March 6, 2025 | Arizona Capitol Times

GOP lawmakers want power to review agency rules

A Republican bill moving through the Legislature would allow the legislative leaders to make appointments to the Governor’s Regulatory Review Council, the entity that reviews state agency rules.

GRRC is set to sunset at the end of this year and Republicans are reluctant to continue the council without major changes and another review in two years. Rep. Walt Blackman, R-Snowflake, sponsored a bill to renew GRRC, but the bill would also change the council’s makeup and add several additional responsibilities.

The bill would remove full control of GRRC from Democratic Gov. Katie Hobbs and allow lawmakers to appoint half of the council’s members. For his part, Blackman said the bill is not motivated by partisanship or a desire to “beat these agencies up.”

“My mindset was, what can we do to help this committee or this organization to be able to perform the way they’re supposed to perform,” Blackman said.

GRRC is housed under the Department of Administration and was created in 1981 to oversee agency rulemaking. Though small and often overlooked, it has an extremely important role in state government – reviewing proposed rules for clarity, compliance with statute, economic impact and other factors.

The council also conducts periodic reviews of existing rules to determine whether they need to be amended or repealed. According to a presentation by a GRRC staff attorney given to lawmakers in January, the council improved or eliminated 677 existing rules in fiscal year 2024 and has reviewed 317 new rulemaking packages since 2019.

GRRC oversees nearly every state agency, with the exception of the Arizona Corporation Commission and certain rules made by both the Industrial Commission and the State Lottery. It also does not oversee policies made by government entities that are headed by an elected official, like the Governor’s Office or the Secretary of State’s Office.

GRRC has seven members, one ex-officio member from the Arizona Department of Administration who is the council’s chairperson and six members appointed by the governor. Currently, two members must be appointed by the governor from two lists of names provided by the speaker of the House and the president of the Senate.

Under Blackman’s bill, the governor would only be able to appoint three members of GRRC and one would have to be chosen from a list provided jointly by the House speaker and Senate president. Each legislative leader would then get to make one appointment respectively and one appointment jointly.

The bill would also prohibit the chair of GRRC from serving as the general counsel of ADOA and would instead designate the ADOA director or assistant director as the chair. The current chair of GRRC, Jessica Klein, is also ADOA’s general counsel.

Blackman said the change in makeup is less about taking away control from Hobbs and more about giving some control to lawmakers who create the statutes that kickstart the agency rulemaking process.

“We make the laws, and those rules are depending on the laws that we make, so that’s why I believe the Legislature should have a say on GRRC,” Blackman said.

Will Humble, who served as the director of the Department of Health Services during former Gov. Jan Brewer’s administration, said he thinks balancing out the representation on GRRC could be a good thing.

“The Legislature gives the executive branch the statutory authority to write the regulations and rules and the way it is now, the agencies go to GRRC and they get those rules approved,” Humble said. “But there’s not a whole lot of input from the legislative branch because they’re not on GRRC. So I think it makes sense, and it would be reasonable checks and balance wise, to have some members appointed by legislators.”

Rulemaking is a lengthy process that usually starts when the Legislature passes a law giving an agency authority to make policies in a certain area. Once rules are drafted, they go through a public comment period and several internal reviews during which changes are made. After rules are finalized by an agency, they go to GRRC for another review and final approval.

Republicans in the Legislature have raised concerns in recent years over whether or not GRRC is taking constitutional concerns and legislative intent into account when approving rules. However, state statute requires the council to consider whether rules are illegal or inconsistent with legislative intent before approving them.

Blackman’s bill would require GRRC staff to review the state Constitution and relevant statutes independently of any statutory justification provided by an agency as part of its rulemaking package.

Diane Brown, the executive director of Arizona Public Interest Research Group, said GRRC’s current review of the constitutionality and economic impact of rules tends to be “comprehensive, bordering on excessive.”

