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

This is the eighth

State Psilocybin Implementation Statutes

Author RN Collins

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

Purpose and Scope

This brief surveys the principal state-level psilocybin implementation statutes enacted through early 2026, analyzes the key structural provisions and policy choices embedded in each enactment, and identifies the principal legislative design patterns, divergences, and gaps that will shape state psychedelic law for the coming decade. The brief is intended for legislative counsel, policymakers, and practitioners advising clients on psychedelic regulatory matters at the state level.

I. The Legislative Landscape: From Ballot Initiative to Statehouse

As of early 2026, three states have enacted operative frameworks for regulated psilocybin access. A fourth framework — adopted through ballot initiative — was subsequently refined through legislative implementation. More than thirty state legislatures considered or enacted psychedelic-related bills during the 2025 legislative session alone, representing the most concentrated burst of state legislative activity in the field since psilocybin’s criminalization under the Comprehensive Drug Abuse Prevention and Control Act of 1970.¹

The prevailing mode of enactment for the first-generation programs was the ballot initiative: Oregon voters approved Measure 109 in November 2020 (55.75% in favor), and Colorado voters approved Proposition 122 in November 2022.² New Mexico broke this pattern in April 2025 when Governor Michelle Lujan Grisham signed Senate Bill 219, the Medical Psilocybin Act, into law following bipartisan legislative passage — the first state to enact a therapeutic psilocybin program through the legislative process rather than ballot initiative.³ The New Mexico bill passed the House 56 to 8 with 6 abstentions and the Senate 33 to 4 with 5 abstentions, reflecting the substantial bipartisan consensus that advocates had worked to build.⁴

This evolution in enactment mode has substantive implications for program design. Ballot initiatives, once enacted, require legislative action to amend, which creates friction between evolving programmatic needs and the statutory framework established at the moment of voter approval. Oregon has addressed this through three rounds of annual legislative modification to ORS Chapter 475A; Colorado passed three bills in three years refining its Natural Medicine Health Act. New Mexico’s legislative origin, by contrast, makes future statutory refinement procedurally easier — the legislature can modify the Medical Psilocybin Act through ordinary legislative process without returning to voters.

II. Oregon: ORS Chapter 475A — The Oregon Psilocybin Services Act

A. Statutory Structure and Core Provisions

Oregon’s implementation statute, codified at ORS Chapter 475A (originally enacted as Ballot Measure 109, chapter 1, Oregon Laws 2021), creates a non-medical “supported adult use” framework. Its key structural provisions include:

License categories (ORS 475A.290–.325): The statute creates four business license types — manufacturers, service center operators, testing laboratories, and training programs — and one individual license type: the psilocybin service facilitator. The Oregon Health Authority (OHA) is the single licensing authority for all categories.⁵

Non-medical character (ORS 475A.305(1)(b)): Service centers are explicitly not healthcare facilities under ORS Chapter 441. No medical diagnosis, prescription, or referral is required for a client to access services.⁶ This design choice — deliberate and central to the ballot measure’s non-medicalization strategy — distinguishes Oregon from New Mexico’s exclusively medical model and creates the federal law tensions analyzed in Document 5 of this series.

Federal law savings clause (ORS 475A.215(7)): The Act expressly states it shall not be construed to exempt any person from the application of, or arrest or prosecution under, applicable federal law — providing the clearest available signal that Oregon does not claim to nullify federal prohibition.⁷

Local opt-out authority (ORS 475A.205(5) and related provisions): Incorporated areas and counties may opt out of the program through voter referendum. As of early 2026, over 100 cities and more than 40 counties had enacted bans or moratoriums — reflecting both the 2022 wave, in which voters in 23 of Oregon’s 36 counties and 111 of its 241 cities opted out, and additional 2024 elections in which 16 of 17 jurisdictions on the ballot approved new bans or converted temporary moratoriums into permanent prohibitions.⁸

