On Friday, February 25, Derechos Humanos is sponsoring a demonstration to protest Arizona Emperor Russell Pearce’s omnibus SB1611 (nicknamed SB1070 on steroids) and other recent racist laws passed or considered by the Arizona Legislature. The protest will be held at 4 p.m. at the state building in downtown Tucson (corner of Congress and Granada).

SB1611 is so far-reaching that it forces citizens and institutions at multiple levels of society to become immigration officers. Radio, newspaper, and citizen journalists have decried SB1611 because it will force schools, universities, hospitals, and even homeschooling moms to verify citizenship of the people to whom they provide services. It also includes strict penalties for non-compliance; for a complete list, check this link.

According to the American Civil Liberties Union:

“This bill is miles beyond SB1070 in terms of its potential to roll back the rights and fundamental freedoms of both citizens and non-citizens alike,” said Alessandra Soler Meetze, executive director of the ACLU of Arizona. “It demonstrates the lack of leadership, lack of priorities and complete lack of understanding by some Arizona lawmakers of what it really means to uphold the Constitution of the United States and Arizona.”

In addition to 1611, the Arizona Legislature has passed or is considering several other racist laws:

1225– targets forgery of documents used to rent, purchase or lease a dwelling in order to prevent drop houses that could hold undocumented people, but the law could be used to entrap and penalize innocent people who are knowingly or unknowingly helping friends who are not citizens.

SB1308– one of the so-called “anchor baby” laws which would change who is eligible to receive citizenship and a US birth certificate and regulate how the new Arizona birth certificates will work with US birth certificates (which would still recognize the 14th amendment).

SB1309– another “anchor baby” law which would dictate who is eligible to receive “Arizona citizenship.”

SB1405– restricts who can receive hospital services in Arizona and mandates that hospital personnel verify citizenship and call immigration– rather than provide services– when they discover an undocumented patient.

SB1509– increases the penalty for making false statements under oath.

Of course, this is far from a complete list of crazy and unnecessary bills being considered by the Arizona Legislature this session.

Ironically, in just a few weeks, the Teapublican candidates who campaigned on smaller government and more freedom have proposed more than 600!!!! pieces of new legislation that do nothing to solve the state’s problems or give Arizonans more freedom. If anything– except for loosening gun laws even further– the new bills restrict the freedom of Arizonans. For the most part these bills are:  pro-gun, anti-women’s rights, anti-anyone-who-is-not-straight-and-white, anti-poor-and-sick people, pro-fetus-but-anti-children, anti-education, anti-federal government, anti-municipal government, and my personal favorite…authorization of half-a-billion in corporate welfare. Groan…

So, if you are fed up with Emperor Pearce’s shenanigans, come out tomorrow with a sign denouncing your favorite piece of Legislative nonsense and bring a friend!

Women wearing burkas. (Photo Credit: Second City Style.)

Even though federally-funded abortions have been illegal in the US for more than 30 years, conservative Republicans campaigned on this issue during 2010. (Of course, we all know Republicans don’t allow FACTS to get in the way of their sound bites.)

Now Republican members of the US House of Representatives have introduced multiple bills to make illegal something that is already illegal. So, what’s up with that?

The bottomline is that with newly introduced legislation Republicans have declared a war on family planning, a war Planned Parenthood, a war on women’s health services, and a war on women– particularly poor women. Planned Parenthood offers family planning and preventive health screening to 3 million people per year– mostly poor women who don’t have health insurance. Less than 10 percent of Planned Parenthoods’ services are related to legal, non-government-funded abortions, but that hasn’t stopped Republican ideologues from targeting them and their services for elimination.

The Republican bills introduced in the US House of Representatives:

• would severely limit access to all women’s health services, particularly birth control and family planning;
• would eliminate all funding for any organization that offers legal abortions (even though the government funding is not paying for those abortions);
• would penalize women who BUY THEIR OWN INSURANCE if that insurance plan includes abortion coverage;
• would redefine rape;
• and would eliminate federal subsidies to private insurance plans (purchased by individuals or employers under the Affordable Care Act) if those plans include any abortion coverage.

Essentially, Republicans are trying to eliminate a woman’s right to choose the course of her medical care.

