RN Collins has written a series of 20 new articles for cannabis law report on 2026 Psychedelics & Legal Issues.

This is the 18th in a series of 20

Contact RN Collins: https://www.linkedin.com/in/rn-collins/

 

 

 

Inspection & Enforcement Metrics in State Psychedelic Programs (2022–2026)

Executive Summary

This report compiles and analyzes available inspection and enforcement data from state-licensed psychedelic programs from program inception through early 2026, and benchmarks those metrics against comparable data from regulated cannabis programs in California and Canada. The report identifies the significant limitations of currently available psychedelic enforcement data, proposes a standardized metrics framework for measuring enforcement performance in psychedelic regulatory programs, and makes program-specific recommendations for improving inspection and enforcement capacity.

Key Findings:

1. Oregon’s enforcement record is thin and primarily complaint-driven. Through Q3 2025, OPS has recorded only two service center license denials in the program’s history and has not published quantified inspection activity data, visit frequency rates, or violation-by-category breakdowns comparable to mature regulatory programs.
2. Colorado’s enforcement framework is nascent. Having issued its first healing center license in April 2025 and conducted its first regulated session in June 2025, Colorado’s Natural Medicine Division has not yet generated meaningful enforcement metrics. Its compliance tools are currently limited to guidance documents, inventory tracking forms, and compliance bulletins rather than active inspection programs.
3. Both state programs lack published proactive inspection targets. Neither OPS nor Colorado’s Natural Medicine Division has published inspection-to-licensee ratios, unannounced inspection frequency targets, or time-to-investigation standards for complaints — the core metrics that define enforcement performance in mature regulatory programs.
4. Mature cannabis programs provide a relevant benchmark. California’s DCC issued 366 disciplinary actions in 2024, including 230 license suspensions and 73 denials or revocations. Canada’s Health Canada cannabis inspection program conducted 889 inspections in fiscal year 2024–25, issuing 37 non-compliant reports and revoking or refusing 50 registrations — providing a data-rich benchmark for what metric-driven enforcement looks like at scale.
5. A standardized metrics framework for psychedelic programs is essential. As 22+ states consider psilocybin legislation, the absence of a common enforcement metrics vocabulary makes comparative assessment impossible and program improvement difficult.

I. Introduction and Scope

Regulatory enforcement metrics — standardized measures of inspection frequency, violation rates, disciplinary action types and counts, complaint processing times, and recidivism — are the basic language through which regulated industries, legislators, and the public assess whether a regulatory program is functioning as intended. Without these metrics, program assessment relies on anecdote, litigation outcomes, and after-the-fact audits that identify problems only after they are entrenched.

This report covers the enforcement and inspection record of three state-licensed psychedelic programs across the period 2022–2026:

• Oregon Psilocybin Services (OPS): operational since June 2023 (license applications since January 2023)
• Colorado Natural Medicine Division (NMD): license applications accepted since December 31, 2024; first healing center license issued April 2025; first regulated session June 6, 2025
• New Mexico Medical Psilocybin Program: enacted April 2025, in rulemaking as of early 2026

For comparative benchmarking, the report also draws on enforcement data from California’s Department of Cannabis Control (DCC) for 2024, Canada’s Health Canada Cannabis Inspection Program for fiscal year 2024–25, and Massachusetts’s Cannabis Control Commission audit findings from 2025.

II. Oregon Psilocybin Services: Enforcement Record 2023–2025

A. Licensing Activity Metrics

As of Q3 2025, OPS had issued the following cumulative licensing statistics since program launch in January 2023:

• Facilitator licenses: 572 total applications issued; 366 currently licensed or approved
• Service centers: 35 total licenses approved; 23 operational as of Q3 2025 (12 closures)
• Manufacturers: Active licensees declining in parallel with service center attrition
• Training programs: 30 curricula approved; 18 active, 5 revoked, 7 voluntarily withdrawn
• Testing laboratories: 1 licensed facility serving entire state¹

The training program revocation rate of 5 out of 30 (approximately 17%) is notable and represents the most significant enforcement action category in OPS’s licensing history. However, no publicly available data specifies the grounds for revocation in each case, the timeline from complaint to revocation, or the number of active students affected.