Ownership restrictions (sunsetting): Initial residency requirements for majority ownership (more than 50% held by two-year Oregon residents) were operative through December 31, 2024, and then sunsetted — raising dormant Commerce Clause concerns during their operative period.⁹

Financial interest limitations (ORS 475A.280): Individuals may not have a financial interest in more than one psilocybin product manufacturer or more than five psilocybin service operators — provisions designed to prevent vertical integration and market concentration in the nascent industry.¹⁰

Data collection mandate (ORS 475A.372–.374): Senate Bill 303 (2023), codified at these sections, requires licensed service centers to collect and submit quarterly demographic and safety data, with OPS required to share de-identified data with Oregon Health & Science University and publish aggregate data publicly. This provision — added through subsequent legislative action rather than in the original ballot measure — is the most robust public data transparency requirement of any state psilocybin program.¹¹

B. Legislative Refinements: 2023–2025

The Oregon Legislature has enacted several bills modifying ORS Chapter 475A since program launch:

Oregon SB 965 (2023): Authorized OHA to adopt rules establishing minimum education and training requirements for psilocybin service facilitators.¹²

Oregon SB 303 (2023): Enacted the data collection and transparency framework now codified at ORS 475A.372 and .374.

Oregon HB 2387 (2025): Restructured the Oregon Psilocybin Advisory Board (OPAB) from its original composition to a nine-member body with specific representation requirements for tribal communities, mental health professionals, licensed service center operators, and licensed facilitators; required psilocybin product labels to disclose psilocin potency; expanded data collection requirements to include veteran status; and authorized information-sharing between OHA and regulatory boards for psilocybin-related investigations.¹³

III. Colorado: SB23-290 — The Natural Medicine Health Act Implementation Statute

A. Statutory Architecture

Colorado’s ballot initiative (Proposition 122, November 2022) was implemented through a formal legislative enactment, Senate Bill 23-290, signed by Governor Polis on May 23, 2023, and codified at C.R.S. §§ 12-170-101 et seq. (facilitators, DORA) and §§ 44-50-101 et seq. (businesses, DOR). SB23-290 replaced Proposition 122 as the operative statutory text and went into effect on July 1, 2023.¹⁴

The Colorado statute makes several structurally distinctive choices:

Personal use decriminalization (§ 12-170-104): Colorado decriminalizes personal use of natural medicine — defined to include psilocybin, psilocin, DMT, ibogaine, and mescaline (excluding peyote) — for adults 21 and older. Adults may possess, cultivate, and share small amounts outside the licensed system without criminal penalty, subject to conditions.¹⁵ Oregon’s framework does not include a comparable broad personal decriminalization provision.

Bifurcated agency jurisdiction (§§ 12-170-101 et seq. and 44-50-101 et seq.): DORA’s Division of Professions and Occupations licenses and regulates facilitators, while the Department of Revenue’s Natural Medicine Division licenses and regulates healing center businesses (cultivations, manufacturers, testing facilities, healing centers). This intentional bifurcation mirrors Colorado’s cannabis regulatory architecture.¹⁶

Multiple facilitator pathways (DORA rules): Unlike Oregon’s single facilitator license category, Colorado provides several pathways to facilitator licensure, including a standard Facilitator pathway requiring completion of a 150-hour Approved Training Program and 40 hours of supervised practice; a Clinical Facilitator pathway for holders of current valid Colorado professional licenses in medicine, psychology, nursing, or counseling; a Legacy Healer pathway for individuals with traditional or Indigenous backgrounds and substantially equivalent experience; a Training Facilitator pathway for those actively completing program requirements; and a Facilitator Endorsement pathway for individuals licensed in another jurisdiction.¹⁷

Substance expansion timeline (§ 12-170-111(b)): The statute limits the term “natural medicine” to psilocybin and psilocin only until June 1, 2026, after which the Natural Medicine Advisory Board may recommend expansion to include DMT, ibogaine, and mescaline.¹⁸