“As is the case with any proceeding where legality is concerned, there are likely to be differences of opinion,” Brown said. “Generally, GRRC has more review through both its study sessions and its meetings than most laws go through before they are adopted and implemented.”

Members of the public can petition GRRC to review a rule if they believe it was not made in accordance with state law. Blackman’s bill would also allow the public to request a review if they believe a rule violates their fundamental legal rights.

Blackman’s bill has a few other provisions, like requiring GRRC staff to distribute meeting materials to the House speaker and Senate president, clarifying when members can vote on rules and requiring that equal time be given during public comment for those opposing and supporting a rule.

Humble said he doesn’t have any issue with the provisions of the bill, but noted that they could place an extra burden on staff or GRRC members who are already not well compensated. Currently, council members are paid $200 per meeting, which does not factor in time spent reviewing rules before meetings.

“GRRC members, like all other board members, get pocket change for being on these things,” Humble said. “If you want people to read the agenda ahead of time and do the homework and give them this extra responsibility that’s in this new statute, then you should increase the compensation to make it worth their trouble.”

Blackman agrees that GRRC members should be paid more and said the council also needs more staff to fulfill its responsibilities. He said his bill is still “fluid” and that the issue could be addressed in the future.

Humble and Brown both said they believe stipulations added to GRRC’s renewal are motivated by the fact that state agencies are overseen by a Democratic governor.

Brown said attaching these stipulations to the bill that determines the fate of the council, “smacks of politics instead of the thoughtful review that is expected to consider the reauthorization of an agency.”

Despite what he sees as partisan motivations, Humble said adding more guardrails to state agencies now could be helpful for Democrats if and when a Republican lands in the Governor’s Office again.

“This kind of stuff is coming up now because [Republicans] don’t like that Hobbs is a Democrat, but for governance purposes, I think it’s important.” Humble said. “You should be thinking about what the guardrails should be for state government, not necessarily what [should be for] the people today, that way you can prepare for, like, a Governor [Andy] Biggs.”

Blackman’s bill still needs final approval from the House and will need to clear several hurdles in the Senate, and he said he is still open to making changes on it as it moves through the Legislature. It also would need to be signed by Hobbs, but her office usually does not comment on pending legislation and declined to comment on this specific bill.

Ballot measure capping food tax at 2% passes House

After facing opposition from cities and a previous veto from Gov. Katie Hobbs, a Republican legislator has reached an agreement with municipal leaders on a measure aimed at reducing sales tax on grocery items.

The proposal from Rep. Leo Biasiucci, R-Lake Havasu City, aims to cut the sales tax that some cities and towns in the state charge on grocery items, including milk, bread and eggs. The measure, HCR2021, passed the House on March 4, 37-21, with some Democrats supporting the concurrent resolution.

“This is a regressive tax,” Biasiucci said. “Everybody needs food to survive.”

The measure has changed substantially since Hobbs vetoed its first version in 2023, yet she won’t have an opportunity to comment on it this year. The resolution would go to the 2026 ballot for voters to decide if it passes the Senate.

The 2023 version of the bill and the initial version of this year’s resolution originally proposed completely prohibited any city or town from imposing a tax on grocery items. Several mayors from rural cities appeared before the House Ways and Means Committee to testify against the measure and said food tax revenue was vital for city budgets.

Rep. David Livingston, R-Peoria, worked with the cities to amend the resolution to allow them to freeze food tax rates at their current levels. Cities with a tax rate of less than 2% could increase the rate to a maximum of 2% with approval from voters.

An earlier amendment would have forced cities with a rate greater than 2% to lower to a 2% cap, but some Republicans, including Rep. Walt Blackman, R-Snowflake, opposed that version.

Snowflake imposes a 3% sales tax on food, according to the Arizona Department of Revenue. Blackman publicly opposed the measure in a now-deleted post on X, but he commended Biasiucci and Livingston for finding a compromise with rural cities.

“I was at odds with this bill,” Blackman said March 4. “The bill, with the way it is now with the amendment, does protect our smaller communities.”