B. Compliance Investigation Activity

OPS’s Data Dashboard contains a “Compliance Page” and “Final Orders” section that tracks administrative violations and license denials. Through the program’s operational history (June 2023–Q3 2025), OPS has reported:

• Service center license denials: 2 total
• Administrative violations: Published through the TLC system and dashboard, but without disaggregated category counts or annual summaries in publicly available reports²
• Emergency service reports: 13 total since summer 2023 across all service centers and over 26,500 products sold³
• Product recalls: 0 recalls issued as of Q1 2025⁴

What is conspicuously absent from OPS’s published data is: (1) the number of compliance inspections conducted; (2) the percentage of inspections that were announced versus unannounced; (3) the average time from complaint receipt to investigation initiation; (4) the average time from investigation initiation to final order; and (5) a breakdown of violations by category.

C. January 2025 Rule Changes: New Compliance Investigation Framework

The January 2025 OPS rule amendments established a new compliance investigation framework under OAR 333-333 — a structural addition that signals recognition that the prior rule set lacked explicit compliance investigation procedures.⁵ The new framework also increased the duty to report misconduct for “licensees, licensee representatives, and permit holders,” implying that prior rules did not provide adequate reporting incentives and that violations were underreported.⁶

D. Unlicensed Operator Enforcement

Oregon law criminalizes psilocybin use and facilitation outside the OPS system. OAR 333-333-5120(14) explicitly prohibits licensed facilitators from supervising individuals experiencing psilocybin outside a licensed service center, except in specified circumstances. But the underground psychedelic market — unlicensed guides, retreat operators, and microdose subscription services — operates alongside the licensed program with virtually no documented enforcement activity. No Oregon agency has published data on enforcement actions against unlicensed psilocybin operators, and no formal coordination protocol between OPS’s civil compliance function and state or local criminal law enforcement has been published. An effective enforcement metrics framework for psychedelic programs should include a dedicated category for unlicensed operator enforcement activity, analogous to California DCC’s quarterly reporting of illegal cannabis seized (over $62 million in Q2 2025 alone²²ᵃ).

E. Regulatory Gap Discovery: Hours of Operation Loophole

In August 2025, OPS discovered an “unintended loophole in administrative rules regulating hours of operation and authorized temporary uses for service centers” and issued a temporary rule effective August 29, 2025 to close it.⁷ The loophole had existed for over two years without detection. Its discovery via internal review rather than through an inspection or complaint illustrates both that internal rule review can surface compliance gaps and that proactive inspections — which might have detected after-hours unauthorized temporary uses — were not occurring at a frequency sufficient to identify the issue earlier.

III. Colorado Natural Medicine Division: Enforcement Record 2024–2025

A. Program Launch Context

Colorado’s Natural Medicine Division accepted its first license applications on December 31, 2024 and issued its first healing center license in April 2025.⁸ The first state-regulated psilocybin session was conducted in Denver on June 6, 2025.⁹ Given this timeline, Colorado has not yet generated meaningful enforcement metrics.

B. Available Compliance Infrastructure

The Colorado DOR Natural Medicine Division’s published compliance tools as of early 2026 include:

• A Compliance Tools page with guidance documents, inventory tracking forms, waste tracking forms, and transport manifests¹⁰
• Compliance bulletins covering licensed premises requirements, transportation, and transfer procedures
• A Statement of Position mechanism allowing licensees to petition for guidance on specific regulatory interpretations (one Statement of Position published as of May 21, 2025, addressing micro-healing center operations)¹¹
• A weekly-updated license pending/approved table providing real-time licensing status¹²

These are compliance assistance tools, not enforcement metrics. DORA similarly maintains disciplinary standards for facilitator licenses — the grounds for disciplinary action include violations of statute or rule, felony conviction, application fraud, failure to meet professional standards, excessive substance use, false advertising, and failure to display a license — but no DORA enforcement actions against natural medicine facilitators have been publicly documented as of the close of this report’s coverage period.¹³

C. Inventory Tracking as an Enforcement Foundation

Colorado requires licensed businesses to submit inventory tracking information to the Division at least monthly, with real-time submission options.¹⁴ This requirement — modeled on Colorado’s mature cannabis “seed-to-sale” tracking infrastructure under the Marijuana Enforcement Division (MED) — is a foundational data collection mechanism that enables enforcement staff to identify supply chain anomalies, unauthorized transfers, and production quota violations through data analysis rather than only through on-site inspection.

Senior Director Dominique Mendiola, who leads both the Marijuana Enforcement Division and the Natural Medicine Division, previously oversaw “administrative enforcement actions, media affairs, interagency coordination, and public outreach and engagement” at MED.¹⁵ This leadership structure creates the potential to import MED enforcement protocols into the Natural Medicine Division as the program matures.

