The trial would seek approval of ibogaine as a treatment for opioid use disorder, depression, post-traumatic stress disorder, and other behavioral health conditions, especially those suffered by military veterans. If the FDA approves ibogaine to treat a medical condition, the legislation would allow licensed physicians to prescribe ibogaine administration for a patient under supervision.  

The post Proposed Model Policy: “Veterans Mental Health Innovations Act”  appeared first on Reason Foundation.

State-based research and clinical trials

• After years of advocacy by veterans’ organizations and researchers, a bipartisan coalition of state legislators in Texas voted to fund ibogaine research programs (Texas Senate Bill 2308). In 2025, Texas launched a multimillion-dollar endeavor that will allow any state that enacts the VMHI to join the effort on ibogaine clinical trials.
• The most effective way to ensure those in need benefit from ibogaine is to conduct clinical trials using ibogaine as an investigational new drug. Clinical trials are a costly and lengthy endeavor for any one entity, but through VMHI, multiple states will conduct their own local trials, advancing a single unified application to the Food and Drug Administration (FDA).
• Under the VMHI, each participating state selects and funds a research grantee of their choice to conduct ibogaine clinical trials locally with in-state participants.

Multistate collaboration and shared success

• A multistate consortium allows states with limited resources to take part in what could be nearly a billion-dollar endeavor. This public effort to conduct FDA-approved clinical trials will be in partnership with a private drug developer, which will assume financial risk and responsibility for advancing the treatment through the clinical trial process. 
• Under VHMI, states retain the long-term benefits of the research they fund. Instead of handing over value to pharmaceutical companies, the bill keeps the research and development process rooted locally and ensures states are compensated if an application is successful.

Federal government and the role of the FDA

• Ibogaine is deemed a Schedule I drug by the federal government. Engaging in FDA-approved research is the surest way to prove its medicinal and treatment value.
• Once ibogaine is approved by the FDA to treat a medical condition, the VMHI would allow licensed physicians to prescribe ibogaine administration for a patient under supervision.
• The VMHI leaves direct engagement with the FDA to the drug developer, eliminating the need for states to navigate the complex clinical trial application process.

The model legislation for the Veterans Mental Health Innovations Act is available below. The template is designed to be easily adapted by states, with the sections that need customization highlighted.

The post Model legislation would authorize groundbreaking research into ibogaine for mental health appeared first on Reason Foundation.

• Ibogaine is a psychoactive alkaloid from the western Central African iboga shrub that can rapidly reduce, and sometimes eliminate, opioid withdrawal and craving symptoms within a single dose.
• Ibogaine is a potential breakthrough treatment for opioid use disorder (OUD) due to its unique ability to heal the neurochemical brain injury caused by opioid use and alleviate withdrawal symptoms.
• Opioid withdrawal syndrome (OWS) is the debilitating physical and neurological symptoms that are induced by the cessation of opioid consumption.
• Ibogaine has shown promising results in resolving OWS within 36 to 48 hours of administration under safe, clinically controlled conditions.

Ibogaine could reduce lifetime direct costs of OUD by nearly 90%

• A growing body of research suggests that ibogaine treatment for opioid use disorder (OUD) could be significantly more cost-effective than traditional medication-assisted treatments (MATs), such as methadone and buprenorphine (suboxone).
• Unlike MATs—which require long-term, or even lifelong, use—ibogaine offers a clear root-cause intervention, capable of disrupting OUD within a single dose. In one study, 30% achieved complete opioid abstinence after only one ibogaine session.
• Patients who discontinue MATs often relapse when opioid withdrawal and craving symptoms return. MAT success is therefore measured on program retention (or continuation) instead of abstinence.
• The comparative cost-analysis below predicts that ibogaine treatment for OUD could reduce the 20-year direct lifetime costs of MATs involving methadone and buprenorphine by 87% and 86%. Concurrently, this analysis reveals just how quickly per-patient costs for MATs exceed $100,000.

Cost-Effectiveness for OUD Treatment: Ibogaine vs. MATs

Download the full backgrounder here:

The post Ibogaine could transform public spending on opioid treatment appeared first on Reason Foundation.

Opioid settlement funds have already been used for concerts, law enforcement equipment, and budget backfilling, among other purposes. These uses fall short of the settlements’ intent to remediate the crisis. With billions still to be spent over the next decade, it is crucial to establish better financial controls and reporting structures for the use of these funds to ensure they are deployed transparently, efficiently, and in compliance with their legal restrictions to advance evidence-based interventions proven to save lives.

The opioid epidemic has claimed more than 800,000 lives since 1999. As the crisis intensified, policymakers and the public sought to identify its causes. State and local governments filed thousands of lawsuits against opioid manufacturers, distributors, and retailers, accusing them of fueling the epidemic through misleading marketing and inadequate oversight. These lawsuits ultimately led to the national settlement agreements.  More than a dozen companies that manufactured, distributed, or aided in the prescription of painkillers, including McKinsey, Johnson & Johnson, Walgreens, CVS, and Walmart, reached settlements totaling approximately $50 billion, to be distributed to various state and local governments over nearly two decades.