Local jurisdiction preemption (§§ 12-170-109, 44-50-101): Colorado’s statute restricts local governments from prohibiting natural medicine businesses from operating, prohibiting licensed transport, or adopting unreasonable ordinances — a more protective approach than Oregon’s explicit local opt-out mechanism. Municipalities retain broad zoning, time-place-manner, and public-health authority, but may not enact total bans.¹⁹

Federal law savings clause (Prop. 122, § 1, codified at C.R.S. § 12-170-111(k)): Colorado explicitly states the statute shall not be construed to exempt any person from federal law or enforcement of federal law — parallel to Oregon’s provision.²⁰

B. Legislative Refinements: 2023–2025

Colorado enacted three bills modifying the Natural Medicine Health Act during its first three years:

Colorado SB23-290 (2023, original): The initial implementation bill establishing the regulatory framework.

Colorado HB 25-1063 (2025): A bipartisan trigger bill that would remove synthesized crystalline polymorph psilocybin from Colorado’s Schedule I and II classifications upon FDA approval — creating automatic harmonization between state and federal law if FDA approves a pharmaceutical psilocybin product.²¹

Colorado SB 25-297 (2025): Signed June 3, 2025, directed the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment to collect de-identified data on natural medicine use from facilitators and healing centers, including demographics and health outcomes; clarified requirements for owner and employee licenses; and authorized the Governor to pardon convictions for state-level natural medicine possession offenses.²²

IV. New Mexico: SB 219 — The Medical Psilocybin Act

A. Statutory Structure

New Mexico Senate Bill 219, the Medical Psilocybin Act, was signed April 7, 2025, effective June 20, 2025, with full program implementation required by December 31, 2027, with health officials announcing plans for an accelerated timeline in December 2025.²³ The Act creates a clinician-administered medical program with the following key provisions:

Medical model (§ 3(B)): Access is limited to patients with qualifying conditions — major treatment-resistant depression, PTSD, substance use disorders, and end-of-life care — under the supervision of a licensed New Mexico clinician.²⁴ Unlike Oregon and Colorado, no lay facilitation track exists; only licensed healthcare professionals may administer psilocybin.

Qualifying conditions and expansion authority (§ 3(I)): The statute defines qualifying conditions but authorizes the Department of Health to approve additional conditions, providing administrative flexibility for program expansion as clinical evidence develops.²⁵

Natural rather than synthetic psilocybin (§ 3(G)): The Act defines psilocybin as the naturally occurring compound “and its pharmacologically active metabolite psilocin,” but expressly excludes “synthetic or synthetic analogs of psilocybin” — creating a natural-only access pathway that distinguishes the New Mexico program from pharmaceutical psilocybin development pathways.²⁶

FDA-approved product exemption (§ 4): Any FDA-approved product containing psilocybin is exempt from the Medical Psilocybin Act — creating a distinct legal track for pharmaceutical products that may enter the market through DEA rescheduling and FDA approval, without requiring amendment to the state program statute.²⁷

Research and equity funds (§§ 6–7): The Act creates a medical psilocybin research fund (with $500,000 appropriated to the University of New Mexico) and a treatment equity fund — unique statutory features not present in either Oregon or Colorado’s original enactments.²⁸

Annual assessment (§ 10): NMDOH is required to publish an annual assessment of the program — a durable statutory transparency obligation.

State scheduling amendment: The Act amends New Mexico’s Controlled Substances Act to remove psilocybin and psilocin from the state Schedule for purposes of qualifying medical treatment, providing clear state-law authorization for the program while preserving federal Schedule I status.²⁹

V. Emerging Legislative Patterns in the 2025 Wave

A. Volume and Diversity of Legislation

The 2025 legislative session generated the largest single-year surge in state-level psychedelic legislation in U.S. history, with more than 36 psychedelics-related bills introduced across more than a dozen states within the first month of the year alone.³⁰ Psychedelic Alpha’s analysis of early-2025 bills identified five principal bill types emerging across states:

1. Facilitated access programs modeled on Oregon or Colorado (Washington SB 5201, Massachusetts HD 4017/HD 4196, Illinois HB 1143)
2. Medical access programs requiring clinical oversight (New Mexico SB 219, Iowa HF 620 for PTSD treatment)
3. Decriminalization-only measures removing criminal penalties without creating access programs (Massachusetts H1858, Connecticut HB 6380, Minnesota HF 2699, Vermont S 120)
4. Rescheduling trigger bills creating automatic state reclassification upon FDA approval and DEA rescheduling (Colorado HB 25-1063, Iowa SSB 1177, Arizona SB 1555 as amended, Virginia SB 1135 [vetoed])
5. Research authorization and funding (Texas SB 2308, Indiana HB 1166, California AB 1103 [signed])³¹

B. The Minnesota Psychedelic Medicine Task Force Report

Minnesota’s Psychedelic Medicine Task Force, created by the legislature in 2023 and chaired by neuroscientist Jessica Nielson, issued a 191-page final report on January 1, 2025.³² By a two-thirds supermajority of its 23 members, the task force formally recommended: (1) creating a state-regulated clinical program for the therapeutic administration of psilocybin-containing medicine; (2) removing criminal penalties for the personal use and possession of psilocybin-containing mushrooms; and (3) allocating funding for research into the health benefits of MDMA, psilocybin, and LSD.³³

C. Texas Ibogaine Legislation

Texas enacted legislation in 2025 directing $50 million toward clinical trials of ibogaine — a psychoactive compound derived from the root of the African Tabernanthe iboga plant — for the treatment of opioid use disorder and related conditions. Governor Greg Abbott signed Senate Bill 2308 on June 11, 2025; companion legislation was enacted as House Bill 3717. Former Texas Governor Rick Perry, who serves as Chairman of the nonprofit Americans for Ibogaine, was a key advocate, alongside Navy SEAL veterans Marcus Luttrell and Marcus Capone.³⁴ The legislation represents a distinctive veteran-focused approach to psychedelic reform through research investment rather than program establishment.

D. Arizona Rescheduling Trigger Framework

Arizona enacted SB 1555 in 2025 as a rescheduling trigger law — replacing the original bill text that would have created a regulated psilocybin services program modeled on Oregon. When the House Health and Human Services Committee substituted trigger law language, Arizona became the first state to explicitly adopt an “FDA-first” strategy, requiring federal pharmaceutical approval before state-level access can be authorized. The Arizona FY2026 budget separately earmarked $5 million for ibogaine studies.³⁵

VI. Key Legislative Design Questions for Drafters

State legislatures considering psilocybin implementation statutes in 2026 and beyond face the following principal design questions, each of which generates distinct downstream regulatory and policy consequences:

1. Medical or non-medical model? The choice between Oregon’s non-medical facilitated access model and New Mexico’s clinician-administered medical model determines: who can administer services (lay facilitators vs. licensed clinicians); whether insurance coverage is a near-term possibility; the federal preemption risk profile; and the equity implications for underserved communities.

2. Single or bifurcated agency? Oregon’s single-agency (OHA) model provides clearer accountability; Colorado’s DORA/DOR bifurcation provides domain expertise separation but creates coordination challenges. New legislation should explicitly address inter-agency enforcement coordination.

3. Personal decriminalization? Colorado’s broad personal decriminalization provision is absent from Oregon and New Mexico. States must decide whether to decriminalize personal use separately from program authorization, and whether to include synthetic psilocybin and other psychedelics in decriminalization provisions.

4. Local opt-out or preemption? Oregon’s local opt-out approach has led to significant geographic concentration of services; Colorado’s local preemption model has produced more even geographic distribution. States with politically heterogeneous constituencies face pressure to include opt-out provisions; states with strong legislative coalitions may adopt preemption approaches.

