrera said. “It’s all become a culture. And it’s become deeply rooted.”2 Hundreds of thousands of people die from Cartel violence Agren 17 David Agren https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/dec/26/mexico-maelstrom-how-the-drug-violence-got-so-bad TR 11 years since the government launched a crackdown on cartels, violence continues, rule of law is elusive and accusations of human rights abuses abound by David Agren in Reynosa Tue 26 Dec 2017 03.00 ESTLast modified on Tue 26 Dec 2017 17.00 EST Shares 1,586 'Why must I live in fear?' Mexico shaken after yet another journalist murdered Read more Sofía, a medical assistant in Reynosa, a scruffy border city in northern Mexico, has a regular morning routine. She wakes at 6am and readies her son for preschool; then she reviews her social media feeds for news of the latest murders. Updates come via WhatsApp messages from friends and family: “There was a gun battle on X street”, “They found a body in Y neighbourhood”, “Avoid Z”. In Mexico today, choosing your route to work can be a matter of life or death, but Sofía compares the daily drill to checking the weather on the way out the door. “It doesn’t rain water here,” she said. “It rains lead.” It is 11 years since the then president Felipe Calderón launched a militarised crackdown on drug cartels deploying thousands of soldiers and promising an end to the violence and impunity. But the bloodletting continues, the rule of law remains elusive and accusations of human rights abuses by state security forces abound. All the while, Mexico continues to race past a series a grim milestones: more than 200,000 dead and an estimated 30,000 missing, more than 850 clandestine graves unearthed. This year is set to be the country’s bloodiest since the government started releasing crime figures in 1997, with about 27,000 murders in the past 12 months. Quick guide Mexico's war on drugs Show Some of the worst violence in recent years has struck Reynosa and the surrounding state of Tamaulipas, which sits squeezed against the Gulf coast and the US border. Once in a while, a particularly terrible incident here will make news around the world, such as the murder of Miriam Rodríguez, an activist for families of missing people, who was shot dead in her home on Mother’s Day. But most crimes are not even reported in the local papers: journalists censor themselves to stay alive and drug cartels dictate press coverage. “We don’t publish cartel and crime news in order to protect our journalists,” said one local news director, whose media outlet has been attacked by cartel gunmen. Eight journalists were murdered in Mexico in 2017, making it the most dangerous country for the press after Syria. The information vacuum is filled by social media where bloody photographs of crime scenes and breaking news alerts on cartel shootouts are shared on anonymous accounts. In Reynosa, violence has become a constant strand in everyday life. Morning commutes are held up by gun battles; movie theatres lock the doors if a shootout erupts during a screening. More than 90% of residents feel unsafe in the city, according to a September surveyby the state statistics service. Signs of the drug war are everywhere: trees and walls along the main boulevard are pockmarked with bullet holes. Drug dealers can be seen loafing on abandoned lots; every so often, rival convoys of gunmen battle on the streets. Video cameras look down from rooftops; spies are all around. “They have eyes everywhere,” said one woman. “It could be the government or the cartels.” The violence here first erupted around 2010 when the the Gulf cartel’s armed wing – a group of former soldiers known as Los Zetas – turned on their masters. Since then, wave after wave of conflict has scorched through the state as rival factions emerge and collapse. Fighting erupts over trafficking routes and the growing local drug markets, but state forces are also implicated: earlier this month, soldiers killed seven people, including two women, in what was described as a “confrontation”. Relatives and friends of four people killed in a clash with soldiers participate in a funeral mass in Palmarito Tochapan, Puebla, on 7 May 2017. Photograph: Jose Castanares/AFP/Getty Images Crime hit such alarming levels this year that the local maquiladora industry – which pulls thousands to Reynosa every year to work in its export factories – warned that companies might be forced to relocate. Amid the mayhem, ordinary life continues: shopping malls fill with families trying to escape the oppressive heat. Cars full of young people cruise the streets at night, banda music blaring from open windows. “Life can’t stop. We have to get out and enjoy ourselves a little,” said Alonso de León, a local caterer. But he added: “The problem affecting us in Tamaulipas is the shootouts, this violence – in any other country this would be called terrorism.” Is Mexico really the second-deadliest country in the world? Read more The government bristles at any suggestion that the country is at war. When the International Institute for Strategic Studies ranked Mexico as second-deadliest country in the world – ahead of warzones such as Afghanistan and Yemen – the foreign ministry responded angrily, pointing to higher murder rates in Brazil and Venezuela. War or not, the