The settlements stipulate that funds must be used to support opioid prevention, treatment, and recovery efforts. However, since receiving the funds, many jurisdictions have not provided the transparency, accountability, and prioritization of evidence-based strategies that genuinely address the needs of those most impacted by the crisis. Each state receives a designated portion of the national settlement based on factors such as opioid-related deaths, the volume of opioids shipped, and population size, with funds then subdivided between state agencies and local jurisdictions according to negotiated formulas.

To guide spending, the National Opioid Settlement Agreement includes Exhibit E, which stipulates a non-exhaustive list of approved uses centered on prevention, treatment, and recovery from opioid addiction, and harm reduction programs. States must allocate at least 70% of settlement funds toward these opioid remediation efforts, and some have gone further by committing to use 100% of their funds accordingly. The remaining 30% is allocated as follows: up to 15% for administrative costs and up to 15% for any other purpose.

Core priorities for the use of these funds include developing prevention efforts through supporting different evidence-based education programs; expanding training and increasing access to naloxone, a life-saving opioid overdose reversal medication; increasing education around and the availability of medication-assisted treatment (MAT) such as methadone and buprenorphine or other opioid-related treatment; supporting syringe service programs that reduce the spread of HIV and other infectious diseases through clean syringe distribution; and investing in wraparound services that offer coordinated, comprehensive care for individuals in recovery. Other allowable uses involve peer recovery support, workforce development, care for pregnant and postpartum individuals, and programs addressing the needs of those in the criminal justice system. The strategies listed are evidence-informed and designed to respond to the drivers and consequences of the crisis directly.

While the settlement agreement outlines preferred uses with an emphasis on remediation, the guidelines leave significant room for interpretation—creating wiggle room for states and localities to circumvent evidence-based treatment entirely.

This is what has happened in New Jersey, where state investigators uncovered how the Township of Irvington exploited the flexibility of the guidelines to fund events that had little connection to harm reduction, addiction treatment, or public health.

A report from the New Jersey Office of the State Comptroller revealed that over $632,000 was spent on two “Opioid Awareness” concerts in 2023 and 2024. As reported, thousands were spent on “generators, an ice maker, popcorn machine, cotton candy machine, four flavors of shaved ice, a hot food display stand, and catered food.” These events included celebrity performers and DJ sets. One township employee, Antoine Richardson, received $368,500 in unaccounted payments and steered nearly $470,000 in contracts to businesses linked to himself and his wife. The report concluded that Irvington’s actions violated the intent of the settlement and referred the matter to several state agencies for further review.

There have been issues elsewhere in how the funds have been spent. Scott County, Indiana, used over $250,000 to pay salaries for health and emergency services staff, effectively freeing up their local budget to buy a new ambulance and build a financial cushion for the health department. This is achieved through supplantation, where new dollars are used to fund existing programs, thereby making more general fund revenues available for governments to spend as they wish. This practice is not explicitly prohibited in Exhibit E of the settlement fund agreements. Still, it serves as a workaround that can undermine the intended goal of building service capacity through these funds. A similar example occurred in New York, where advocates noted that the state shifted millions from its addiction agency’s base budget and replaced it with opioid settlement dollars—substituting existing funding rather than using the settlement funds to enhance care. Blair County, Pennsylvania, directed $320,000 toward a long-standing drug court, using the funds in part to cover salary shortfalls for probation officers and aides due to limited state grants and probation fee revenue, rather than investing in new or expanded services.

Other states have directed the money toward law enforcement. Southington, Connecticut, used $18,000 to buy cellphone-unlocking technology for police. Ohio County, Ohio, spent nearly $43,000 on new K-9 and EMT equipment. Michigan counties, including Kalamazoo and St. Clair, purchased jail body scanners, infrastructure that experts argue should be funded through general law enforcement budgets. In West Virginia, $364 million, which is more than half of the state’s total opioid settlement spending for the year, went to police vehicles, jail bills, and salaries, while just 6% supported treatment and recovery. Jackson County took this further by using 90% of its $566,000 allocation to expand a first responder training center, including building a shooting range.

Although the opioid settlements stipulate that funds should be used for specific opioid remediation purposes, they contain no binding requirements, enforcement mechanisms, or clawback provisions if jurisdictions misuse the money. Oversight is left entirely to state and local discretion. Each state executed its own Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) defining how funds are distributed and what reporting, if any, is required.

As much of these funds currently remain unspent, it is incumbent on state and local governments to enact better financial controls and reporting mechanisms to ensure money is used consistently with its designated purpose—remediating the effects of the opioid epidemic.

