Marijuana Neg - Michigan 7 2024 BFHR

Notes
The best strategy against this affirmative is probably the Trademarks PIC or T Protection. There are good links for USPTO Tradeoff, Politics, and Court Clog at the bottom of the file that you should look at. There are definitely more disadvantages that you can cut throughout the year; I’d recommend looking into the banking sector, Latin America stability, and more into international law. Thank you to Anita and Mike for helping out with the file, good luck with your debates!
Kavneer
Neg---Marijuana---BFHR
Industry Advantage
Solvency---No Innovation---1NC
Legalization decreases innovation.
Stephanie Cheng 22, Assistant Professor at the Freeman School of Business at Tulane; Pengkai Lin, Assistant Professor at School of Accountancy at Singapore Management University; Yinliang Tan, Associate Professor at the CT Bauer College of Business at University of Houston; Yuchen Zhang, Assistant Professor at the Freeman School of Business at Tulane, 11/3/2022, “’High’ innovators? Marijuana legalization and regional innovation,” Production and Operations Management, 32(3), p. 698, kav
This study provides new evidence that state-level public health policies of marijuana legalization adversely affect regional innovation activity, using a quasi-experimental research design. MMLs have a net negative effect on the overall output of regional innovation activity, which is driven by deteriorating innovation quality. Guided by the process-based view of innovation, we further reveal that MMLs’ positive influence on the innovation process is magnified through innovators’ collaboration and is likely to be driven by the idea generation for “weak” patents. The negative impact, however, is strengthened through individual efforts and is plausibly driven by the implementation of “hit” patents.
The paper makes the following contributions. First, our paper introduces public health policies into the innovation management literature as an external factor that constitutes organizations’ external environment. Scholars have recognized that it is important to extend our understanding of the potentially complex and nuanced implications of wellness and health on managerial challenges (Vakili & McGahan,2016). Nonetheless, recent research mainly focuses on organizations’ internal policies, such as wellness programs or safety rules (Gubler et al., 2018; Pagell et al., 2020), and paysless attention to organizations’ external conditions, such as regional public health policies. Our results imply that external public health policies, such as marijuana legalization, have substantial effects on knowledge workers’ individual and collaborative effectiveness in the innovation process. The findings suggest that managers should consider the potential influence of external public health policies in designing and deploying internal policies. Further, our findings provide a rationale for organizations’ engagement in corporate social responsibility practices and for their lobbying to influence public policymaking and secure a favorable public health environment. Thus, our findings add to research that studies organizations’ corporate social responsibility (Godfrey et al.,2009; Gubler et al., 2018; Pagell et al., 2020) and non-market strategy (Barber & Diestre, 2019). Relatedly, organizations’ strategic location choices also hinge upon favorable local public health policies (Alcácer & Chung, 2014). In sum, this paper adds to the research stream that considers innovation management as a multidisciplinary realm (Gaimon et al.,2017).
Second, this study contributes to our understanding of how marijuana legalization affects regional economy. Research shows that the increased use of controlled substances (e.g., marijuana and opioids) negatively affects local economies by causing higher public financing costs (Cheng et al., 2022)and lower business valuations (Ouimet et al., 2021). Our findings contribute to this research by adding new evidence that marijuana legalization leads to the destruction of economic value. Our findings are especially timely considering the many proponents in the United States and worldwide of legalizing recreational marijuana use. 28 Regulators should consider MMLs’ adverse effect on innovation activity when estimating the net social welfare of similar policies. For instance, we find that MMLs dampen for-profit assignees’ innovation activity, which has been shown to be closely associated with a region’s economic development (Agrawal et al.,2014). Specifically, a reduction in the innovation effectiveness of for-profit assignees implies that these firms may find it challenging to gain or maintain a competitive advantage. Firms’ reduced innovation activity may also negatively affect knowledge exchange or spill over across firms in the region, further limiting firms’ innovation effectiveness and thus competitiveness (Jaffe et al., 1993). As a result, the regional economy may face issues such as increased unemployment rates and greater public social welfare expenditures. Public health policies may thus have negative spillover effects on the regional economy. Future research can further explore MMLs’ potential negative spillover effects on the broader regional economy through deteriorating innovation activity.