bodycount keeps climbing. And the violence is spreading: tourist areas have seen shootouts and decapitations, and even the capital has seen confrontations with armed groups. Earlier this month, the bodies of six men were found hanging from bridges in the resort city of Los Cabos. All of which has been disastrous for the image of President Enrique Peña Nieto who took office in 2012 with an ambitious agenda to push through structural reforms and promote Mexico as an emerging economy. Fighting crime seemed an afterthought. “He thought that security issues in Mexico were a problem of perception so he embraced a policy of silence,” said Viridiana Ríos, scholar at the Wilson Centre in Washington. Peña Nieto’s government maintained the military focus of the drug war, and continued to target cartel kingpins. But analysts question the strategy, saying that it shatters larger criminal empires but leaves smaller – often more violent – factions fighting for the spoils. Breaking up the cartels also has the perverse effect of encouraging crime groups to diversify, said Brian J Phillips, professor at the Centre for Teaching and Research in Economics. “The new groups are more likely to raise money by kidnapping or extortion since that doesn’t require the logistics of drug trafficking,” he said. “And as long as demand exists in the USA, and supply is in or passing through Mexico, new criminal organisations will appear.” Mexico after El Chapo: new generation fights for control of the cartel Read more When the country’s most-wanted crime boss Joaquín “El Chapo” Guzmánwas recaptured last year, Peña Nieto tweeted “Mission accomplished” but even that success has not caused any measurable reduction in crime: Guzmán’s extradition to the United States in January triggered a fresh wave of violence in his home state of Sinaloa. Meanwhile rivals such as the Jalisco New Generation cartel – a fast-growing organisation specialising in methamphetamines and excessive violence – moved in on Sinaloa trafficking territories along the Pacific coast. And the liberalisation of marijuana laws in some US states has prompted some farmers to switch to opium poppies, prompting fresh conflict around the heroin trade. But despite the worsening violence, there has been little serious consideration of any fresh approaches. Earlier this month, Andrés Manuel López Obrador – the frontrunner in the 2018 presidential election – was widely condemned for floating a possible amnesty for criminals. The proposal drew comparisons with the pax mafiosa before more than 70 years of rule by the Institutional Revolutionary party (PRI) ended in 2000, in which politicians turned a blind eye to drug-dealing in return for peace. A woman cries over the corpse of her murdered family member while forensic personnel work at the scene of the crime at a shopping center in Acapulco, Guerrero, on 4 January 2017. Photograph: AFP/Getty Images But analysts say even that would not work nowadays as the drug cartels have splintered. “It’s a useless endeavour, given the broken criminal landscape,” said security analyst Jorge Kawas. “There’s no group of leaders who can be summoned to discuss stopping the violence.” Politicians are nonetheless still perceived as allying themselves with criminals –especially during costly election campaigns. “Mexico cannot stop dirty money going into the political system,” said Edgardo Buscaglia, an organised crime expert at Columbia University. “That’s the key to understanding why violence has increased in Mexico.” Such accusations are all too familiar in Tamaulipas, where two of the past three governors have been indicted in US courts on drug and organised crime charges. 'The only two powerful cartels left': rivals clash in Mexico's murder capital Read more Meanwhile, police departments are dilapidated, dispirited, corrupt and underfunded as state and national politicians pass on security responsibilities on the armed forces. Earlier this month, congress rammed through a controversial security lawcementing the role of the military in the drug war – despite mounting accusations of human rights abuses committed by troops and marines. In Tamaulipas, residents express exasperation with the flailing government response. But few ask too many questions about the violence around them: they just want the killing to end. “I don’t care about organised crime,” said one woman, known online as Loba, or She-wolf. “They can traffic all the drugs they want so long as they don’t mess with ordinary people.” Loba is one of the social media activists who report on cartel violence via Twitter and Facebook. It’s a perilous undertaking: at least two citizen journalists in Tamaulipas have been killed, and Loba herself was kidnapped by the Zetas in 2011 and held for 12 days before her family paid a £10,000 ($13,500) ransom. When asked why she runs such risks, Loba answered: “Perhaps this can save someone from being shot.” CP Text: Criminal justice agencies will provide drug abuse treatment programs to convicted drug users. Chandler et al. 09 Chandler, Redonna K. and Fletcher, Bennett W, and Volkow, Nora D. "Treating Drug Abuse and Addiction in the Criminal Justice System: Improving Public Health and Safety." JAMA 301:2, 183-190. 