Uncommitted settlement funds across states

According to the Johns Hopkins Opioid Settlement Expenditures Tracker*—developed by Johns Hopkins, Shatterproof, and KFF Health News—roughly one-third of the opioid settlement dollars tracked from 2022 to 2023 were allocated for specific uses.

The share of funds with reported uses varies significantly by state. Many states provide only limited information, leaving large portions of their initial allocations—sometimes more than 75%—without clear documentation of intended use. By contrast, a handful of states, such as Colorado, Washington, and Delaware, have published detailed reports showing how funds are being allocated.

Most settlement agreements do not require states or localities to publicly disclose how they spend the funds awarded to them. Twelve states had initially pledged to be “100% transparent,” meaning they would report on every dollar of settlement funds and how it is used. Only a few have followed through.

Among the handful of states that provide accessible and detailed descriptions of their uses of the funds is the state of Minnesota, which has a dashboard allowing anyone to track what will be done with the $117 million awarded. The dashboard breaks spending down by county, outlining who received the money, for what purpose, whether the grantee is using an evidence-based program, and the outcome of this spending.

Other dashboards include those maintained by the states of Michigan, New York, and North Carolina. New Jersey and Indiana, instead, publish annual reports outlining county-level spending.

Lessons from the tobacco settlement

The 1998 Tobacco Master Settlement Agreement (MSA) is the closest precedent to today’s opioid settlements, serving as an important cautionary tale. The MSA was a deal between four major tobacco companies and 46 states (plus D.C. and American territories). In exchange for releasing the companies from future Medicaid lawsuits related to smoking-related illnesses, the firms agreed to modify their marketing practices and make annual payments to the states in perpetuity, tied to cigarette sales.

Although the MSA was intended to offset public health costs and fund smoking prevention, it placed no restrictions on how states used the money. Most legislatures diverted payments into general budgets, infrastructure, or debt service rather than public health.

According to a United States Government Accountability Office Report, from Fiscal Years 2000 through 2005, the 46 states party to the MSA received $52.6 billion in tobacco settlement payments. However, only 30% of the funds were allocated to health care, and another 3.5% to tobacco prevention. The rest was split between covering budget shortfalls (22%), debt service on securitized funds (5.4%), infrastructure (6%), education (5.5%), tax reductions (1%), and others.

States are still receiving these settlements. According to the Kaiser Family Foundation, states received $6.8 billion from the MSA in 2024. 

Several states securitized the future tobacco settlement cash streams, which means selling the right to receive years of cash flows for a smaller upfront amount, while also passing to bondholders the risk that the companies settled with may not honor the agreed-upon future payment streams, or that tobacco sales would be lower than expected.

This practice is already under discussion for opioid settlements. Some municipalities, such as the Wisconsin Counties Association, have considered securitizing their opioid settlement funds, which would enable them to capture upfront the payment stream that extends through 2038 at a discount.

Securitization is problematic because it trades decades of future remediation dollars for a one-time cash infusion at a steep discount. Governments forfeit long-term funding streams that could sustain treatment and prevention infrastructure. The tobacco experience showed that securitization left many states with little or no settlement revenue in later years, even as smoking-related harms persisted.

Local officials may also be tempted to invest opioid bond proceeds, anticipating that market returns will surpass debt service costs—an approach akin to pension obligation bonds, which carries significant risks.

The outcomes of the tobacco settlement provide clear lessons for the use of opioid settlement funds: Absent binding guardrails and rigorous transparency, both state and local governments face strong incentives to divert or front-load funds in ways that undermine their intended purpose.

Policy recommendations for strengthening opioid settlement spending

When governments are entrusted with funds to address the opioid crisis, they take on a moral obligation to act accordingly. That means investing in what works: expanded access to medication-assisted treatment, naloxone distribution and education, syringe service programs, recovery housing models, and other approaches rooted in evidence and outlined in Exhibit E, including the development of potentially novel treatments.

Misallocating these dollars undercuts both public health outcomes and fiscal responsibility. When rehabilitation-eligible interventions are underfunded, communities miss out on life-saving programs like MAT and harm reduction. Instead, overdose deaths rise, and criminal justice systems bear the cost of repeated recidivism. By contrast, well-targeted settlement spending has the potential to save lives, strengthen communities, and ease the burden on public systems.

Below are recommendations to ensure that the awarded funds are used effectively.

1. Discourage supplantation through clear spending principles

Supplantation, or using settlement funds to replace existing public health dollars, weakens the impact of these resources. State budget officials and attorneys general should issue clear guidance encouraging local governments to deploy settlement funds as a supplemental expansion of care rather than an alternate method of financing existing services.

2. Prioritize external providers for efficiency

Governments should prioritize contracting with external providers rather than providing harm reduction services themselves. Building new publicly operated service programs tends to be costly and slow, while specialized providers are likely to deliver evidence-based care more efficiently and at lower cost.