Here is an excerpt from Democracy Now’s Amy Goodman interviewing Celie Richards, president of Planned Parenthood. You can listen to or read the full interview here. [Emphasis added.]

AMY GOODMAN: We begin today’s show looking at what’s being described as “the most dangerous legislative assault on women’s health” ever. Since taking power in January, the Republican-led House has introduced several major anti-choice bills that women’s rights activists say could place severe limitations on access to reproductive health services. This, despite a campaign pledge to focus on creating jobs. Republican House Speaker John Boehner hailed the proposed legislation.

HOUSE SPEAKER JOHN BOEHNER: A ban on taxpayer funding of abortions is the will of the people, and it ought to be the will of the land. The current law, particularly as enforced by this administration, does not reflect the will of the American people. Last year, we listened to the American people through America Speaking Out. They spoke on this issue loudly and clearly. So we have included it in our pledge, and today we’re making good on that commitment.

Congressman Chris Smith has introduced bipartisan legislation that codifies the Hyde Amendment and other similar policies by permanently applying a ban on taxpayer funding of abortions across all federal programs. This commonsense legislation reflects the will of the people and deserves the support of the House. It’s one of our highest legislative priorities, and as such, I’ve directed that it receive the designation of H.R. 3.

AMY GOODMAN: That was House Speaker John Boehner. As he noted, H.R. 3, called the “No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion Act,” would cut off public funds for abortions. A second bill, H.R. 358, called the “Protect Life Act,” would prohibit federal funds from being used to cover any part of the costs of any health plan that includes coverage of abortion services under the Affordable Care Act. A third bill, H.R. 217, called the “Title X Abortion Provider Prohibition Act,” would deny federal family planning funds to any organizations that perform abortions, regardless of whether or not the organization uses that federal money for abortions.

To discuss the legislation, we’re joined now by Cecile Richards, president of Planned Parenthood. Through its affiliates, Planned Parenthood provides family planning, contraception and abortion services at more than 800 health clinics across the country, serving more than three million patients a year.

Cecile Richards, welcome to Democracy Now! Can you talk about what’s happening in Washington, D.C., today, where you are lobbying Congress?

CECILE RICHARDS: Sure. Thanks, Amy. Thanks for having me. It’s great to be back.

The House leadership in Congress has basically just declared war on women, really from day one. And I know you had that clip there from Speaker Boehner, but it goes much further than that. They not only are now trying to—federal funding hasn’t been available for abortion for more than 30 years, but what they’re really doing is trying to overturn the legal right to abortion in any context. As well, though, it’s way beyond abortion. Now they’re basically trying to end family planning and access to birth control in America. The Republican budget that came out basically gets rid of the nation’s Family Planning Program. And as well, we expect in the next day or two, with the support of the Speaker, there will be an amendment to basically end all federal funds going to Planned Parenthood, including funds that are used for basic birth control, cancer screenings and preventive care for more than three million people every year.

AMY GOODMAN: In your 800 clinics of Planned Parenthood, how much of the work is around abortion? What is the array of services that you provide?

CECILE RICHARDS: Less than 10 percent of our services are related to abortion. In fact, 90 percent, more than 90 percent of Planned Parenthood’s care is preventive care. We do—we provide birth control to about two-and-a-half million people every year. We do almost a million cancer screenings for breast exams, as well as cervical cancer screenings. We’re now one of the largest providers of STD testing and treatment in the country.

And for so many women who come to Planned Parenthood, like other family planning clinics, we are their only doctor. You know, the vast majority of women who come to Planned Parenthood, it will be the only doctor they see all year. And so, I think one of the most damaging things about what’s being proposed by the Republican leadership right now in Congress is it would basically take away healthcare for three million people who currently have it.

CECILE RICHARDS: No, and it hasn’t since—it hasn’t for more than 30 years. So, I mean, I was really struck by the clip that you played from Speaker Boehner talking about the will of the people. I actually thought the will of the people, based on this last election, was to get the American economy back going and get people back to work. So it’s quite stunning to me that instead of focusing on jobs and really getting the economy going, they are spending all of their time talking about issues that I think the American people are settled. And the fact that they would, after this healthcare—you know, working over the last two years to finally expand healthcare access to folks in America, their very proposals would take away healthcare for more than five million women who currently have access to it through the nation’s Family Planning Program or through Planned Parenthood.