The resolution cleared the House with every Republican supporting it. However, some Democrats who previously supported the measure voted against it because they felt the amendments did not do enough to lower taxes.

“I fundamentally don’t believe we should be taxing basic necessities and essential items like food,” said Rep. Alma Hernandez, D-Tucson.

Rep. Alexander Kolodin, R-Scottsdale, said the measure wouldn’t help most Arizonans with the price of their groceries.

“The amendment process on this bill is proof that the more stakeholders, the less steak,” Kolodin said. “This bill is not as good as the people of Arizona deserve.”

Despite his grievances with the measure, Kolodin voted in support of it and said he did appreciate that it would prevent cities from raising taxes on food without voter approval.

Other Democrats who oppose the measure are concerned about the revenue impact on smaller cities even with the added amendments.

“Here in the great state of Maricopa, we’re voting on how we’re going to impact rural areas that are going to be hit the most,” said Rep. Stacey Travers, D-Tempe. “I know [Biasiucci’s] heart is in the right place.”

A fiscal note on the bill from the Joint Legislative Budget Committee estimates municipal sales tax revenue would be reduced by $227 million if voters approve the measure and it takes effect in fiscal year 2028, although the fiscal note was published before the measure was amended. Seventy of Arizona’s 91 incorporated cities and towns tax grocery foods.

Rep. Patty Contreras, D-Phoenix, said that food tax revenue makes up a significant portion of municipal budgets for many small towns. Shawn Palmer, mayor of the town of Taylor, said during the House Ways and Means hearing that his town would be most impacted by the measure. Food tax revenue makes up more than 30% of Taylor’s budget.

“We can’t get more conservative than we are right now,” Palmer said. “A 3% food tax is a lot more equitable than adding a new property tax and concentrating that tax on 4,500 people.”

Doubling down on deputizing police is a bad idea

The recently proposed SB1164 seeks to expand Section 287 (g) of the 1996 Immigration and Nationality Act (INA). Section 287 (g) allows state and local law enforcement agencies to form compacts with Immigration and Customs Enforcement to delegate specific immigration enforcement authority to designated officers.

As of December 2024, only five law enforcement agencies in Arizona have formed agreements with ICE. SB1164 aims to mandate participation statewide. It requires “at least 10% of officers in every law enforcement agency in the state participate in the program.” ICE agents train and deputize local officers to perform immigration enforcement tasks.

Most Arizonans may favor more immigration enforcement, but will this measure reduce overall crime throughout the state? Expanding 287 (g) will not reduce crime for the following reasons: immigrants are less likely to commit crimes, 287(g) programs don’t reduce crime, and will put more strain on local law enforcement.

A 2020 study by the Cato Institute found in Texas that illegal immigrants were “40 percent less likely to be arrested” and “a conviction rate 74 percent below that of native-born Americans for property crimes.” Native-born citizens are five times more likely to commit violent crimes. Between 1990 and 2018, 90% of the prosecutions against immigrants were immigration infractions. Immigration has doubled in the U.S. since 1980, but the crime rate has fallen by 60.4%.

These numbers contradict the findings of economist John R. Lott Jr. In his 2017 paper, Lott suggests that undocumented immigrants have a “higher prison admissions rate than U.S. citizens” in Arizona. Per economist Alex Nowrasteh, Lott lumped legal and illegal residents under the category “non-US citizen and deportable,” skewing Lott’s results. Estimating that in 2014, 11.1% of prison admissions were undocumented immigrants, but this is closer to 4.3%.

Besides the existing crime rates of illegal immigrants, the 287 (g) program is ineffective at reducing crime. A 2018 study of counties in North Carolina participating in 287(g) found that the program “failed to reduce crime”. Researchers separated the impact of 287(g) and attributed the dip in the crime rate between 2003 and 2013 to national trends in criminal activity. However, the study did “find a significant relationship between the activation of 287(g) agreements and assaults against police officers.”