2009. SLS Effective interventions depend on a coordinated response between criminal justice agencies, drug abuse treatment providers, mental health and physical health care organizations, and social service agencies. Each type of criminal justice agency (eg, jail, drug court, probation, prison) has its own role in sanctioning and supervision and lends itself to specific intervention opportunities. Table 3 provides a simplified overview of the criminal justice system and identifies the points at which intervention is possible. Effective integration of drug treatment interventions into criminal justice settings requires matching the intervention to the organization. For example, since jail stays are usually brief, the interventions best suited to jails may be screening for drug and alcohol abuse, other mental illnesses, and medical conditions (eg, HIV, hepatitis B or C), with referral to community-based treatment providers. Implementing these principles throughout the criminal justice and drug abuse treatment systems also requires that these systems work together to address the addicted individual’s drug use, comorbid mental disorders and medical conditions, if present, and criminal behavior. Treatment professionals should understand the criminal justice process and the supervision requirements of their patients. In addition to addressing drug use behaviors, treatment outcomes improve when antisocial and criminal behaviors are targets of clinical intervention.76 Criminal justice professionals must develop an understanding of addiction—signs and symptoms, treatment, and relapse—and their role in facilitating recovery. Prison environments are inherently coercive,77 and special safeguards have been developed to ensure that prisoners can choose freely whether to participate in biomedical research without fear of consequence. Beyond mere equipoise, clinical trials must be designed so the research is of benefit to the prisoner participant regardless of the assigned study group. Within these constraints, it is important to conduct research to help improve substance abuse treatment and to assist in the successful transition of the substance abuser to the community. To facilitate research in this area, the National Institute on Drug Abuse created the Criminal Justice Drug Abuse Treatment Studies research cooperative,78 a network of correctional agencies linked with treatment research centers and community treatment programs. Opiate agonist medications used for the treatment of heroin addiction such as methadone and buprenorphine are underused in correctional populations. Naltrexone, an opiate antagonist, was developed to treat heroin addiction but also has been approved for treating alcoholism. Naltrexone is likely to be more acceptable in the criminal justice setting than agonist medications. However, the poor compliance with naltrexone has limited its use in the treatment of heroin addiction. The recent development of a long-lasting depot formulation for naltrexone79,80 obviates this limitation, and a multisite clinical trial (NCT00781898) is currently evaluating its effectiveness in heroin-addicted probationers. Another area of research intended to reduce relapse in addicted offenders is the development of vaccines against cocaine, methamphetamine, or heroin. Several avenues currently exist for providing drug abuse treatment as an alternative to incarceration. Drug courts were intended to provide a bridge between drug treatment and adjudication; from the first drug court established in Miami in 1989, drug courts have increased in number to nearly 2000 today. States such as Arizona, California, and New York have created treatment alternatives to incarceration for first-time drug offenders, juvenile offenders, and others. Many states are coming under political pressure to reduce the costs associated with incarceration by diverting nonviolent drug offenders to treatment. Punishment alone is a futile and ineffective response to drug abuse,2 failing as a public safety intervention for offenders whose criminal behavior is directly related to drug use.81 Addiction is a chronic brain disease with a strong genetic component that in most instances requires treatment. The increase in the number of drug-abusing offenders highlights the urgency to institute treatments for populations involved in the criminal justice system. It also provides a unique opportunity to intervene for individuals who would otherwise not seek treatment. The challenge of delivering treatment in a criminal setting requires the cooperation and coordination of 2 disparate cultures: the criminal justice system organized to punish the offender and protect society and the drug abuse treatment systems organized to help the addicted individual. Addressing addiction as a disease does not remove the responsibility of the individual, which is the argument frequently used to resist recognizing and treating addiction as an illness. Rather it highlights the personal responsibility of the addicted person to seek and adhere to drug treatment and that of society to ensure that such treatment is available and based on scientific evidence. Only a small percentage of those requiring treatment for drug addiction seek help voluntarily; in light of this, the criminal justice system provides a unique opportunity to intervene and disrupt the cycle of drug use and crime in a cost-effective manner.