AMY GOODMAN: Let’s go through these three major bills right now before Congress.

CECILE RICHARDS: OK.

AMY GOODMAN: First, the No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion Act, which critics call the “Stupak on Steroids” bill.

CECILE RICHARDS: Well, the Smith—the Chris Smith bill that Speaker Boehner was referring to is the most far-reaching bill we have ever seen. And not only does it codify the Hyde Amendment, which of course we disagree with, but—that is currently the law that federal funds can’t be used for abortion—but it even says, if you use your own money, a woman uses her own money to purchase health insurance that covers abortion, she will have to pay higher taxes, because she can no longer get the tax benefits of having healthcare coverage that’s comprehensive. Same with small business owners. If you’re a business owner and you get a tax benefit from providing—from providing healthcare coverage, if that coverage also includes abortion coverage, you can no longer get that tax benefit. And it’s going to deny—essentially, the purpose of the Smith bill is to take away the right of women to have abortion coverage in insurance anywhere in America, even women with desperately needed terminations based on medical need.

AMY GOODMAN: Talk about the redefining of “rape” that’s included in H.R. 3, Cecile Richards.

CECILE RICHARDS: Well, this is the most egregious thing and that absolutely has—I think defines the kind of attitude we’re seeing by the House leadership, which is it attempted to say there are only certain kinds of rape that now you would have the right to get an abortion, and that was forcible rape. They wanted to redefine what are good rapes and what are bad rapes. And it has created an enormous public outcry, and I think to the embarrassment of the leadership. But I think it’s just one indication of how far they are willing to go in taking away women’s access to healthcare in America.

AMY GOODMAN: Wait, you have to explain that further. Good rapes and bad rapes?

CECILE RICHARDS: Well, yes, if it wasn’t considered forcible, if it was simply you were raped, if it was a date rape or other kind of rape that wasn’t considered forcible, where you could demonstrate—I guess it would be up to the rape victim to demonstrate that it was—how forcible it was, you could not have access to abortion coverage as a result of the rape.

AMY GOODMAN: You know, it’s interesting, because we just played in the headlines a group of women, and some men, who are suing around the issue of rape in Iraq, and a videotape—

CECILE RICHARDS: Exactly.

AMY GOODMAN:—was made of one woman, and her commander saying, looking at the videotape that the men made who were raping her, he didn’t feel that she had fought back hard enough.

CECILE RICHARDS: Exactly. I just saw that, that you had played it. And I think it is incredible to me that at this time in the United States of America, we are talking about going so far back, basically repealing women’s rights in a way that is just unthinkable. And again, I think it’s—as you said earlier, it’s not simply about—it’s not simply about ending Roe v. Wade, which is really the purpose of Mr. Smith and Mr. Boehner, it’s literally taking away the access to birth control in America, which is unbelievable. How did we get here?

AMY GOODMAN: I want to go on to the federal legislation—yes, there are more bills that are being weighed now in Congress.

CECILE RICHARDS: Yes.

AMY GOODMAN: The Congress is saying that they are focusing on jobs, jobs, jobs.

CECILE RICHARDS: Right.

AMY GOODMAN: And then I want to talk about the state level and talk about states like, oh, South Dakota. Is it possible that the killing of abortion providers could be considered justifiable homicide? This is what we’re going to take on, as we continue after the break with Cecile Richards, president of Planned Parenthood Federation of America. Stay with us.

[break]

AMY GOODMAN: We continue with Cecile Richards. She’s president of Planned Parenthood Federation of America, the nation’s leading provider of reproductive healthcare and sex education and the country’s largest advocacy organization for women’s health and rights. Let’s talk about H.R. 358, the Protect Life Act. What would that do, Cecile Richards?

CECILE RICHARDS: Well, I’m sorry, tell me—the number doesn’t—

AMY GOODMAN: H.R. 358, Protect Life Act, that would allow hospitals to refuse to provide abortions even when necessary to save a woman’s life.