287(g) agreements also negatively impact crime by reducing cooperation with the police. Latinos living in communities with 287 (g) agreements are 44% less likely to report crimes and 45% less likely to “voluntarily offer information about crimes.” The distrust of police stems from concerns over racial profiling, being detained and being questioned about their immigration status.

These concerns are valid because Arizona has a rocky history when it comes to racial profiling. Under current immigration enforcement efforts, most of the people detained were not violent criminals. Approximately 10% of all people deported are lawful permanent residents, even putting legal immigrants at risk.

Tasking local and state law enforcement with immigration enforcement diverts resources from local policing. Arizona already has a police shortage. The Phoenix Police Department is 500 officers short of being fully staffed. Arizona is the only western state without 24-hour coverage from state troopers.

The SB1164 requirement that each agency devote 10% of their officers to immigration enforcement will worsen the current police shortage, leading to burnout and decreased efficiency. Within the first year of the Maricopa County Sheriff’s Office entering a 287(g) agreement responding officers arrived late to two-thirds of more than 6,000 “serious” emergency calls.

SB1164 is the wrong policy for Arizona. Even the county sheriffs agree that immigration enforcement is best left to federal law enforcement. The 287(g) agreements do little to curb crime, and mandating this program statewide would waste resources and make Arizona less safe.

Peter Clark is an Arizona-based writer.

Proposed ‘Ag-to-Urban’ water programs could mean more farmland sold for housing

The Arizona Department of Water Resources has started developing its own version of a program that would allow farmers to sell agricultural land to developers who can convert the land for housing projects.

The Department of Water Resources is embarking on an informal stakeholder process for its “Ag-to-Urban” program. This program will allow new homes to be built in areas with a lack of housing and a shortage of groundwater.

The idea has built momentum in the past couple of years because single family homes use less water than agricultural land. Supporters view the concept as a way to increase the housing supply, lower home prices and preserve groundwater.

There are a couple of twin bills passing through the Senate and House, SB1611 and HB2298, that would also allow farmers to sell their land for development. The department’s program would be enacted through a rulemaking process instead of a bill introduced by legislators.

The legislative and Department of Water Resources’ proposals target Active Management Areas in the Phoenix and Pinal county areas. The legislative bills would also include the Tucson AMA.

The department recently released a draft proposal of its program during a stakeholder meeting.

“I think we’re at a place where we’re wanting to make sure we get the policy right,” said Natalie Mast, active management areas director at the department. “So we’re going to make sure that we have the discussions we need to have to get the details here right, because it’s really critical that we end up with something that works at the end of the day.”

The department’s program would ensure that new water uses on retired agricultural lands would be served by designated water providers, require a series of conservation measures and include a 10-year sunset review.

The agency’s ability to issue physical availability conservation credits would expire after 10 years, but there would be an option to extend. In addition, each acre of land would need to meet an eligibility test that includes a model review of the irrigation grandfathered right, which allows owners to irrigate land in an AMA.

There are 28,500 acres of eligible farmland in the Phoenix AMA and 104,600 in the Pinal AMA that could use the Ag-to-Urban program. The current densities would allow for 3.9 housing units per acre for the Phoenix AMA and 3.1 units for Pinal, according to the department.

Under the Senate bill introduced by Sen. T.J. Shope, R-Coolidge, there are 425,232 acres of farmland in the Phoenix, Pinal and Tucson Active Management Areas that would be eligible for the program. If half of the farmland is converted for development, more than a million homes could be built since new developments average five homes per acre, according to numbers previously shared by Republican Senate staff.

Shope’s bill lays out stipulations for replenishment and groundwater use for the three AMAs covered in the legislation but don’t include the requirements for conservation measures or designated water providers.

His bill was still awaiting a hearing in the Senate Committee of the Whole, while the House bill, sponsored by Rep. Gail Griffin, R-Hereford, passed the House Committee of the Whole and was waiting for a final vote in the House.