Moreover, our study complements recent research focusing on the potential implication of MMLs on regional innovation. Vakili and Zhang (2018) adopt the perspective of social liberalization and document a positive link between MMLs and patent counts at the state level. They attribute such a link to an increase in social interactions among inventors within a more liberal environment. In contrast, we analyze marijuana legalization from a public health perspective and develop our hypotheses within the framework of the process-based view of innovation. This framework allows us to comprehensively consider the complex effects of MMLs on innovators’ individual and collaborative efforts during idea generation and implementation of the innovation process. Thus, we are able to better develop competing arguments for MMLs’ potential positive and negative effects. The framework also guides our empirical exploration into finding a predominantly negative impact of MMLs on overall innovation output and nuanced, heterogeneous impacts when decomposing innovation by quantity and quality (in which case the effect can be insignificant or positive depending on the patent type).By doing so, we complement Vakili and Zhang (2018) in three ways. First, while our results confirm the finding that MMLs have positive effects on the quantity of certain patents(e.g., patents that involve more collaboration), we further show that MMLs have a net negative impact on total citations, which is driven by deteriorating patent quality. Also importantly, this adverse impact is mitigated through collaboration. Second, our results not only confirm Vakili and Zhang’s (2018) finding of the benefits of MMLs in increasing the number of “hit” patents but also show the cost of MMLs in terms of increasing the number of “weak” patents and reducing patent quality (for both “hit” and “weak” patents). Third, our results in the Online Appendix also imply that the impact of MMLs on a region’s overall innovation output varies by the technological focus of the region.
Impact---ABR---1NC
No ABR.
Smith 16, PhD molecular biologist, former R&D director at MicroPhage and SomaLogic. (Drew, 6-14-16, “The Myth Of The Post-Antibiotic Era”, https://www.forbes.com/sites/quora/2016/06/14/the-myth-of-the-post-antibiotic-era/#db027696fa83)
Right now, drug resistant infections are mainly a threat to those that are already sick and/or in medical facilities. But, if we continue down this path, mundane infections in the otherwise healthy could someday morph into life-threatening ordeals, and simple medical procedures and surgeries may be skipped to avoid risk of infection. However, while this threat is real, it’s important to keep in mind that this is an ongoing, gradual challenge; it’s extremely unlikely that a single event will herald with complete certainty the abrupt end of modern medicine as we know it. In this context, those scary headlines are inappropriate, if not numbing and counterproductive. In May, Ars wrote about some alarmist and inaccurate news stories dealing with a newly identified type of drug resistance—one that makes bacteria resistant to a last-resort antibiotic called colistin and can spread between bacteria easily. The headlines blared that it was the “first” time such a dastardly microbe had seeped into the US—which is not true. And they suggested that it would certainly mark the end of antibiotics—also not true. This week, scientists provided updates on tracking that type of resistance, and of course some alarmist headlines followed. Yet, the new data actually suggests that a tempering of concerns about this particular resistance may be in order. It turns out that this “dreaded,” “scary,” “nightmare” of a drug-resistant microbe has been in the US for more than a year and elsewhere in the world since as far back as 2005—it’s just that nobody noticed it. And nobody noticed it because so far it hasn’t been the dreaded, scary nightmare some have feared. “It’s not a huge cause for concern,” Mariana Castanheira, lead author of one of this week’s resistance updates, told Ars. Castanheira is the director for Molecular and Microbiology at JMI Laboratories, a private company that monitors drug resistance microbes in hospitals and medical settings. They and others are finding this new type of resistance now simply because they’re looking for it, she said. Castanheira explains that people initially started digging for this new type of drug resistance—a gene called mcr-1—out of concern that it makes bacteria resistant to the antibiotic colistin, which is a relatively toxic drug used only when nearly all others have failed against a multi-drug resistant infection. Bacteria have shown up with colistin resistance before—in fact, many times in the US and elsewhere around the world. But in those cases, the genes were embedded in the bacteria’s chromosomes and generally passed down through generations. The mcr-1 resistance gene, on the other hand, seems to always sit on a plasmid, a small loop of DNA that bacteria can readily pass around to neighbors. If colistin-resistant bacteria shared their mcr-1 plasmid with others that are already resistant to lots of antibiotics, they could create a long-feared invincible germ—a “pan-resistant” bacteria. “Doesn’t scare me” So far that doesn’t seem to be happening, though, Castanheira said. In more than a decade of skulking around, mcr-1 has made its way into bacteria in animals, people, and soil all over the world. Yet, all of the mcr-1 carrying microbes examined have been susceptible to at least one antibiotic—and often several.