IV. Benchmarking Against Mature Regulated Drug Programs

A. California Department of Cannabis Control: 2024 Annual Enforcement Data

California’s DCC provides the most comprehensive available benchmark for enforcement metrics in a regulated drug program at scale.

2024 California DCC Enforcement Metrics:

• Disciplinary actions: 366 total, including 230 license suspensions and 73 license denials or revocations¹⁶
• Product embargoes: 481, preventing hundreds of thousands of products from reaching consumers pending safety investigation¹⁷
• Product recalls: 63 recall notices affecting 259 products, resulting in removal of approximately 25,000 individual units from retail shelves¹⁸
• Testing laboratory actions: 21 disciplinary actions against testing labs, including 4 license revocations or denials and 3 permit suspensions¹⁹

To provide proportionate context: DCC’s 366 disciplinary actions in 2024 represent approximately 2.4 actions per 100 licensees across its approximately 15,000 active licensees. Oregon’s two service center license denials across 35 approvals represents a 5.7% denial rate — higher than California’s on a per-application basis, though Oregon’s small sample size makes direct comparison unreliable. The more meaningful comparison is inspection-to-licensee ratios, for which Oregon has published no data.

Q2 2025 California DCC Enforcement Metrics (April–June 2025):

• Illegal cannabis seized: Over $62 million in illegal cannabis²⁰
• Administrative actions: 62 actions including 25 license revocations, 2 suspensions, and 35 citations with fines²¹
• Product recalls: 34 recalls covering 444 products²²

DCC spokesperson David Hafner has stated that enforcement actions increased more than 300% in a single year as the agency scaled from startup to mature regulatory body — underscoring that enforcement metrics in new programs tend to be low not because compliance is high, but because enforcement capacity is underdeveloped.²³

B. California DCC Enforcement Methodology

The DCC’s enforcement approach incorporates several elements instructive for psychedelic program design:

Progressive discipline: DCC maintains written disciplinary guidelines that align sanctions with violation severity and licensee compliance history.²⁴

Track-and-trace data analytics: DCC uses California’s Cannabis Track and Trace (CCTT) system to identify anomalies and investigate licensee practices without requiring complaint initiation.²⁵

Dedicated product investigation team: A specialized team handles product embargoes and recalls, separate from the licensing compliance function.

Laboratory oversight: DCC’s 21 disciplinary actions against testing labs in 2024 — including 4 revocations — reflect dedicated oversight of the testing supply chain. The Massachusetts CCC’s experience with a laboratory that failed to properly report contamination in thousands of samples illustrates what happens when testing lab oversight is insufficient.²⁶

C. Health Canada Cannabis Inspection Program: FY2024–2025

FY2024–25 Health Canada Cannabis Inspection Metrics:

• Total inspections: 889 conducted under the Cannabis Act and its regulations²⁷
• Non-compliant inspection reports: 37 issued to licensees²⁸
• Warning letters: 2 issued to formally advise licensees of non-compliances²⁹
• Registrations revoked or refused (personal/designated production): 50 during the reporting period³⁰

Health Canada’s inspection program explicitly characterizes its approach as “risk-based,” focusing “on activities that represented the highest risk to public health and public safety.” The program conducted a mix of “offsite and hybrid inspections, and compliance verifications, while also continuing to conduct onsite planned inspections.”³¹

V. Proposed Standardized Metrics Framework for Psychedelic Programs

The following framework proposes eight core metric categories that state psychedelic regulatory agencies should publish on a standardized quarterly or annual basis.

The following framework adapts metric categories already used — in whole or in part — by mature cannabis regulatory programs (California DCC, Health Canada) to the specific risk profile of psychedelic service programs. See generally California Department of Cannabis Control, Department of Cannabis Control Improves Consumer Protection in 2024 (Feb. 5, 2025), https://www.cannabis.ca.gov/posts/department-of-cannabis-control-improves-consumer-protection-in-2024-by-aggressively-investigating-products-that-do-not-follow-californias-regulations/; Health Canada, Compliance and Enforcement Report: Cannabis Inspection Data Summary 2024–2025, https://www.canada.ca/en/health-canada/services/drugs-medication/cannabis/research-data/compliance-enforcement-report-cannabis-inspection-data-summary/2024-2025.html. Key adaptations for the psychedelic context include: Category 6 (Training Program Oversight Metrics), which has no direct cannabis parallel given psilocybin’s unique facilitator training architecture; Category 5’s adverse event definitions, which are calibrated to OPS’s narrow program-specific definitional framework rather than clinical trial standards; and Category 7 (Financial Compliance), which reflects the banking-exclusion compliance burden unique to Schedule I substances.