“We’re kind of in that unique situation where there’s a House bill that exists and a Senate bill that exists,” he said. “That timeline…it’s blurred.”

Shope said he’s still negotiating details of the bill and some features of the department’s proposal could be included in the discussions. He is looking to reach a consensus with a wide variety of stakeholders before potentially marrying the House and Senate bills, and doesn’t want to rush the process before potentially sending legislation to the governor’s desk.

“This isn’t a 100-meter dash – it’s a marathon,” he said.

Department of Corrections claims additional oversight not necessary after two years of improvements

Facing a potential court-ordered takeover of prison health care, the Arizona Department of Corrections, Rehabilitation and Reentry claims significant improvements to medical staffing and capacity and a continual increase in the dollar amount spent on care negates any need for additional control.

Plaintiffs in the long-running class action lawsuit against ADCRR filed a motion for a receiver to assume responsibility for the carceral medical system after a string of reports from court-appointed monitors found inmates are still receiving less than adequate health care and dying “unnecessarily.”

The department claims too little time has passed since the court issued a permanent injunction, and, in that time, there has been and continues to be strides in quality of care, staffing levels and funds infused into health care.

“Interrupting these efforts midstream by appointing a receiver, who would necessarily need substantial time to onboard, would slow, rather than accelerate, the progress that is being made,” John Bullock, attorney for ADCRR, wrote.

The court entered a final injunction in April 2023, with a mandate to ensure clinically appropriate physical and mental health care, including, but not limited to, improving staffing and documentation.

More than ten years into class-action litigation and about two years since the injunction, attorneys for the American Civil Liberties Union of Arizona and the ACLU National Prison Project, the Prison Law Office and the Disability Rights Arizona agency filed a motion for a receiver, citing a string of reports from court monitors finding a continued failure to reach compliance.

The department initially dismissed the plaintiffs’ motion in a statement, citing “numerous” improvements made already and claiming a receiver would result in additional and undue costs on taxpayers.

In a formal response, Bullock hit again on the financial implications, warning of a tripled prison health care budget. He contended, too, that appointing a receiver would be “[p]remature and otherwise unwarranted,” given it had been less than two years since the court issued the injunction and just over two years since Director Ryan Thornell took over the department.

In that time, though, he claimed the department had made significant progress in staffing, including a 61.5% overall increase in full-time health care employees, with a 53% increase in mental health staff and a 46% increase in physicians.

The department has also increased capacity for mental health residential treatment units by 200 beds, and increased the capacity of the special needs unit and inpatient care unit by 66% since October 2023.

The response painted the court monitor’s reports as an incomplete picture, claiming one report “largely ignores the efforts the Department and NaphCare continue to make to improve the delivery of medical and mental health care, and instead focuses on anecdotal examples of alleged non-compliance that, according to the Monitors, show the entire system is ‘broken.’”

Bullock then dove into the price tag on corrections health care.

He reported the department spent more in the first seven months of the current fiscal year, $255 million in FY2025, than the entire year prior to the injunction was entered, or $224 million in FY2022. In the last full fiscal year, the department spent $382 million.

Bullock writes, “the Department acknowledges that there is more work to do and recognizes the Court’s frustration that progress has not been faster.” But he claims the plaintiffs’ contention that the appointment of a receiver would bring a “relatively quick and efficient remedy” simply is not credible.

He looks to the central case law cited by plaintiffs, Plata v. Newsom, in which the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation was put under receivership. He points out the department was still under receivership at a high cost to the state.

He said if Arizona were to match the current per-capita rate in California, the department’s health care budget would about triple to $1.06 billion a year.

Bullock claims the court should instead allow the department more time.

“The Department continues to make progress across all aspects of the Injunction, and the Department’s work should be permitted to continue,” Bullock said.

Rita Lomio, attorney for the plaintiff and author of the motion for receiver, said, “It’s really not about the amount of money put in. It isn’t the metric. It’s what the outcome is, whether you’re providing good care.”