Impact---ABR---2NC
ABR won’t get close to extinction, intervening actors solve it, their internal link can’t
Cara 17 (January 27th, 2017, Ed, science writer for The Atlantic, Newsweek, and Vocativ, “The Attack Of The Superbugs,” http://www.vocativ.com/394419/attack-of-the-superbugs/
Antibiotic-resistant infections kill at least 700,000 people worldwide a year right now, according to an exhaustive report commissioned by the UK in 2014, and without any substantial medical breakthroughs or policy changes that slow down resistance, they may claim some 10 million deaths annually by 2050 — eclipsing cancer in general as a leading cause. These deaths largely won’t come from pan-resistant infections, just tougher ones. A preventable death there, a preventable death here. Leaving that aside, antibiotics, along with proper sanitation and nutrition, gird our entire way of living. Most every invasive surgery, pregnancy, organ transplant and chemotherapy session we go through will become riskier. Other diseases like HIV, malaria or influenza will become deadlier, since bacteria often exploit the opening in our immune system they leave behind. And already precarious populations like those living with cystic fibrosis, prisoners, and the poor will lose years off their lives. For all the warranted gloom, though, Farewell does think there are reasons to be hopeful. “I don’t think we are doing enough, but the scientific community along with many governmental and private foundations are very actively involved in finding not only new antibiotics, but new solutions to this problem,” she said. There’s been a noticeable change in attitude and increased urgency surrounding antibiotic resistance, she said, one that she hadn’t seen even five years ago, let alone twenty. Until recently, that attitude change could be seen from places as high up as the U.S. federal government. In 2014, former President Obama issued an executive order aimed at addressing antibiotic resistance, the first real acknowledgement of the problem from an administration, devoting funding and outlining a national action for combatting resistance. Through its federal agencies, the administration pushed to reduce antibiotic use on farms and encouraged doctors to stop using them in excess. “There has been a lot of work done the last couple of years, much of it spurned by [Obama’s] National Action Plan,” said Dr. David Hyun, a senior officer for Pew Charitable Trusts’ Antibiotic Resistance Project. The CDC, in particular, has used its funding to open up regional labs that allow them to better detect and respond to antibiotic-resistant outbreaks like the Nevada case, he said. They ultimately hope to create an expansive surveillance system that can easily keep track of resistance rates on a national, state and regional level. A parallel system also exists for monitoring resistance in the food chain, shepherded by the CDC and the U.S. Department of Agriculture. In fact, it was this sort of cooperation between national and local health agencies that enabled Nevada doctors to stop the worst from happening, said Dr. Lei Chen. The swift identification of a possible CRE strain by the hospital, coupled with the woman’s medical history, led to a precautionary quarantine, while also prompting Chen’s public health department and eventually the CDC into action. And it may help prevent future cases from spilling into the public. According to Chen, the CDC has allocated funding this year to all of Nevada’s state public health departments so they can better detect CRE and other dangerous resistant strains. Under the Trump administration, there’s no telling how these small victories will hold up or whether they will advance. All references to antibiotics once found on the Whitehouse.gov site have been removed, including a link to the Obama administration’s national action plan, and the fact that they’re already tried to bar USDA scientists from discussing their work with the public while stripping funding from other public health agencies isn’t encouraging. Even with the best public policy, however, there’s no clear light at the end of the tunnel. Antibiotic resistance has gradually been worsening, even within the last 15 to 20 years, when superbugs like methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) first became widely known, said Hyun. The effort needed to develop new drugs has been in short supply, hamstrung by pharmaceutical companies’ inability to recoup the costs of bringing new antibiotics to market. That’s because, unlike the latest heart medication, any new antibiotics will have to be treated