Category 1: Licensing Activity Metrics

• Total applications received by license type
• Applications approved, denied, and pending, by license type
• Average processing time from complete application to license issuance
• Annual license renewal rate by license type

Category 2: Compliance Inspection Metrics

• Total inspections conducted (announced and unannounced, broken out separately)
• Inspections per licensed facility/facilitator (inspection-to-licensee ratio)
• Percentage of inspections that were proactively scheduled vs. complaint-initiated
• Average time from inspection to written report issuance

Category 3: Complaint Processing Metrics

• Total complaints received, by source (client, licensee, public, staff)
• Complaints resolved, pending, and referred, with disposition categories
• Average time from complaint receipt to investigation initiation
• Average time from investigation initiation to final order

Category 4: Violation and Disciplinary Action Metrics

• Total administrative violations issued, by category
• License suspensions, revocations, and denials, by license type and violation category
• Civil penalty amounts assessed and collected
• Recidivism rate (violations within 24 months of prior enforcement action)

Category 5: Product Safety Metrics

• Total products embargoed or recalled, by reason
• Number of adverse event reports by severity
• Testing non-compliance rate
• Time from embargo to resolution

Category 6: Training Program Oversight Metrics

• Total training program curricula approved, under review, revoked, and withdrawn
• Number of students enrolled in active programs
• Pass rate on facilitator licensing examination, by training program
• Post-licensing adverse event rate by training program of completing facilitators

Category 7: Financial Compliance Metrics

• License fee collection rate (fees assessed vs. fees collected)
• Outstanding fees as percentage of total fees assessed
• Cash transaction percentage vs. electronic payment (banking access indicator)

Category 8: Workforce and Capacity Metrics

• FTE compliance staff per 100 licensees
• FTE licensing staff per 100 applications
• Average complaint case age (open cases)
• Staff training completions in compliance and inspection methodologies

VI. Applying the Framework: Gap Analysis by Program

Oregon OPS

Strong performance areas: Safety metric reporting; product sales tracking; demographic data collection (SB 303 framework); training program approval/revocation tracking.

Critical gaps: Category 2 (no published inspection metrics); Category 3 (no complaint processing time data); Category 4 (no violation-by-category breakdown); Category 6 (no post-licensing adverse event rate by training program); Category 8 (no staff capacity data).

Priority action: Publish quarterly compliance reports including the number of inspections conducted, complaint processing times, and violation categories — analogous to Health Canada’s annual compliance and enforcement summary.

Colorado Natural Medicine Division

Strong performance areas: Compliance tool development; data collection mandate under SB 25-297; bifurcated agency model with MED institutional knowledge transfer.

Critical gaps: All eight categories lack published metrics given the program’s early stage.

Priority action: Leverage the MED’s existing Track and Trace infrastructure and enforcement methodology to establish a compliance metrics reporting framework from the program’s first full year of operation (2025–2026).

New Mexico Medical Psilocybin Program

Status: Pre-operational. The Medical Psilocybin Advisory Board held its inaugural meeting in December 2025 and is developing foundational program rules.³²

Priority action: Build a metrics reporting framework into the program’s enabling regulations before the program launches — specifying quarterly reporting requirements, data element definitions, and public transparency standards.

VII. The Cannabis Enforcement Maturation Pattern

A consistent pattern emerges from the history of state cannabis regulatory programs: enforcement metrics are low in early years not because compliance is high, but because enforcement capacity is underdeveloped. The DCC’s 300%+ increase in enforcement actions from one year to the next — as the agency filled open positions, refined procedures, and scaled regulatory activities — is a documented case of enforcement maturation.³³

For state psychedelic programs, this pattern has a specific implication: the very limited enforcement record of Oregon’s OPS program through Q3 2025 is not evidence of near-universal compliance among the program’s 366 licensed facilitators and 23 operational service centers. It is evidence of a program that is still in the compliance assistance phase of its regulatory development. The maturation from compliance assistance to compliance enforcement requires: (1) building internal inspection capacity; (2) creating data systems capable of generating compliance metrics; (3) establishing progressive discipline guidelines; and (4) publishing enforcement data publicly.