Partnering with external providers also reduces the risk of budget supplantation, ensuring settlement dollars fund new services rather than displace existing expenditures. Service providers who receive these funds should be held accountable for their use and required to provide an independent auditor’s report detailing the use of these funds if they exceed a minimum threshold. For instance, recipients of federal grants in excess of $750,000 in any year must complete a federal single audit to account for the use of those funds.

3. Prohibit securitization

States should consider adopting explicit bans on securitizing opioid settlement revenues—that is, selling the right to future payments in exchange for upfront cash.

While securitization may appear to offer immediate budget relief, the tobacco settlement experience has shown that it strips away long-term remediation funding, often resulting in communities losing access to dollars even as their needs persist. Prohibiting securitization ensures that settlement payments remain available over time to sustain treatment, prevention, and recovery infrastructure, rather than being consumed in a single budget cycle.

4. Support voluntary frameworks for evidence-based spending

State governments can offer spending guidelines that prioritize effective, research-based strategies such as medication-assisted treatment, naloxone access, syringe service programs, and recovery housing. These frameworks should be developed with input from people with lived experience and members of the affected community to ensure they reflect real needs and can be adapted to local contexts. Highlighting these approaches helps localities focus on interventions that directly reduce harm and improve recovery outcomes.

5. Increase spending transparency

Local governments should regularly publish clear and accessible data showing how settlement funds are spent and what goals they aim to achieve. This can be achieved through either interactive dashboards, such as those used by the state of Minnesota, or yearly reports, as seen in the states of New Jersey and Indiana.

6. Allocate a portion of funds to innovative and emerging treatments

To drive long-term progress in addiction care, state and local governments should dedicate a portion of opioid settlement funds to support the research, development, and piloting of innovative treatment modalities. This includes exploring the therapeutic potential of ibogaine, a psychedelic alkaloid showing promise in interrupting opioid dependence, and GLP-1 receptor agonists, initially developed for diabetes and weight loss, which are being studied for their ability to reduce drug cravings and compulsive use. While more clinical trials are needed, strategic investment in these areas can help expand the future treatment toolkit beyond traditional approaches. Prioritizing innovation ensures that settlements can remediate current harms and foster breakthroughs that reshape addiction care for the next generation.

7. Invite independent spending reviews

Localities can partner with independent institutions to review how funds are allocated and whether spending aligns with the original purpose of the settlements. These reviews help identify areas for improvement and add an extra layer of accountability without requiring new laws or regulations.

8. Include community voices in spending decisions

People affected by addiction should have a role in shaping how funds are used. Community input ensures that spending decisions reflect local needs and improve outcomes for those most directly impacted.

The opioid settlements present a real opportunity to reshape how states support addiction care. Real impact comes from honest reporting, directing funds toward new and innovative treatment options, and strengthening what already exists on the ground. Many harm reduction and recovery programs already serve their communities, sometimes without formal recognition or support. These funds can help legitimize and expand their reach while empowering new groups to fill gaps where services do not yet exist. When used this way, the money can build sustainable systems that save lives and restore trust. The choices made now will determine whether these funds drive lasting progress or fade into missed potential.

*Correction: This piece has been updated to reflect that the data used from the Johns Hopkins Opioid Settlement Expenditures Tracker shows settlement funds received and committed in 2022–2023, not cumulative totals as previously described.

The post Best practices to prevent misuse of opioid settlement funds appeared first on Reason Foundation.

• DEA petition to reschedule psilocybin
• Reason testimony on ibogaine in Mississippi
• FDA releases MDMA decision
• Interview for a new book on psychedelics

DEA petition requests psilocybin rescheduling

The Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) has requested that the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) review the scheduling of psilocybin under the Controlled Substances Act. This means that the federal government could choose to change psilocybin from Schedule I (where all use is banned) to a lower schedule (where use may be allowed under certain guidelines).

Schedules III through V are for approved pharmaceuticals subject to varying levels of controlled access. Companies or individuals that traffic in these substances can access basic financial services and are not subject to special penalties on their federal income taxes, even if state laws allowing the sale of these substances differ from federal law. A key takeaway of the potential change is that psilocybin service centers in state-regulated markets, such as Oregon, would be able to deduct business expenses on their federal income taxes under the “ordinary and necessary” standard that applies to most businesses.

This request from the DEA follows a protracted legal battle by proponents, including Sunil Aggarwal, a Washington State-based doctor, who sought to treat a patient with psilocybin under “Right to Try,” a federal law that permits the use of drugs not approved by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) under certain conditions. There is no word yet from HHS regarding when or how it will respond to the DEA’s request. Legally, the U.S. attorney general has the authority to change the status of a drug, provided that DEA and HHS have jointly considered a number of factors outlined in statute.