5. Substance scope? Oregon limits the program to psilocybin derived from Psilocybe cubensis. Colorado’s phased approach begins with psilocybin/psilocin and expands to DMT, ibogaine, and mescaline from June 1, 2026. New Mexico excludes synthetic psilocybin. These choices have significant supply chain, testing, and regulatory complexity implications.

6. FDA trigger provisions? States are increasingly designing statutory provisions that automatically adjust state law upon FDA approval of pharmaceutical psilocybin, recognizing that FDA approval would fundamentally alter the legal and regulatory landscape. This approach reduces the duration of statutory conflict with federal law.

7. Key legislative gaps in the current landscape? Beyond design choices, state legislatures face several areas where current statutes are materially incomplete. No state has enacted a malpractice liability standard for psilocybin facilitation: OAR 333-333-5120 requires facilitators to use “a standard of care that other reasonable facilitators would use under similar circumstances,” but no statute or rule specifies what that standard requires or who may bring a claim.³⁶ No state has addressed facilitator licensing reciprocity: a facilitator licensed in Oregon cannot practice in Colorado without completing Colorado’s training requirements, and vice versa — a friction point as the practitioner community matures. No state has enacted provisions governing client data privacy beyond the minimum data collection frameworks in SB 303 (Oregon) and SB 25-297 (Colorado): whether HIPAA applies to psilocybin service records, and what protections exist for clients disclosing mental health history to a non-clinical facilitator, remain unresolved in all three programs.³⁷

VII. Recommendations for Legislative Counsel

Include a clear savings clause explicitly acknowledging federal law enforcement authority, consistent with Oregon (ORS 475A.215(7)) and Colorado (C.R.S. § 12-170-111(k)).

Build statutory data collection requirements directly into the enabling statute rather than relying on subsequent legislative action, as Oregon was required to do with SB 303.

Design annual assessment and public reporting obligations into the statute, as New Mexico did in SB 219 § 10, ensuring durable transparency without requiring annual appropriations fights.

Include an FDA trigger provision automatically aligning state scheduling with any future DEA rescheduling decision, both reducing conflict and eliminating the need for emergency legislative sessions when federal law changes.

Establish clear inter-agency enforcement coordination requirements if the program uses a bifurcated agency model — specifying how DORA-equivalent and DOR-equivalent agencies will coordinate on enforcement actions involving both facilitators and licensed businesses.

Address Indigenous consultation explicitly, as Colorado’s SB23-290 did through the Federally Recognized American Tribes and Indigenous Community Working Group and mandatory advisory board representation.³⁸ Oregon’s framework has been criticized by Indigenous practitioners for failing to adequately address the cultural origins of psilocybin use, potential misappropriation of Indigenous ceremonial practices within a commercial framework, and the exclusion of traditional knowledge-holders from the regulatory process. New Mexico’s SB 219 requires tribal community representation on the Medical Psilocybin Advisory Board.³⁹ Future legislation should establish formal tribal consultation requirements prior to rulemaking, create set-aside advisory board seats for tribal representatives, and include explicit anti-misappropriation provisions addressing the commercialization of ceremonially significant plant medicines.⁴⁰

Endnotes

¹ Comprehensive Drug Abuse Prevention and Control Act of 1970, Pub. L. No. 91-513, 84 Stat. 1242 (1970); Psychedelic Alpha, 2025’s Psychedelic Policy Surge: A State-by-State, Bill-by-Bill Analysis (Jan. 31, 2025), https://psychedelicalpha.com/news/2025s-psychedelic-policy-surge-a-state-by-state-bill-by-bill-analysis (more than 36 bills introduced in first month of 2025 session).

² Ballotpedia, Oregon Measure 109, Psilocybin Mushroom Services Program Initiative (2020) (55.75% approval), https://ballotpedia.org/Oregon_Measure_109,Psilocybin_Mushroom_Services_Program_Initiative(2020); Ballotpedia, Colorado Proposition 122, Decriminalization and Regulated Access Program for Certain Psychedelic Plants and Fungi Initiative (2022), https://ballotpedia.org/Colorado_Proposition_122,Decriminalization_and_Regulated_Access_Program_for_Certain_Psychedelic_Plants_and_Fungi_Initiative(2022).