VIII. Conclusion

The inspection and enforcement record of state psychedelic programs from 2022 through early 2026 reflects two understandable but distinct realities. Oregon’s OPS program has generated two and a half years of operational data but has not developed or published the enforcement metrics infrastructure that would allow systematic assessment of program compliance. Colorado’s Natural Medicine Division is too new to have generated meaningful metrics. New Mexico has not yet launched.

The comparative benchmarks from California and Canada demonstrate that mature, metrics-driven drug regulatory programs can achieve meaningful enforcement outcomes while maintaining a compliant, functional industry. The path from startup to mature enforcement capacity is well-documented in cannabis regulation and should be deliberately engineered into psychedelic program design rather than discovered through dysfunction.

The proposed standardized metrics framework in Section V provides a vocabulary and structure for psychedelic regulatory agencies to measure their own enforcement performance, benchmark themselves against peers, and demonstrate accountability to the public.

Endnotes

¹ Psychedelic Alpha, The Oregon Psilocybin Services Tracker (Q3 2025 update), https://psychedelicalpha.com/data/the-oregon-psilocybin-services-tracker.

² Oregon Health Authority, Oregon Psilocybin Services Data Dashboard, https://www.oregon.gov/oha/ph/preventionwellness/pages/psilocybin-data-dashboard.aspx.

³ Psychedelic Alpha, Oregon Psilocybin Services Tracker: Q1 2025 (Oct. 2025), https://psychedelicalpha.com/news/oregon-psilocybin-services-tracker-q1-2025 (13 total emergency service reports since summer 2023 across 34 centers and over 26,500 products sold).

⁴ Oregon Health Authority, Oregon Psilocybin Services Publishes Interactive Data Dashboard (June 2025), https://www.oregon.gov/oha/ERD/Pages/Oregon-Psilocybin-Services-publishes-interactive-data-dashboard.aspx (Q1 2025: no product recalls issued).

⁵ Emerge Law Group, Oregon Psilocybin Services Rule Changes: Effective January 1, 2025 (Dec. 16, 2024), https://emergelawgroup.com/blog/oregon-psilocybin-services-rule-changes-effective-january-1-2025/ (“Compliance investigations – New rule regarding compliance investigations”).

⁶ Id. (describing increased duty for licensees, licensee representatives, and permit holders to report violations under OAR 333-333-5140).

⁷ Oregon Health Authority, Oregon Psilocybin Services – Administrative Rules, Temporary Rule Notice (Aug. 29, 2025), https://www.oregon.gov/oha/ph/preventionwellness/pages/psilocybin-administrative-rules.aspx.

⁸ Colorado Department of Natural Medicine, About Us, https://dnm.colorado.gov/about-us (first healing center license issued April 2025; license applications accepted December 31, 2024).

⁹ Snell & Wilmer, Colorado’s Magic Mushroom Industry Has Officially Arrived (Oct. 31, 2025), https://www.swlaw.com/publication/colorados-magic-mushroom-industry-has-officially-arrived/ (first state-regulated psilocybin session in Denver June 6, 2025).

¹⁰ Colorado Department of Natural Medicine, Compliance Tools, https://dnm.colorado.gov/compliance-tools.

¹¹ Id. (Statement of Position re Micro Healing Centers, issued May 21, 2025).

¹² Colorado Department of Natural Medicine, Natural Medicine Division Newsroom, https://dnm.colorado.gov/natural-medicine-division-newsroom (weekly-updated license table).

¹³ C.R.S. § 12-170-109 (grounds for disciplinary action against natural medicine facilitators include violations of statute or rule, felony conviction, application fraud, failure to meet professional standards, excessive use of alcohol or controlled substances, false advertising, and failure to display a license); 4 C.C.R. 755-1 (DORA Office of Natural Medicine Licensure rules, Section 8, defining disciplinary procedures and additional grounds), https://www.sos.state.co.us/CCR/GenerateRulePdf.do?ruleVersionId=11610&fileName=4+CCR.

¹⁴ Colorado Department of Natural Medicine, Compliance Tools, supra note 10 (“Licensees are required to submit inventory tracking information to the Division at least monthly”).

¹⁵ Colorado Department of Natural Medicine, About Us, supra note 8 (describing Senior Director Dominique Mendiola’s experience overseeing MED enforcement actions).