No perm: We’re still creating separate treatment and judicial spheres, the perm changes that delineation. 2 Independent net benefits. A. CP is key to resolving recidivism.

NIDA ’07 National Institute of Drug Abuse. "Principles of Drug Abuse Treatment for Criminal Justice Populations." 2007. https://www.drugabuse.gov/publications/principles-drug-abuse-treatment-criminal-justice-populations/principles SLS The coordination of drug abuse treatment with correctional planning can encourage participation in drug abuse treatment and can help treatment providers incorporate correctional requirements as treatment goals. Treatment providers should collaborate with criminal justice staff to evaluate each individual’s treatment plan and ensure that it meets correctional supervision requirements, as well as that person’s changing needs, which may include housing and child care; medical, psychiatric, and social support services; and vocational and employment assistance. For offenders with drug abuse problems, planning should incorporate the transition to community-based treatment and links to appropriate post-release services to improve the success of drug treatment and re-entry. Abstinence requirements may necessitate a rapid clinical response, such as more counseling, targeted intervention, or increased medication, to prevent relapse. Ongoing coordination between treatment providers and courts or parole and probation officers is important in addressing the complex needs of these re-entering individuals. B. The CP uniquely solves for addiction and the negative health impacts of drug abuse. Chandler 2. Chandler, Redonna et. Al. "Treating Drug Abuse and Addiction in the Criminal Justice System: Improving Public Health and Safety" JAMA, 2009 Jan 14. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2681083/ SLS Research over the last 2 decades has consistently reported the beneficial effects of treatment for the drug abuser in the criminal justice system.16,17 These interventions include therapeutic alternatives to incarceration, treatment merged with judicial oversight in drug courts, prison- and jail-based treatments, and reentry programs intended to help offenders transition from incarceration back into the community. Through monitoring, supervision, and threat of legal sanctions, the justice system can provide leverage to encourage drug abusers to enter and remain in treatment. Behavioral treatments are the most commonly used interventions for addressing substance use disorders. Evidence-based behavioral interventions include cognitive therapies that teach coping and decision-making skills, contingency management therapies that reinforce behavioral changes associated with abstinence, and motivational therapies that enhance the motivation to participate in treatment and in non–drug-related activities.19,20 Many residential treatment programs rely on the creation of a “therapeutic community” based on a social learning model.21 Medications such as methadone, buprenorphine, and naltrexone are beneficial for the treatment of heroin addiction and naltrexone and topiramate for the treatment of alcoholism.22–24 Self-help programs such as Alcoholics Anonymous or SMART Recovery can be valuable adjuncts to formal drug treatment.25 Research has consistently shown that community-based drug abuse treatment can reduce drug use and drug-related criminal behavior.26 A meta-analysis of 78 comparison-group community-based drug treatment studies found treatment to be up to 1.8 times better in reducing drug use than the usual alternatives.20 In a meta-analysis of 66 incarceration-based treatment evaluations, therapeutic community and counseling approaches were respectively 1.4 and 1.5 times more likely to reduce reoffending. Drug courts combine judicial supervision with drug treatment as an alternative to incarceration; their graduates have rearrest rates about half those of matched comparison samples and much lower than those of drug court dropouts.28 Individuals who participated in prison-based treatment followed by a community-based program post-incarceration were 7 times more likely to be drug free and 3 times less likely to be arrested for criminal behavior than those not receiving treatment.29,30 The benefits of medications for drug treatment were shown in a recent randomized trial in which heroin-dependent inmates began methadone treatment in prison prior to release and continued in the community postrelease. At 1-, 3-, and 6-month follow-up, patients who received methadone plus counseling were significantly less likely to use heroin or engage in criminal activity than those who received only counseling.