CECILE RICHARDS: Right. I apologize, I didn’t remember the number. We have—as you know, there is a raft of bills that have now been introduced in Congress, really in the House. And the concern over this bill is what—is allowing hospitals to refuse treatment, even in the case of a woman’s life who needs an abortion. And, of course, this has been—there have been massive expansions of conscience clauses and legislation to allow hospitals and even, of course, pharmacists to refuse to fill birth control prescriptions. And this is a concern about this bill, that it would allow, if a woman—and as you know, in some communities, you don’t have a lot of hospitals to choose from. And this would—our concern about this bill is it would allow hospitals to refuse life-saving treatment, if a woman needed an abortion, based on conscience. And again, I think this is where the leadership of the House isn’t focusing on women’s health. They are focusing on an ideological agenda, and they don’t understand how this is going to affect real women’s lives. And that’s the story that we’re trying to tell to Congress.

AMY GOODMAN: H.R. 217, the measure which has 122 co-sponsors, called the Title X Abortion Provider Prohibition Act, that would ban federal funding for other services to organizations that perform abortions? How would that affect Planned Parenthood, and what does that mean?

CECILE RICHARDS: I know, there’s so many. So, essentially, the other—one of the big goals is to prevent healthcare providers who provide an array of healthcare services—if any of the services they provide include abortions or abortion referrals, they should not be—this bill says they should not be able to get any federal funds for family planning, which, on the face of it, is ridiculous. Right now, as an example, Planned Parenthood is the biggest reproductive healthcare provider in the country. We actually—under the Title X program, which is our nation’s Family Planning Program, we provide more than a third of the clients who come in through the Title X program, we provide them family planning. So this would essentially take Planned Parenthood completely out of that system, as well as any other family planning provider that provided abortion care.

And if I could—you know, to remember, abortion is legal in this country. This is basically taking something that everyone is—that family planning clinics are providing that is a legal service and saying, “If you provide this service, you can no longer provide family planning.” The most ridiculous part about it is that, for Congressman Pence and the others who are proposing these bills, Planned Parenthood does more to prevent unintended pregnancy and the need for abortion than any organization in America. So I don’t really know where they think the millions of women who come to us and other providers are going to go for family planning anymore and what the result will be.

AMY GOODMAN: I want to go to the state level, Cecile, to what is happening in various states. With at least 29 anti-choice governors, the battleground has shifted to the state legislatures. First, talk about what’s happening right now in South Dakota.

CECILE RICHARDS: Well, I mean, South Dakota is one example of a very egregious bill that speaks to the interference of anyone who was trying to terminate a pregnancy. And it’s a complicated bill, so I don’t want to get into all of the details, but it is a—what we’re seeing in South Dakota—I could list states across the country—are state legislatures who unfortunately are much in the mold now of the leadership of the House of Representatives, who, instead of focusing on the really hard and important issues of the day—about their budgets, their economy—they are using this as an opening, with the sort of the shift to the right in the leadership and in these legislatures to now try to repeal every single—every single right that women have to legal abortion. And they’re focusing, as well, on providers. And the goal is not only to make sure that women don’t have access, but to make sure that doctors are afraid to even provide legal abortions in this country. And that’s really what the South Dakota bill is about.

AMY GOODMAN: And talk about what is happening in Kansas, Cecile Richards.

CECILE RICHARDS: Well, I mean, there are so many things happening in Kansas, I don’t even know—I don’t even know where to begin. I mean, we have obviously—in the state of Kansas, we’ve been dealing with very bad legislation for years, for decades. So, I mean, we could talk about these specific states, but I think the important thing, just to sort of bring it back overall, is that what we are seeing—but it’s not just at the state level. I agree with you that there are a lot of problems at the state level, but we are literally seeing the federal government, the U.S. House of Representatives, trying to end birth control access in America. So, I agree that the states are where some of the most egregious state bills are, but it’s much bigger than that. And I think this is—what we are seeing around the country is this unbelievable overreach by the leadership that was elected in November, not focusing on what the people want, but in fact focusing on issues about abortion access, taking away birth control, allowing hospitals to refuse treatment, allowing pharmacists to refuse birth control. This is not what the American people voted for, and I think there’s going to be an enormous political backlash, which we’re already beginning to see at Planned Parenthood, folks coming into our clinics and saying, “I cannot believe I’ve just heard that the U.S. House of Representatives is trying to shut down Planned Parenthood.”