A response from the plaintiffs is due on March 18.

“Unfortunately, I didn’t see in their brief a lot of solutions, just a lot of excuses,” Lomio said. “We’ll take a closer look, but we’ll be responding to that.”

The parties are due for a status hearing on March 25 and must file reports on whether discovery will be necessary and a proposed date for a hearing on the motion for receiver.

Former Department of Education employee found not guilty in $614K voucher scam

A former Department of Education employee who was indicted for allegedly approving improper purchases for ineligible or nonexistent children in the Empowerment Scholarship Account program was found not guilty on all charges following a two week jury trial.

Former ESA employee Dorrian Jones was indicted alongside former coworkers Jennifer Lopez and Delores Lashay Sweet, and Sweet’s two adult children, as part of a scheme in which the trio allegedly created ESA accounts for real and fictitious children using falsified documents, then approved fraudulent expenses, accumulating more than $600,000 from the program in the process.

Jones, facing felony counts of conspiracy, fraudulent schemes and artifices, illegally conducting an enterprise and ten counts of forgery, was the sole defendant to go to trial after Lopez entered a testimonial agreement with the state, and Sweet and her children agreed to plea deals.

After a two-week jury trial marked by warring testimony between Jones and Lopez and a lack of input from any ESA employee or top brass, Jones was found not guilty on all charges.

“Honestly, I truly believe my client,” Jones’ attorney Adam Feldman said. “ Not just that he was not guilty, but that he was innocent.”

The state grand jury indicted Jones, Lopez and Sweet in February 2024.

In the indictment, the state alleged the defendants used forged documents, including falsified birth certificates and special education evaluations, to apply and enroll real, but ineligible, and “ghost” children in the ESA program and approve reimbursement and expense requests.

All in all, the defendants allegedly took $614,352 from the program between October 2021 and November 2023.

Both Lopez and Jones took the stand over the course of the two week trial. Witnesses from the state were otherwise limited. In a string of motions, Feldman asked for ESA employees to be precluded from testifying given delayed disclosure by the state.

Feldman said he filed the motion to preclude ESA employees after the state said they did not intend to call ESA employees and potential witnesses, like director John Ward, were “hiding behind their attorneys.”

“Strangely, the prosecution designed this case for failure. For the first seven, nine months they were trying to do this case without calling a single ESA employee as a witness, which is ridiculous when you think about it, because the case is entirely about ESA,” Feldman said.

He continued, “I wanted to speak with the ESA people. It’s not like I wanted them out of the trial. I wanted to know the information. I wanted to know all aspects of ESA to confirm or refute anything my client was telling me.”

Feldman told jurors the case “entirely boiled down to a he said, she said” in opening statements.

He sought to undermine Lopez’s credibility from the start, noting that she had created and approved false accounts to collect around $200,000 from the program, while painting Jones as an upright employee trying to keep up with a high caliber of reimbursement requests and expenses.

Carolina Lopez, an attorney for the state, told jurors that Jones was the “money gatekeeper,” and said he had been “exploiting his position to satisfy his own greed at the expense of Arizona students.”

Over the course of the trial, jurors heard from Lopez and Jones, as well as special agent Annalisa Madsen and ClassWallet CEO Neil Steinhardt.

In the lead-up to the verdict, the state moved to dismiss three counts, citing a low likelihood of conviction. Following deliberation, the jury found Jones not guilty on all counts on Feb 27.

A spokesperson for the attorney general declined to comment on the disposition of the case.

Sweet’s adult children, Jadakah Celeste Johnson and Raymond Lamont Johnson Jr., were the first to take plea deals and see sentencing. The two pleaded guilty to a single count of facilitation to commit money laundering, and were ordered to serve three years supervised probation and pay $196,526 in restitution.

Lopez and Sweet are still awaiting sentencing.