¹⁶ California Department of Cannabis Control, Department of Cannabis Control Improves Consumer Protection in 2024 (Feb. 5, 2025), https://www.cannabis.ca.gov/posts/department-of-cannabis-control-improves-consumer-protection-in-2024-by-aggressively-investigating-products-that-do-not-follow-californias-regulations/ (366 disciplinary actions in 2024 including 230 suspensions and 73 denials/revocations).

¹⁷ Id. (481 embargoes in 2024).

¹⁸ Id. (63 recalls affecting 259 products; approximately 25,000 units removed from shelves).

¹⁹ California Department of Cannabis Control, supra note 16 (21 disciplinary actions against testing labs including 4 revocations/denials and 3 permit suspensions); see also MJBizDaily, CA Issued 63 Cannabis Recalls, Nearly 500 Product Embargoes in 2024 (Feb. 2025), https://mjbizdaily.com/california-issued-63-cannabis-recalls-nearly-500-product-embargoes-in-2024/.

²⁰ California Department of Cannabis Control, DCC’s Q2 2025 Efforts Continue to Prioritize Consumer Safety (Nov. 13, 2025), https://www.cannabis.ca.gov/posts/the-department-of-cannabis-controls-recent-efforts-continue-toprioritize-consumer-and-public-safety-and-support-the-legal-cannabismarket/ (over $62 million in illegal cannabis seized Q2 2025).

²¹ Id. (62 administrative actions including 25 revocations, 2 suspensions, 35 citations with fines in Q2 2025).

²² Id. (34 recalls covering 444 products in Q2 2025).

²²ᵃ California Department of Cannabis Control, DCC’s Q2 2025 Efforts Continue to Prioritize Consumer Safety (Nov. 13, 2025), https://www.cannabis.ca.gov/posts/the-department-of-cannabis-controls-recent-efforts-continue-toprioritize-consumer-and-public-safety-and-support-the-legal-cannabismarket/ (over $62 million in illegal cannabis seized Q2 2025, illustrating the scale of unlicensed market enforcement activity that psilocybin programs currently lack analogues to).

²³ CRB Monitor News, DCC Enforcement: Quarter by Quarter (2025) (DCC spokesperson David Hafner statement that enforcement actions increased more than 300% in a single year as the agency scaled from startup to mature regulatory body).

²⁴ California State Auditor, Report Responses: 2024-105 — Department of Cannabis Control: Youth Advertising and Marketing Enforcement, https://www.auditor.ca.gov/reports/responses-2024-105-all/ (describing DCC’s development of progressive discipline policies and compliance history review systems).

²⁵ California Department of Cannabis Control, Compliance with State Law, https://www.cannabis.ca.gov/cannabis-laws/compliance-with-state-law/ (describing use of CCTT data to investigate licensee practices).

²⁶ NBC Boston, Violations and Mismanagement Uncovered in Audit of Cannabis Control Commission (Aug. 15, 2025), https://www.nbcboston.com/news/local/violations-and-mismanagement-uncovered-in-audit-of-cannabis-control-commission-dizoglio-says/3790580/ (Assured Testing lab’s failure to report contamination in thousands of samples).

²⁷ Health Canada, Compliance and Enforcement Report: Cannabis Inspection Data Summary 2024–2025, https://www.canada.ca/en/health-canada/services/drugs-medication/cannabis/research-data/compliance-enforcement-report-cannabis-inspection-data-summary/2024-2025.html (889 total inspections FY2024–25).

²⁸ Id. (37 non-compliant inspection reports issued).

²⁹ Id. (2 warning letters issued as escalated compliance actions).

³⁰ Id. (50 registrations revoked or refused based on personal/designated production inspections).

³¹ Id. (describing risk-based approach focused on highest-risk activities including offsite, hybrid, and onsite planned inspections).

³² Source New Mexico, New Mexico Health Officials Aim to Kick Off Medical Psilocybin Program a Year Early (Dec. 8, 2025), https://sourcenm.com/2025/12/08/new-mexico-health-officials-plan-to-kick-off-medical-psilocybin-program-a-year-early/ (inaugural board meeting December 5, 2025).

³³ California Department of Finance, California Department of Cannabis Control Performance Audit (June 2025), https://oreports.dof.ca.gov/reportPdf/2278/California%20Department%20of%20Cannabis%20Control%20June%202025 (documenting DCC enforcement capacity growth trajectory).