Ironically, the GOP– the party that will fight to the death for individual rights, gun rights, corporate personhood, and tax cuts for the rich– has jumped at the chance to squash women”s rights and harm families. What will be their next attack on American women– the country’s largest minority group? Are burkas in our future?

For a chilling list of Republican attacks nationwide on women’s health, check out this story: Five Ways That The GOP Is Trying To Eradicate A Woman’s Right To Choose. (Note the Arizona Legislature’s participation in this effort.)

For more of this interview, check out the Democracy Now website.

Wednesday evening, I posted a story about the proposed 300% tax on medical marijuana, which blew up in the Citizen comments section and on state representatives’ facebook pages over night.

The story in today’s Arizona Daily Star corroborated my story and offered more details.

Basically, Attorney General Tom Horne is using a loophole in Prop 203 (the medical marijuana law that voters passed in 2010) on which to base his sales tax ruling. The law says would-be medical marijuana patients can get a “doctors’ recommendation” for the drug– not a prescription. Prescriptions are not taxable; doctors’ recommendations are. (This is like saying your doctor recommended aspirin or multi-vitamins; when you go to buy the aspirin or multi-vitamins, they are subject to sales tax.)

Horne estimates that applying Arizona’s base sales tax + any applicable city sales taxes could bring in $40 million, a figure he extrapolates from sales in Colorado.

OK, fine, charge regular sales tax. My real issue is with Democratic State Representative Steve Farley’s proposal for a 300% sales tax on medical marijuana. Farley justifies this rate because it is the same rate as the state charges for cigarettes. There are several disconnects here.

• Tobacco is highly addictive and kills more people in the US than all other substances combined. Public health advocates have pushed for ever-high tobacco taxes to encourage people to quit; cost is a research-based strategy. Originally, in Arizona and elsewhere, these tobacco tax revenues were used to prevent teens from starting to smoke, to help people quit smoking, and to treat the indigent with tobacco-related diseases. Arizona and other states have just about wiped clean all those public health programs.
• Medical marijuana is a medicinal plant which provides palliative care to seriously ill patients, and its use by patients will be guided by a physician. It is not a life-threatening drug like tobacco. (Seriously, if the government took an honest look at the death and costs associated with tobacco-smoking, IT would be illegal.)
• Why would you apply a tax rate that is designed to discourage use of a dangerous product to a plant that helps cancer and AIDS patients with their treatment?

I agree with Andrew Myers, who managed the Prop 203 campaign, when he says the 300% tax would put medical marijuana pricing out of reach of most people– thus killing the goose that laid the multi-million-dollar golden egg– and when he disputes Farley’s $40/ounce base price for medical marijuana. Myers calls $40/ounce a “myth”; I’d call it 1975 pricing. My sources near the university say marijuana is sold for $40-60 for 1/8 ounce.  Let’s do the math for the low end price…

$40 (per 1/8 oz) x 8 = $320/oz x 2.5 oz (the amount people are allowed to buy every 2 weeks) = $800 x 300% sales tax = $2400 every 2 weeks.

This pricing would encourage the continuation of street sales. I think medical marijuana should be taxed the same as other herbal remedies (ie, ginkgo biloba, echenichia, St. John’s Wart, garlic, etc.)– 6.6% + applicable city taxes. (I can’t believe I just sided with Tom Horne.)

From the Star article…

“We’re not wild about the idea of increasing the cost of what essentially is medication for seriously ill people,” he said, but no challenge is planned.

But Myers said what Farley wants would be challenged as illegal.

He said it’s one thing to tax marijuana like other products. A special tax, Myers said, runs afoul of a constitutional provision barring lawmakers from altering voter-approved measures.

Farley, however, said the tax is justified. He said a 300 percent levy puts the tax on marijuana at the same general level as the tax on cigarettes, which are subject to a $2-per-pack levy.

“People use cigarettes as an over-the-counter medication for various types of things,” he said. He also doubts imposing the tax alters what voters approved.

Anyway, Farley said, those who really need the marijuana won’t mind paying the extra fee. He figures marijuana sells for $40 an ounce, meaning the sales price, tax and all, would be $160.