Reason testimony in the state roundup

Reason Foundation’s Geoff Lawrence traveled to Mississippi to testify during a hearing related to ibogaine. Lawrence discussed the medical benefits of ibogaine as a potential treatment for opioid addiction. He also discussed recent states that have approved millions of dollars in funding for clinical trials involving ibogaine, such as those in Texas and Arizona.

These public grants could contribute enough funding to take ibogaine through the initial phase of the Food and Drug Administration’s (FDA) drug approval process.

Read this and more about state-level policies in the state round-up here.

FDA releases rejection decision

The FDA has released details of its decision to reject a New Drug Application for MDMA. Last August, the FDA made headlines for rejecting the application of Lykos, a pharmaceutical company that had long been the frontrunner for medicalizing psychedelics with a patented version of MDMA for the treatment of post-traumatic stress disorder. The Multidisciplinary Association of Psychedelic Sciences (MAPS) published a critique of the decision, arguing that the FDA “moved the goal posts” on the clinical trial design.

According to MAPS, the FDA was fully aware of many of the limitations when it greenlit the organization’s clinical trial design. For instance, the FDA was ultimately concerned that too many participants ”broke” blinding because they were able to guess whether they received the drug or a placebo. Genuine blinding is a gold standard of clinical trials, but a challenge with mental health-related drugs that have acute effects (like potent psychedelics).

The FDA is now requiring more research. MAPS leadership had created a for-profit company, Lykos, to conduct the trials. Currently, it is unknown if and how Lykos will address these challenges in further research.

Book interview

Reason Magazine Editor-at-Large Nick Gillespie interviewed Joe Dolce about his new book, Modern Psychedelics: The Handbook for Mindful Exploration. Dolce argues that psychedelics have moved from an obscure interest of the counterculture to a mainstream treatment.

“No matter what happens, people are going to use these substances,” says Dolce, when asked about possible legalization policies. Gillespie noted that better public policies would help users make more informed decisions.

The post Psychedelics Policy Newsletter: DEA considers rescheduling psilocybin, FDA releases rejection decision, and more appeared first on Reason Foundation.

Kentucky

On Aug. 27, the Interim Joint Committee on Health Services discussed whether Kentucky should join a multi-state collaborative to conduct clinical trials of ibogaine as a treatment for certain neurological conditions, including opioid addiction. In 2023, the Kentucky Opioid Abatement Advisory Commission first broached the idea of directing a portion of the state’s opioid settlement funds toward ibogaine research to develop a novel, and potentially far more effective, treatment than what is currently available. That initiative was scrapped after a new state attorney general was elected. According to the Lexington Herald-Leader, Gov. Andy Beshear has expressed skepticism about the safety of ibogaine treatment. The legislature has not yet scheduled any further action on the issue (such as the introduction of a bill like in Texas to grant public funds for research).

Mississippi

Reason Foundation Research Director Geoff Lawrence testified at a state legislature Public Health Joint Committee hearing on Aug. 28, in which lawmakers learned about the possibilities of ibogaine as a potential treatment for a wide range of neurological conditions. Lawrence discussed the known benefits of ibogaine as a potential treatment for opioid use disorder, traumatic brain injury, and neurodegenerative disease, along with efforts in other states, including Texas, to fund FDA-supervised clinical trials (testimony begins around here at the 1:36 minute mark).

Massachusetts

House Bill 2506 from state Rep. Steve Owens (D-29) would allow limited personal possession and transfer of psilocybin for military veterans, law enforcement officers, and those with a ”qualifying condition,” which is defined by the bill as ”a medical condition for which at least two and a majority of relevant clinical studies suggest psilocybin therapy in a clinical environment is safe and tolerable and which is not a disqualifying condition.’ Individuals may not have a disqualifying condition, which is defined in the bill as “bipolar disorder, a schizophrenia spectrum disorder, a Cluster A personality disorder, a Cluster B personality disorder, or a medical condition for which at least two and a majority of relevant clinical studies suggest psilocybin therapy in a clinical environment is not safe.”

S1400, sponsored by state Sen. Cindy Friedman (D-Middlesex), would task the Department of Health with creating a pilot program for treatments with psychedelics. On Sept. 11, it received a favorable vote from the Joint Committee on Mental Health, Substance Use, and Recovery and has been referred to the Committee on Healthcare Financing.

Oregon

House Bill 3043 (introduced at the request of Gov. Tina Kotek’s office) states that a licensed medical practitioner may not be disciplined for using psilocybin under the state’s regulated program. The bill amends the state’s program to allow for reentry into medical professions for those who were once declared “impaired” by substance abuse. Specifically, a medical professional cannot be disciplined for legal psilocybin use if they used it “before entry into the impaired health professional program, if the licensee did not practice while impaired.”

Senate Bill 844 (introduced at the request of the governor’s office) requires the Oregon Health Authority to keep personally identifiable information confidential related to complaints against a psilocybin service center or licensee.