³ Foley & Lardner LLP, New Mexico Becomes Third State in the U.S. to Legalize Access to Psilocybin (Apr. 9, 2025), https://www.foley.com/insights/publications/2025/04/new-mexico-becomes-third-state-us-legalize-access-psilocybin/ (noting New Mexico “is the first state to do so through legislation”).

⁴ Id. (House vote 56-8 with 6 abstentions; Senate vote 33-4 with 5 abstentions); see also Cannacore Group, New Mexico Charts a New Path with the Medical Psilocybin Act (Apr. 15, 2025), https://www.cannacoregrp.com/blog/new-mexico-charts-a-new-path-with-the-medical-psilocybin-act/ (confirming vote tallies).

⁵ Or. Rev. Stat. §§ 475A.290 (manufacturer), .305 (service center operator), .325 (facilitator); Oregon Legislature, ORS Chapter 475A: Psilocybin Regulation, https://www.oregonlegislature.gov/bills_laws/ors/ors475a.html; see also Justia, Oregon Revised Statutes Chapter 475A (2023), https://law.justia.com/codes/oregon/volume-14/chapter-475a/ (listing all statutory provisions).

⁶ Or. Rev. Stat. § 475A.305(1)(b); ASTHO, State Policies Supporting Evidence-Based Therapeutic Psilocybin Use, https://www.astho.org/communications/blog/state-policies-supporting-evidence-based-therapeutic-psilocybin-use/.

⁷ Or. Rev. Stat. § 475A.215(7); DLA Piper, State Psychedelic Regulation: Oregon and Colorado Taking the Lead (Jan. 2023), https://www.dlapiper.com/en/insights/publications/2023/01/state-psychedelic-regulation-oregon-and-colorado-taking-the-lead.

⁸ Oregon Health Authority, Oregon Psilocybin Services, https://www.oregon.gov/oha/PH/PREVENTIONWELLNESS/Pages/psilocybin-services.aspx (primary source for ban and moratorium jurisdictions); OPB, Psilocybin Bans Were on the Ballot in 17 Places in Oregon. They Passed in All But One (Nov. 7, 2024), https://www.opb.org/article/2024/11/07/psilocybin-ban-mushroom-hallucinogenic-ballot-politics-elections-oregon/ (reporting that 16 of 17 jurisdictions on the 2024 ballot approved new bans or converted temporary moratoriums into permanent prohibitions).

⁹ Harris Sliwoski LLP, Oregon Psilocybin: Preparing for the End of Local Ownership Rules (2024), https://harris-sliwoski.com/psychlawblog/oregon-psilocybin-preparing-for-the-end-of-local-ownership-rules/ (noting residency requirement “was likely unconstitutional from the start”).

¹⁰ Or. Rev. Stat. § 475A.280; DLA Piper, supra note 7.

¹¹ Or. Rev. Stat. §§ 475A.372 and 475A.374; Oregon Health Authority, Oregon Psilocybin Services – Senate Bill 303 and Data Collection Information, https://www.oregon.gov/oha/PH/PREVENTIONWELLNESS/Pages/Psilocybin-SB303-and-Data-Collection.aspx.

¹² ASTHO, supra note 6 (“Oregon SB 965 authorized OHA to adopt rules establishing minimum education and training requirements for psilocybin service facilitators”).

¹³ The Marijuana Herald, Oregon House Unanimously Approves Bill Expanding Psilocybin Access and Oversight (Apr. 15, 2025), https://themarijuanaherald.com/2025/04/oregon-house-unanimously-approves-bill-expanding-psilocybin-access-and-oversight/.