As part of Sweet’s plea deal, she pleaded guilty to one count of fraudulent schemes and one count of forgery. She agreed to serve 2.5 years in prison for forgery, be placed on probation following her release and pay $614,352 in restitution with her co-defendants.

Lopez pleaded guilty to a single felony count of forgery and would be eligible for up to four years supervised probation.

She could face a maximum fine of $150,000 plus a 79% surcharge, with a requirement to be paid to the state’s anti-racketeering revolving fund. Lopez would also owe restitution, with a minimum of $202,382 to the Dept. of Education.

Lopez is set to be sentenced on March 31, and Sweet on April 14

Arizona positioned to lead the way in sages and scientific approach to mental health

Recently, the Arizona House Appropriations Committee approved HB2871 to spend up to $5 million for clinical research on an emerging plant medicine called ibogaine.

The bill has the backing of former U.S. Sen. Kyrsten Sinema, who has pledged to raise an additional $5 million to support the research being proposed. This bill positions Arizona as a leader in finding ground-breaking solutions to the mental health epidemic by drawing on thousands of years of ancient wisdom.

Ibogaine is best described as a psychoactive substance that derives from the shrub of the iboga tree. Like other plant medicines, it has been used by healers and spiritual guides in West Africa for medicinal and ritual purposes.

Iboga is not just a psychedelic, but an entheogen. Entheogen is a term that encompasses empathogens — known to increase empathy — and enactogens — which allow users to turn inward and heal past traumas. Used for healing purposes by shamans for centuries, these plants invite users to connect with their own pasts to heal the present and are often described by researchers like Jamie Wheal as a bridge across time and cultures.

Pardis Mahdavi

I am a trained medical anthropologist who has spent the last 25 years studying issues related to culture, health and society. More specifically, much of my work has focused on the intersection of sex, psychedelics and the superconscious. This has given me a front row seat to tensions between scientists and traditional healers from around the world.

HB2871 comes on the heels of SB1555, which establishes a statewide committee to oversee psychedelic assisted therapy across Arizona. A similar bill, HB2762 was passed last year that supports physicians and other medical practitioners using ketamine assisted therapy for mental health, leading to the establishment of ketamine clinics throughout the state. All of these are key nodal points in a larger movement that is happening nationwide to examine alternative approaches to mental health and opioid addiction.

Most notably, however, HB2871 focuses on research beginning with one of the most vulnerable populations when it comes to PTSD and treatment resistant depression: veterans.

And the scientific data are astoundingly positive, confirming thousands of years of ancient knowledge about the unique powers of the plant. A study published by the National Institute of Health demonstrated that ibogaine drastically reduced withdrawal symptoms in more than 80% of study participants with more than half of them reporting full abstinence of any drug use more than a year later. And this complementary study conducted by Stanford medical center showed an 88% decrease in PTSD symptoms and an 87% drop in depression.

With such staggeringly positive results, it is easy to see why so many veterans and other populations who struggle with depression and addiction are finding ways to cross the border to Mexico in search of treatment.

Advocacy for plant medicines is coming from across the aisle and in some of the most unlikely places. In one of his first tweets after being picked by Trump to lead the Health and Human Services, Robert F. Kennedy Jr. signaled strong support for the legalization of psychedelics empowering researchers and advocates across the country.

The research that HB2871 would support is especially significant, however, due to its approach and the way that advocates such as Sinema have positioned it. The framing of HB2871 presents an approach that seeks to honor the cultural context and history of the plant while partnering to study its effects and possibilities for a global audience.

When studying with a group of shamans some years ago, I heard one of them open a plant medicine ceremony with words that I have never forgotten. “Hope is a memory of the future,” he said. In a world where people are experiencing unprecedented levels of disorientation, despair, doubt, pain, anxiety and trauma, it is inspiring to have hope that we can see the future of healing by honoring a rich past and building a path forward.

Pardis Mahdavi is an American scholar and former president of University of La Verne.

Upcoming Event

Day: March 6, 2025