Disclosure Theory https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Debate4life/sandbox

A. Interpretation: all Debaters must, on the page with their name and the school they attend, disclose the taglines, full citations, and the first and last three words of any pieces of evidence read in their case on Wikipedia at least one hour before the round.

B. Violation: They have not posted sites: We can provide screenshots if necessary.

C. Standards: 1. Research – disclosure increases research and gets rid of anti-educational arguments because debaters are forced to prepare cases knowing that people will have answers AND people get the opportunity to research answers to disclosed cases. Nails 13 - (Jacob [I am a policy debater at Georgia State University. I debated LD for 4 years for Starr's Mill High School (GA) and graduated in 2012.] "A Defense of Disclosure (Including Third-Party Disclosure)" http://nsdupdate.com/2013/a-defense-of-disclosure-including-third-party-disclosure-by-jacob-nails/) GHS//GB I fall squarely on the side of disclosure. I find that the largest advantage of widespread disclosure is the educational value it provides. First, disclosure streamlines research. Rather than every team and every lone wolf researching completely in the dark, the wiki provides a public body of knowledge that everyone can contribute to and build off of. Students can look through the different studies on the topic and choose the best ones on an informed basis without the prohibitively large burden of personally surveying all of the literature. The best arguments are identified and replicated, which is a natural result of an open marketplace of ideas. Quality of evidence increases across the board. In theory, the increased quality of information [this] could trade off with quantity. If debaters could just look to the wiki for evidence, it might remove the competitive incentive to do one’s own research. Empirically, however, the opposite has been true. In fact, a second advantage of disclosure is that it motivates research. Debaters cannot expect to make it a whole topic with the same stock AC – that is, unless they are continually updating and frontlining it. Likewise, debaters with access to their opponents’ cases can do more targeted and specific research. Students can go to a new level of depth, researching not just the pros and cons of the topic but the specific authors, arguments, and adovcacies employed by other debaters. The incentive to cut author-specific indicts is low if there’s little guarantee that the author will ever be cited in a round but high if one knows that specific schools are using that author in rounds. In this way, disclosure increases incentive to research by altering a student’s cost-benefit analysis so that the time spent researching is more valuable, i.e. more likely to produce useful evidence because it is more directed. In any case, if publicly accessible evidence jeopardized research, backfiles and briefs would have done LD in a long time ago. Lastly, and to my mind most significantly, disclosure weeds out anti-educational arguments. I have in mind the sort of theory spikes and underdeveloped analytics whose strategic value comes only from the fact that the time to think of and enunciate responses to them takes longer than the time spent making the arguments themselves. If [theory spikes] these arguments were made on a level playing field where each side had equal time to craft answers, they would seldom win rounds, which is a testimony to the real world applicability (or lack thereof) of such strategies. A model in which arguments have to withstand close scrutiny to win rounds creates incentive to find the best arguments on the topic rather than the shadiest. Having transitioned from LD to policy where disclosure is more universal, I can say that debates are more substantive, developed, and responsive when both sides know what they’re getting into prior to the round. The educational benefits of disclosure alone aren’t likely to convince the fairness-outweighs-education crowd, but I’ve learned over the course of many theory debates that most of that crowd has a very warped and confusing conception of fairness. Debaters who produce better research are more deserving of a win. Debaters who can make smart arguments and defend them from criticism should win out over debaters who hide behind obfuscation. That so many rounds these days are resolved on frivolous theory and dropped, single-sentence blips suggests that wins are not going to the “better debaters” in any meaningful sense of the term. The structure of LD in the status quo doesn’t incentivize better debating. Research skills is a voter because it’s key to our ability to a) actually learn about the topic and become engaged in the real world and b) process large amounts of information, which is a necessary portable skill in the digital age.