¹⁴ Vicente LLP, The Ultimate Guide to Colorado’s Natural Medicine Health Act (SB23-290), https://vicentellp.com/insights/ultimate-guide-to-sb23290-colorado-natural-medicine-psychedelics-regulation-and-legalization-bill/ (SB23-290 signed May 23, 2023; effective July 1, 2023); Colorado General Assembly, SB23-290 Natural Medicine Regulation and Legalization, https://leg.colorado.gov/bills/sb23-290 (confirming Governor approval May 23, 2023; effective July 1, 2023).

¹⁵ Vicente LLP, supra note 14 (describing personal use decriminalization provisions for psilocybin, psilocin, ibogaine, DMT, and mescaline excluding peyote).

¹⁶ Colorado Department of Natural Medicine, About, https://dnm.colorado.gov/; Colorado Dep’t of Regulatory Agencies, Colorado Natural Medicine Homepage, https://dpo.colorado.gov/NaturalMedicine.

¹⁷ Colorado Dep’t of Regulatory Agencies, Division of Professions and Occupations, Natural Medicine Frequently Asked Questions, https://dpo.colorado.gov/NaturalMedicine/FAQ (describing standard Facilitator, Clinical Facilitator, and Legacy Healer pathways); Colorado Dep’t of Regulatory Agencies, Natural Medicine Program: Individual Applications and Forms, https://dpo.colorado.gov/NaturalMedicine/IndividualApplications (listing all pathway types, including Training Facilitator and Facilitator Endorsement pathways).

¹⁸ Colorado Dep’t of Regulatory Agencies, Natural Medicine Health Act — DORA Implementation Timeframe, https://dpo.colorado.gov/NaturalMedicine/Implementation (substance expansion from June 1, 2026 following Natural Medicine Advisory Board recommendation).

¹⁹ Snell & Wilmer LLP, Colorado’s Magic Mushroom Industry Has Officially Arrived (Oct. 31, 2025), https://www.swlaw.com/publication/colorados-magic-mushroom-industry-has-officially-arrived/ (describing municipal licensing requirements and state preemption of total bans).

²⁰ Colorado Proposition 122, § 1, codified at C.R.S. § 12-170-111(k); DLA Piper, supra note 7.

²¹ CPR News, Colorado Bipartisan Trigger Bill on Synthetic Psilocybin Passes First Hearing (Jan. 14, 2025), https://www.cpr.org/2025/01/14/colorado-medical-psilocybin-bill-first-hearing/ (HB 25-1063 passing committee 12-1); Colorado General Assembly, HB25-1063 FDA-Approved Crystalline Polymorph Psilocybin Use, https://leg.colorado.gov/bills/hb25-1063.

²² Colorado General Assembly, SB25-297: Implementation of Colorado Natural Medicine Initiative, https://leg.colorado.gov/bills/sb25-297 (signed June 3, 2025; directing CDPHE data collection and authorizing pardons); Denver Westword, New Colorado Law Enables Psychedelic Pardons, Statewide Study (June 12, 2025), https://www.westword.com/news/new-colorado-law-enables-psychedelic-pardons-statewide-study-24354965/.

²³ 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/ (reporting health officials’ plans for an accelerated timeline; full program implementation otherwise required by December 31, 2027).

²⁴ New Mexico SB 219, Medical Psilocybin Act (2025), § 3(B) and § 3(I), full text at https://www.nmlegis.gov/Sessions/25%20Regular/bills/senate/SB0219.HTML.

²⁵ New Mexico SB 219, supra note 24, § 3(I) (authorizing NMDOH to approve additional qualifying conditions).

²⁶ Id., § 3(G) (defining psilocybin as naturally occurring compound, excluding synthetic or synthetic analogs).

²⁷ Id., § 4 (FDA-approved products exempt from Medical Psilocybin Act).

²⁸ End of Life Options New Mexico, Medical Psilocybin Act Signed into Law!, https://endoflifeoptionsnm.org/medical-psilocybin-act-signed-into-law/.