Myers said $40 marijuana is a “myth,” and the actual price at dispensaries will be 10 times that, putting medical marijuana out of reach of many in need, particularly since the drug is not covered by health insurance.

Arizona Attorney General Tom Horne announced today on the John C. Scott Show that it would be legal in Arizona to impose sales tax on medical marijuana. Although drug prescriptions are not subject to sales tax in Arizona, Horne said the medical marijuana law does not label the medical marijuana prescriptions specifically as a “prescription.”

At first I was annoyed but not surprised by this political maneuver from Horne. In my opinion, if medical marijuana is provided to a patient to alleviate symptoms of disease or symptoms of treatment– which is how the law is written– then it should be considered a drug and, therefore, not taxable. If marijuana were legalized and considered a recreational drug like alcohol or tobacco, it should be taxed at the same rate as other consumer goods (6.6%), which is the tax rate that I thought Horne was suggesting.

But no, that is not the case. In the Arizona Legislature today, several representatives– including southern Arizona Democrats Steve Farley, Bruce Wheeler, Olivia Cajero-Bedford, and Paula Aboud and others– sponsored a bill to charge 300% sales tax on medical marijuana– not the normal 6.6% base state sales tax. (How can this be legal?)

All I can say is WTF are you thinking? Do you have any idea how expensive cancer treatment is? Why would you think it appropriate to add 300% sales tax on one of the few (hopefully) affordable drugs available to these poor people? This is unconscionable.

Loyal readers, it’s time to contact the Arizona Legislature. Here is contact information for the Arizona House of Representatives (where Farley and Wheeler are) and the state Senate (where Aboud, Cajero-Bedford and Kyrsten Sinema [from Phoenix] are). For a full list of sponsors, check out the bill here.

I agree with the Phoenix Chapter of NORML, HB2557 should be called the Drug Cartel Empowerment Act because all it will do is promote the marijuana black market, supplied by violent cartels.

UPDATE: Since this article was published, both Wheeler and Sinema have told me they no longer support HB2557. For further details, check out this follow-up story.

Televangelist Pat Robertson (Photo Credit: Beliefnet.com)

On a recent 700 Club show, televangelist and standard bearer for the Christian right, Pat Robertson, mused about the folly of criminalizing pot use and mandatory sentencing. (No, this is not a joke.)

Robertson has a history of crazy talk– like when he said Haitians had made a “pack with the devil” and that is why their country was destroyed by an earthquake early in 2010.

Here is what Robertson has to say about tough-on-crime laws that turn youth into hardened criminals– because they were caught taking “a couple of puffs of marijuana.”

“It got to be a big deal in campaigns: ‘He’s tough on crime,’ and ‘lock ‘em up!’” the Christian Coalition founder said. “That’s the way these guys ran and, uh, they got elected. But, that wasn’t the answer.”

His co-host added that the success of religious-run dormitories for drug and alcohol cessation therapy present an “opportunity” for faith-based communities to lead the way on drug law reforms.

“We’re locking up people that have taken a couple puffs of marijuana and next thing you know they’ve got 10 years with mandatory sentences,” Robertson continued. “These judges just say, they throw up their hands and say nothing we can do with these mandatory sentences. We’ve got to take a look at what we’re considering crimes and that’s one of ‘em.

“I’m … I’m not exactly for the use of drugs, don’t get me wrong, but I just believe that criminalizing marijuana, criminalizing the possession of a few ounces of pot, that kinda thing it’s just, it’s costing us a fortune and it’s ruining young people. Young people go into prisons, they go in as youths and come out as hardened criminals. That’s not a good thing.”

Robertson’s comments about mandatory sentencing for pot use ruining young lies is refreshingly Christian. What would Jesus do? Of course, Jesus would forgive. Merry Christmas, Mr. Robertson.

Back in the early 1980s, I interviewed an old rancher who lived in Dragoon, Arizona for a feature story about rural Cochise County.

His 1800s stone ranch house was decorated with rustic furniture, a smattering of family heirlooms, and a large collection of old glass bottles. Being somewhat of an antique buff myself, I remarked at the variety of old bottles he had collected. As I photographed him, his house, and the bottle collection, I asked where he had gotten them all.

“This house is on the Mormon Trail,” he explained. “I found them all on my property.”