The post State psychedelics legalization and policy roundup — October 2025 appeared first on Reason Foundation.

• The Trump administration’s psychedelics push
• Arizona’s ibogaine funding law
• Gov. Perry’s op-ed offering support for ibogaine

The Trump administration’s push for psychedelics

During a House Energy and Commerce Committee hearing, Secretary of Health and Human Services (HHS) Robert F. Kennedy Jr. said that he hopes that a psychedelic pharmaceutical is approved within the next 12 months. However, he did not specify which drug or how the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) would make this determination. “This line of therapeutics has tremendous advantage if given in a clinical setting, and we are working very hard to make sure that happens within 12 months,” RKF Jr. said.

“These are all very promising signs that the administration is aware of the potential of psychedelics and is trying to make overtures that they’re ready to approve them,” Reason Foundation’s Greg Ferenstein told the Associated Press.

HHS also made a key new hire who could help spur positive reforms. Mike Davis, who previously served as chief medical officer of the psychedelics research organization Usona Institute, is now the deputy director of the FDA’s Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, which evaluates drug applications and reviews standards for clinical trials.

Arizona funds ibogaine

The psychedelic compound ibogaine is a promising potential treatment for opioid addiction and brain disorders. Arizona lawmakers recently budgeted $5 million toward a public-private partnership that will perform clinical trials to determine the safety and efficacy of the treatment. Arizona becomes the second state, following Texas, to allocate funding for this purpose. “Arizona is showing the nation how to solve real problems by putting cutting-edge science first,” former U.S. Senator Krysten Sinema told Reason Foundation about the program. For more on Arizona and other developments, visit our most recent state psychedelics legalization and policy roundup.

Former Texas Gov. Rick Perry supports psychedelics

Former Texas Gov. Rick Perry penned an op-ed in The Washington Post about his commitment to advancing ibogaine as a treatment. Perry concludes the op-ed with a personal note:

“I traveled to see ibogaine clinics in Mexico myself. I met the doctors and researchers. I listened to the patients. I studied the clinical data. I don’t care if you’re a Republican or a Democrat. Every one of us knows someone who’s struggling, whether with addiction, trauma or mental health. This is the cause I will dedicate the rest of my life to fighting for, because too many lives hang in the balance to do anything less.”

Perry’s column links to recent Reason Foundation research by Madison Carlino examining the potential for psychedelics to allay the symptoms of neurodegenerative diseases like Alzheimer’s. Perry has co-founded a new nonprofit, Americans for Ibogaine, to pursue his advocacy.

The post Psychedelics Policy Newsletter: RFK Jr. gives hopeful approval timeline, Arizona advances ibogaine, and more appeared first on Reason Foundation.

Arizona

House Bill 2871 by state Rep. Justin Wilmeth (R-Phoenix), which would have allocated funding to ibogaine research, was folded into the state’s general appropriations bill and signed by the governor on June 27th. Reason Foundation has published an analysis on why Arizona’s joining Texas to fund ibogaine clinical trials marks an important step in the momentum to gain federal approval for the drug.

Senate Bill 1555 by state Sen. T.J. Shope (R-16) will legalize a pharmaceutical version of synthetic psilocybin at the state level if approved by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA). The bill passed on June 26th. The bill, as originally written, would have authorized a market for state-regulated psilocybin-assisted therapy, but was heavily amended.

Colorado

Colorado regulators are reportedly considering therapeutic use of iboga within the state’s regulated psychedelics program. Colorado would be the first state to offer legal iboga services. Under Proposition 122, a ballot initiative that created a regulated market for psilocybin therapy, the state can consider other botanical psychedelics. The Colorado Natural Medicines Advisory Board must first determine how to manage potential safety concerns and how licensees would be able to produce the compound.

Louisiana

Senate Resolution 186 from state Sen. Patrick McMath (R-11) would create a task force to study the use of psychedelics for veterans.

Massachusetts

H1858 (previously House Docket 188) from state Rep. Marc Lombardo (R-22nd Middlesex) would reduce the penalties for possession of psilocybin. It would impose a $100 fine for possession of less than one gram.

H1726 (previously House Docket 3895), from state Rep. Homar Gómez (D-2nd Hampshire), would direct courts to dismiss any arrest for possession of psilocybin by adults over 21 as long as their actions had no visible defects to the health or safety of another person.  

H1624 (previously House Docket 4243) from state Rep. Mike Connolly (D-26th Middlesex) would create a psychedelics task force to study equity in psychedelic access.

All three bills received a joint session hearing on July 15th, 2025, but show no indication yet of next steps.

Michigan

House Bill 4686 from state Rep. Mike McFall (D-14) would effectively legalize the possession of psilocybin for Michiganders diagnosed with post-traumatic stress disorder. The bill does not create an affirmative legalization of psilocybin but exempts possession for treatment of PTSD from state law relating to the prohibition of illicit substances.