²⁹ Foley & Lardner LLP, supra note 3 (Act “amends the Controlled Substances Act to remove psilocybin and psilocin from the schedule for purposes of qualified medical treatment”).

³⁰ Psychedelic Alpha, supra note 1.

³¹ UC Berkeley Center for the Science of Psychedelics, Law and Policy Map (current through Dec. 2025), https://psychedelics.berkeley.edu/law-and-policy-map/; Psychedelic Alpha, March 2025’s Psychedelic Policy Momentum (Apr. 9, 2025), https://psychedelicalpha.com/news/march-2025s-psychedelic-policy-momentum-new-bills-filed-across-the-u-s-as-nearly-30-states-deliberate-reforms.

³² Minnesota Psychedelic Medicine Task Force, Legislative Report (Jan. 1, 2025), https://www.lrl.mn.gov/docs/2024/mandated/241756.pdf (191-page final report; 23-member task force chaired by neuroscientist Jessica Nielson).

³³ Id. (three recommendations passed by two-thirds supermajority: state-regulated clinical psilocybin program; decriminalization of personal use and possession of psilocybin mushrooms; research funding for MDMA, psilocybin, and LSD).

³⁴ Office of the Texas Governor, Governor Abbott Signs Ibogaine Treatment Research Law at Texas Capitol (June 11, 2025), https://gov.texas.gov/news/post/governor-abbott-signs-ibogaine-treatment-research-law-at-texas-capitol; VETS, Press Release: Texas Launches Largest Publicly-Funded Psychedelic Research Initiative in History (May 22, 2025), https://vetsolutions.org/news/press-release-texas-launches-largest-publicly-funded-psychedelic-research-initiative-in-history-with-50-million-investment-in-ibogaine/ (Texas HB 3717 and SB 2308 directing $50 million for ibogaine clinical trials; former Governor Perry serving as Chairman of Americans for Ibogaine; Navy SEAL veterans Marcus Luttrell and Marcus Capone as advocates).

³⁵ UC Berkeley, Law and Policy Map, supra note 31 (describing Arizona SB 1555 as amended into a rescheduling trigger bill; $5 million for ibogaine studies in FY2026 Arizona budget).

³⁶ Or. Admin. R. 333-333-5120 (2025) (Facilitator Conduct; establishing “standard of care that other reasonable facilitators would use under similar circumstances” without specifying the content of that standard, expert witness qualifications, or available remedies), https://secure.sos.state.or.us/oard/displayDivisionRules.action?selectedDivision=7102.

³⁷ Or. Rev. Stat. § 475A.372 (SB 303 Oregon data collection framework); Colorado General Assembly, SB25-297, supra note 22 (Colorado data de-identification and collection requirements); Colorado Dep’t of Regulatory Agencies, Natural Medicine Frequently Asked Questions, https://dpo.colorado.gov/NaturalMedicine/FAQ (DORA FAQ addressing data and privacy questions under the Colorado program; HIPAA applicability to non-clinical psilocybin service records not addressed).

³⁸ C.R.S. § 12-170-107 (Colorado Federally Recognized American Tribes and Indigenous Community Working Group; mandatory advisory board representation for tribal and Indigenous communities).

³⁹ New Mexico SB 219, supra note 24, § 5 (Medical Psilocybin Advisory Board composition requiring tribal community representation).

⁴⁰ Harvard Law, Petrie-Flom Center, When the Promises of a Policy Do Not Meet the Reality of Its Practice: Ethical Issues Within Oregon’s Measure 109 (Feb. 12, 2024), https://petrieflom.law.harvard.edu/2024/02/12/when-the-promises-of-a-policy-do-not-meet-the-reality-of-its-practice-ethical-issues-within-oregons-measure-109/ (analyzing Oregon program’s failure to engage Indigenous practitioners in rulemaking and the cultural appropriation risks of commercializing plant medicines with ceremonial significance in Indigenous traditions).