“The Mormon Trail?” I inquired– thinking it was a migration route like the Oregon Trail or Cornado’s Trail.

The grizzled old rancher chuckled, “The Mormon Trail is the route the Mormons took from St. David to the bars in Willcox. They didn’t want their family members or church elders in St. David to know they had been drinking in Willcox, so they dropped the evidence– the alcohol bottles– along the Mormon Trail as they rode their horses back home.”

I was reminded of the old rancher’s story this morning when I read Mesa seeks to seclude shops selling medical pot in today’s Arizona Daily Star.

In an attempt to legislate morality and control the temptation of the evil weed– even though it has been approved only for medical purposes– Mesa’s city council is considering highly restrictive zoning laws. Here is an excerpt from the Star (with emphasis added).

Mesa won’t let medical-marijuana shops open in most of its commercial districts, with city leaders saying they don’t want the substance sold near neighborhoods or in prominent locations.

Instead, the shops will be forced to industrial areas and just one kind of commercial use.
The city is taking a different approach from most other Arizona cities, which so far have been restricting the shops to commercial zones. The city staff had proposed that kind of regulation, but members of the City Council feared that would put the stores at the corner of major intersections.

The stores will be restricted from most areas in the city, as they must be at least a mile from each other, 2,400 feet from rehab facilities, 1,200 feet from churches and schools, and 500 feet from day-care facilities or preschools.

A map prepared by the city shows only slivers of land where the shops could open.

This is folly, and obviously another example of Arizona’s nanny state leanings. Once the Arizona Department of Health Services sets up the system for licensing dispensaries, caregivers, and medical providers, medical marijuana sales will begin in Arizona. It will be legal– even for Mesans– to purchase medical marijuana with a doctor’s recommendation.

The Mesa city fathers should learn a lesson from the Mormon Trail story. If people want or need drugs– legal or otherwise– they will find a way to obtain then, even if it means driving to an industrial district of their lily-white city or (heaven forbid) driving into Phoenix.

Raytheon– like so many other multi-national corporations– is trying to hold our local government hostage in exchange for corporate welfare. “Give us money, land, and tax breaks and rework your infrastructure to suit us, or we may hire workers elsewhere” is the mantra of corporations and major league sports teams who pit cities against each other to see who will give them the best deal– at the expense of the taxpayers.

And cash-strapped local and state governments trying to “do the right thing” fall for this scam all the time. Currently, our bankrupt state is considering offering million of dollars in tax breaks to unnamed corporations to move here, and now the cash-strapped county and city are considering offering millions to Raytheon and Diamond Ventures.

In Plan aims to assist Raytheon expansion, Arizona Daily Star reports that the county was “stung by Raytheon Missile Systems’ decision to build a new missile facility in Alabama instead of Tucson”, and that this is the reason it is considering going further into debt to help Raytheon expand here. Part of the expansion is $8 million for the purchase of land south of Raytheon– now owned by Diamond Ventures.

I know that the county is considering this in the name of keeping “good jobs” in Tucson, but frankly, this deal is just corporate welfare. According to the Star (quoted below), one of the reasons that Raytheon expanded in Alabama recently instead of here was that there wasn’t enough room physically to expand in Tucson.

Taxpayers need to help facilitate Raytheon’s expansion because one of the reasons Tucson lost out to Huntsville, Ala., for Raytheon’s new missile facility is that Raytheon didn’t have enough room at its south-side site here, [Pima County Administrator Chuck] Huckelberry said.

When it awarded the new facility to Huntsville – which will employ an estimated 300 workers at an annual average wage of $60,000 – in July, Tucson was a finalist. But the company said Tucson was bypassed because of limits to expansion at Raytheon’s current missile plant and a lack of development-ready alternative sites.

Richard A. Mendez, Raytheon’s director of facility management, told the City Council that Raytheon is confined in a box where it is now, which causes problems for the company and limits potential expansion.

If Don Diamond has $8 million worth of land south of the existing Raytheon plant for sale, that sounds like there is room for expansion. This issue is that Raytheon wanted it for free; perhaps you could call it another corporate bailout? Certainly, it is corporate welfare. (Another question is: Where is this land in relation to the TCE-contaminated land near Raytheon, and is it really worth $8 million? From the map on the EPA Superfund website, Diamond’s land is definitely close to the contamination– if not overlapping. What would Diamond do with this land — other than sell it to Raytheon or the Tucson International Airport? No one would want to live between those two noisy and environmentally messy neighbors. And, if Tucson funds the purchase of this land, who owns this wasteland in the middle of no where? The taxpayers or Raytheon?)