Mississippi

Mississippi lawmakers will hold an informational hearing about ibogaine on August 28. Reason Foundation research director Geoffrey Lawrence is expected to testify. Bryan Hubbard, CEO of Americans for Ibogaine, is also set to testify.

Oregon

House Bill 3817 (multiple sponsors) would have authorized the Oregon Health Authority to study the use of ibogaine for a range of mental health issues, such as anxiety. It failed to pass before the legislature adjourned.

The post State psychedelics legalization and policy roundup — August 2025 appeared first on Reason Foundation.

Ibogaine is a psychoactive alkaloid derived from the root of the Tabernanthe iboga plant, which has been used ceremonially for centuries. It has rapidly attracted interest from U.S. policymakers, veterans’ advocates, and addiction specialists for its potentially transformative benefits in alleviating post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), depression, traumatic brain injury, opioid use disorder, and a range of other neurological conditions that are impacting lives and burdening public budgets.

Arizona’s Fiscal Year 2026 state budget, signed into law in late June, includes a $5 million grant appropriation to study “ibogaine for the treatment of neurological diseases” at a research facility with “the ability to facilitate pioneering research and innovation in diagnosis and treatment of neurological conditions.”

The appropriation for ibogaine clinical trials may have ended up in the enacted state budget, but it originated as House Bill 2871, introduced in February by state Rep. Justin Wilmeth (R-Phoenix). 

“Every single day, we lose veterans to PTSD and traumatic brain injuries, and the treatment options available now just aren’t good enough,” Wilmeth stated in a March press release. “We have an opportunity here in Arizona to push for a treatment that could truly help those suffering from PTSD and traumatic brain injury.”

Former Arizona U.S. Senator Kyrsten Sinema testified on behalf of the bill as part of a national push to educate state lawmakers about the promise of ibogaine-assisted therapy. 

“Arizona is showing the nation how to solve real problems by putting cutting-edge science first,” Sinema told Reason Foundation. “We have no legal, effective treatments today for traumatic brain injuries and other neurological disorders. Ibogaine has shown incredible results for special forces veterans, and Arizona’s investment in clinical research that starts a path for ibogaine’s FDA [U.S. Food and Drug Administration] approval will save thousands more veterans’ lives—and the lives of Americans living with these diseases.”

Arizona is now the second state seeking to accelerate FDA clinical trials for ibogaine, after Texas Gov. Greg Abbott signed into law a similar $50 million appropriation for ibogaine clinical trials just two weeks before Arizona’s budget approval. Reason Foundation provided testimony in support of a Texas study bill, Senate Bill 2308, finding that ibogaine has shown tremendous promise as an alternative treatment for opioid use disorder and other persistent mental disorders.

The Arizona House modified Wilmeth’s original bill this spring to explicitly reflect that the state’s $5 million appropriation would serve as a match to an equal private sector match to effectuate a $10 million clinical trial, similar to how Texas’ $50 million appropriation is expected to match an equal amount of private contributions. Although Arizona’s match language was ultimately omitted from the final enacted budget, both Arizona and Texas are expected to see public and private philanthropic dollars paired to create major public-private partnerships.

Both Texas and Arizona can now be considered the first two states signing on to what advocates hope will become a larger, coordinated effort to accelerate ibogaine clinical trials and potential U.S. Food and Drug Administration approval. Former Texas Gov. Rick Perry recently launched and serves as board chair of a new advocacy group, Americans for Ibogaine, that will support state and federal efforts to fund and accelerate clinical research—what some have described as a “Manhattan Project” for ibogaine in the United States.

For more information on ibogaine and the emerging interest from state policymakers, see Reason Foundation’s 2024 policy study, Ibogaine Treatment for Opioid Use Disorder.

The post Arizona joins Texas in ibogaine clinical trial research push for veteran, first responder mental health appeared first on Reason Foundation.

• The FDA commission’s statement on psychedelics
• New psychedelics-related hire at HHS
• Roundup of state policies
• DEA permit for a church
• Meet with Reason Foundation staff in Denver

Research reform for psychedelics is a ‘top priority’ for the FDA

In an Interview with Jillian Michaels on NewsNation, Food and Drug Administration (FDA) Commissioner Dr. Marty Makary discussed psychedelics and clinical trial reform. “This is one of our top priorities at the FDA: to listen to doctors, to listen to patients, and to make sure we don’t get in the way with red tape,” noted Makary, referring to doctors who have seen positive results with psychedelics.