2. Clash – Disclosure allows debaters to substantively engage positions rather than relying on sketchy tricks to avoid the discussion. It allows more specific clash because debaters can see specific arguments disclosed instead of trying to link generic arguments in. That’s a voter because a) specific education also helps our ability to learn about the topic and engage in the real world and b) clash is key to advocacy skills since it forces us to defend positions, which we need to actually promote social change to fix screwed up things in the real world.

3. Argument quality – a) Disclosure prevents the element of surprise. A world without disclosure rewards debaters for running arguments not because they are good, but because their opponents won't know how to respond. Disclosure forces debaters to commit to quality; under my interpretation, debaters would have to write cases knowing that their opponents will have the opportunity for thoughtful preparation. b) Disclosure encourages increased research and cross-pollination—debaters can use good ideas from each others wikis and also be forced to prep and research for more arguments. People can clash more specifically instead of making bad, generic arguments.

Argument quality is a voter because debate is a unique space in which we need to have in-depth education about these social issues.

Gary Alan Fine 01, [Professor of Sociology at Northwestern], “Gifted Tongues: High School Debate and Adolescent Culture”, Princeton University Press, 2001. RFK Debate is justified as a learning tool, not merely as a means by which adolescents enjoy themselves. In a society concerned about the perceived failures of its educational institutions, high school debate is a voluntary activity in which some students--a small and highly select group--choose to engage in research, practice socially valued skills, and demonstrate these abilities in public settings. Anecdotal evidence suggests that students who participate in intermural debate do extremely well in their schoolwork and then (and as a consequence) are successful in college and in graduate or professional school, achieving occupational success. Since debate does not appeal to a random sample of the student body, causality is hard to establish, but the claim that debate is beneficial is surely plausible. Debate is one program through which an often shaky institution encourages adolescents to acquire culturally valued skills. While debate is not the only activity in which the adolescent attachment to competition is mixed with the acquisition of socially valued skills--Model UN, academic bowls, math teams, chess clubs, and mock trials also have these attributes--it provides an exemplary case in its organization, its longevity, and its intensity. High school debate potentially could produce curricular reform based on "teaching the conflicts"9: learning how to discuss contentious social issues can permit students to engage and confront moral ideals. Today many find America's school systems in disarray, attempting, often ineffectively, to solve seemingly insoluble social problems. If we cannot educate the masses effectively, some suggest that at least we should properly educate our "best and brightest." Gifted education is a concern for both educators and parents. High school debate teams are highly selective--sometimes self-selected, but often with the assistance of coaches, teachers, and principals who recruit their most energetic, brightest, and most articulate students. Debate helps to reproduce the class system. Most debaters--although not all--are high achievers. In general, debaters are young men and women from affluent homes in which education is valued and in which ideas are discussed. Many of these students have succeeded in school and have established, prior to their immersion in the world of debate, a record of achievement. High school debate magnifies these successes, providing an enriched atmosphere in which students expand their educational horizons. The competitiveness of debate motivates this achievement drive, particularly among those students who have already succeeded in academic competitions. D. Drop the debater – 1. It’s the same thing as dropping the argument in this case since the argument is the entire case that wasn’t disclosed

2. It’s not what you do, it’s what you justify—voting for me sets a precedent in favor of a positive model of debate—wins and losses determine the direction of activity

3. Deterrence—Dropping the debater will be best because it shows that they can’t run positions that could spread through the community and harm debate as a whole.

4. Drop the debater specifically for not disclosing because there’s no way to rectify the abuse—going and forcing them to disclose now won’t fix the lack of education we get from this round.

5. We have to spend time talking about how they did not allow for debate to happen properly when we could be gaining education from debate. To stop this from further occurring drop them.