like the last drops of water during a drought, used as little as possible — the exact opposite way to make money off a new product. Yet, much like climate change, the financial toll of not doing anything will total in the trillions years down the road. And it already numbers in the billions now, according to the CDC. Of course, we need bacteria to survive. And most need or pay no mind to us in return. Even pan-resistant bacteria don’t really mean harm. Some have been found in perfectly healthy people, a fact that’ll either comfort you or keep you awake at night, only causing problems when our immune system wavers. There’s no army of sentient E. coli that will rise up and someday overthrow the human race. But barring the calvary showing up, a new fear of ours will learn to settle in, almost unnoticed. It’ll creep in when we pick our heads up from a nasty fall that scrapes our skin open or breaks our bones; when we wave goodbye to our loved ones before they enter an operating room, or when we cradle our newborns into a world teeming with the living infinitesimal, wishing there was still a way to shield them from it as our parents once could for us. A fear of naked vulnerability. The antibiotic apocalypse will be gentle, if it fully arrives, but it won’t be any less devastating to the human spirit.
Their ev doesn’t assume new technology that will bring in the next age of antibiotics.
Michael Le Page 23, science journalist, 6/4/2023, “Superbugs will struggle to evolve resistance to unusual new antibiotic,” https://www.newscientist.com/article/2376666-superbugs-will-struggle-to-evolve-resistance-to-unusual-new-antibiotic/, kav
A potential new antibiotic is highly effective against “superbugs” such as MRSA that are resistant to many existing antibiotics, and kills bacteria in an unusual way that means it will be extremely difficult for resistance to evolve.
The antibiotic, clovibactin, was discovered in a rare bacterium isolated from sandy soil collected in North Carolina. Markus Weingarth at Utrecht University in the Netherlands and his colleagues have been studying how it works, with promising results. “The activity is even better than for the gold standard, vancomycin,” he says.
Antibiotic…
resistance is a major and growing problem around the world. It has been estimated that it killed 1.3 million people in 2019 – more than malaria and AIDS combined – and contributed to the deaths of almost another 4 million people.
This means there is a desperate need for new drugs that are capable of killing bacteria resistant to older antibiotics and, ideally, kill in new ways, so it is harder for resistance to evolve and spread.
Clovibactin fits the first criterion, as the team found it kills a range of disease-causing bacteria, including methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus, better known as the MRSA superbug, and Mycobacterium tuberculosis, which causes TB. More importantly, Weingarth and his colleagues have also found that it works in a way unlike any other antibiotic.
Many existing antibiotics target the cell wall around bacteria, a rigid mesh-like structure surrounding the cell membrane. If this wall is disrupted, cells burst open and die. This is a good target because the wall isn’t found in animal cells, meaning the antibiotics kill only bacterial cells. But these existing antibiotics typically target the protein enzymes that assemble the cell wall, and bacteria can alter the shape of these enzymes to evade attack.
Clovibactin instead targets a chemical group called a pyrophosphate that is found on not just one, but three different building blocks of cell walls. So, to survive, a bacterium would have to alter all three building blocks. “The more targets you have, the more difficult it is for a bacteria to develop resistance,” says Weingarth. What’s more, any changes to these components would almost certainly stop the cell wall forming properly.
The team exposed bacteria to low doses of clovibactin to see if resistance emerged, but found none. “Although we tried very hard, there was no detectable resistance,” he says. Lower doses are more likely to lead to resistance because they expose bacteria to an antibiotic without killing them and any that acquire resistance will quickly out-compete others.
This doesn’t mean that resistance to clovibactin is impossible. For instance, many bacteria are classified as Gram-negative, meaning they have an extra membrane around the outside of the cell wall that protects them from some antibiotics, including clovibactin. Ones

Preview shortened. Download the file for the full document.