I have an alternate proposal for that $40 million. Give most of it– say $30 million– to The University of Arizona to create well-paying, clean, non-violent jobs in research and emerging technologies. The UAFoundation has mounds of data that show small donations that fund pilot research projects help UA scientists gather data to win large research grants. Grant funding and the spin-off businesses that often are created by new research findings provide good-paying jobs, often in emerging industries.

With the remaining $10 million, invest in local small businesses and help them expand. Small businesses created by local residents have an investment in Tucson; they’re not going to Huntsville, Alabama or China. (You’ll note in the Raytheon deal that there is no commitment to stay or expand in Tucson.)

Raytheon and Diamond Ventures should be weened off of the teet of the nanny state. Let them make their own deal without taxpayer funds greasing the wheels. Also, if Raytheon wants the county and city to rework the roads south of town, maybe they’d be willing to pay a bit more in corporate taxes. (I’m sure they’ve got some sort of sweetheart deal now.)

Wry Heat in his column today questioned the plans to rework Pima County’s roads on the south side (at taxpayer expense) to suit Raython and offered alternatives.

I question why Pima County would offer $40 million in corporate welfare to a highly profitable, multi-national corporation whose primary business is fueling violence worldwide. If the county and city want to grow the local economy and create new jobs, invest in research and education at the UA and in local businesses.

Tucson Tea Party– where are you on this? You railed against corporate welfare for the big banks and the auto companies. Where do you stand on using taxpayer funds for corporate welfare for the military-industrial complex? State Senator Frank Antenori, what about you?

Arizona bureaucrats are wringing their hands over the implementation of Prop 203– the medical marijuana law that voters approved in November 2010.

The roadblocks that bureaucrats like Pima County Attorney Barbara LaWall, Arizona Bar official Patricia Sallen, and now Arizona Department of Health Services Director Will Humble have erected bring me question one of this state’s core Republican values– free-market capitalism.

Is Arizona a nanny state that wants to protect its citizens from legal marijuana distribution? Or is Arizona a business-friendly, capitalist state that will allow the free market decide which marijuana dispensaries survive? So far, Arizona’s approach to the medical marijuana business is out-of-step with its generally laissez-faire, no-holds-barred business attitude.

The latest example of the state’s schizophrenic behavior appeared in an Associated Press story in today’s Arizona Daily Star. The story features hand-wringing Humble brainstorming about ways to hamper the medical marijuana industry with fees and over-regulation before it even gets off the ground. [Emphasis added.]

“Most other states, you hang out a shingle and you’re a dispensary,” said Will Humble, director of the Arizona Department of Health Services, which will regulate the medical marijuana industry. “I want to avoid those kinds of abuses.”

Humble sees limiting the number of dispensaries and putting stringent requirements in place as a way to avoid such issues.

Dispensary hopefuls will have to pay up to $5,000 to apply for a license. In their application, they’ll need to include addresses for their pot shops and off-site cultivation facilities; detailed security plans to prevent break-ins; procedures for accurate record-keeping; information about employees for background checks; a sworn statement that they’re meeting zoning requirements; and a statement pledging they won’t sell pot to unregistered patients.

The department hopes to post a draft of proposed requirements on Dec. 17 and finalize rules by late March.

If a business owner has the proper business licenses and has complied with local zoning, why shouldn’t they be able to “hang out a shingle” and become a medical marijuana dispensary? How is that an “abuse”? Isn’t that called capitalism? Seriously, folks, how is this different from setting up a pharmacy or a shop that sells nutritional supplements?

So, Governor Jan Brewer wants to give huge tax cuts to businesses that will re-locate to Arizona, but would-be marijuana dispensary businesses get hefty fees + mountains of procedures + a patchwork of city and county zoning regulations + the requirement to be non-profit + a limit on growth + no legal help? That doesn’t seem business friendly to me.

UPDATE: Check out this link for the update on this story.