New psychedelics-focused hire at the Department of Health and Human Services

Attorney Matthew Zorn has been hired by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) as deputy general counsel and will reportedly be working on psychedelics-related reforms. Zorn has been active in psychedelics policy, including in a court case in 2021 attempting to require the Drug Enforcement Agency (DEA) to permit psilocybin-assisted therapy for a terminally ill patient. Though HHS Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. has been vocal in the past on expanding access to psychedelics, his agency has not announced any major policy reforms. Zorn’s hiring signals that HHS may soon start working on policy changes that could impact psychedelic pharmaceuticals.

Additionally, on June 5, James O’Neill received enough votes in the Senate to be confirmed as deputy secretary of HHS. O’Neill has commented that drugs ought to be approved by the FDA based primarily on the agency’s review of safety data and that evaluations of “efficacy” could be completed after more patients have access to approved drugs.

Church gets DEA greenlight to administer ayahuasca

A Washington-based religious organization, the Church of Gaia, has reportedly been permitted by the Drug Enforcement Agency to administer ayahuasca in a ceremonial setting. Previous petitions have faced agency opposition. Soul Quest, for instance, needed to pursue its petition through lengthy court proceedings before it was ultimately denied by the DEA.

It is unclear if this signals a new approach to approving religious exemptions for the use of psychedelic substances under the Trump administration or whether Gaia approached the approval process differently. According to The Spokesman-Review, a DEA spokesperson said the agency will not disclose details of the petition but confirmed that the Church of Gaia “was among only a few churches that had or were nearing such approval.”

More state policy progress

There were significant wins for psychedelics reform at the state level this spring. The Texas legislature appropriated $50 million for grants to study the medical applications of ibogaine through FDA-supervised clinical trials. Gov. Greg Abbott signed the appropriation, Texas Senate Bill 2308, into law on June 11. Ibogaine has shown tremendous promise as an alternative treatment for opioid use disorder. Reason Foundation provided testimony in support of the study bill.

Next door to Texas, New Mexico became the first state to legalize psychedelic services through a state legislature (instead of a ballot measure). Read more about state-level reform in our state roundup.

Come meet Reason Foundation’s drug policy team

Reason Foundation Vice President of Policy Len Gilroy and Research Director Geoff Lawrence will speak at this week’s Psychedelic Science Conference in Denver, Colorado. Come say hi to the drug policy team at this large gathering of professionals in the psychedelics industry.

The post Psychedelics Policy Newsletter: FDA prioritizes drug reform for psychedelics, Texas advances ibogaine research, and more appeared first on Reason Foundation.

Arizona

Arizona Senate Bill 1555, by state Sen. T.J. Shope (R-16), would have authorized a regulated market for psilocybin-assisted therapy. However, the bill was heavily amended and pared down to legalize a pharmaceutical version of synthetic psilocybin, conditional upon its approval by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA). The bill passed the Arizona Senate but never received a floor vote in the House.

California

California Senate Bill 751, introduced by state Sen. Josh Becker (D-13), would have established a pilot program allowing veterans and first responders to receive psilocybin treatment. California lawmakers have made several attempts to regulate or legalize psychedelics, including a 2023 bill that Gov. Gavin Newsom ultimately vetoed.

This new proposal shifted the focus toward therapy, granting the University of California system authority to train therapists and gather research, aligning with the governor’s call for a more “therapeutic” framework. (Read more about Reason Foundation’s recommendations here.)

The bill died in committee on May 23.

Colorado

Colorado Senate Bill 297 (multiple sponsors) would allow the governor to grant clemency to those convicted of offences related to psychedelic drugs, such as psilocybin, that the state has subsequently legalized through Ballot Measure 122. The bill would also require the state to collect data on public health outcomes, such as hospital discharge data related to psychedelics.

Gov. Jared Polis signed the bill on June 3. Healing centers (organizations that administer psychedelic sessions) are required to send information on sessions by July 1, 2026.

Connecticut

Connecticut House Bill 7065 (introduced through the House Judiciary Committee) would remove jail time for personal possession of up to half an ounce of psilocybin. The first offense would be a $150 fine. The bill has passed the Connecticut House of Representatives and was placed on the Senate calendar for consideration, but there was no further recorded action before the legislature adjourned for the 2025 session.

Florida

Florida House Bill 651 criminalizes the sale and distribution of spores capable of producing psilocybin. While psilocybin is a controlled substance, many states do not have laws explicitly banning the “seeds” of mushrooms that, once cultivated, become potent with psychedelic compounds. In this case, providers may not sell spores and cultivation kits. Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis signed the bill into law on May 15. It will go into effect in July.

Iowa

Iowa House Bill 383, put forth by the Senate Health and Human Services Committee, would legalize a pharmaceutical version of synthetic psilocybin, conditional upon its approval by the FDA. It was sent to Gov. Kim Reynolds for her signature on May 19, but she vetoed the bill.

House Bill 620, sponsored by state Rep. John Wills (R-10), would have authorized a psilocybin facilitated-access program for individuals suffering from a range of mental health conditions. The Iowa House approved it on an 84-6 vote in April, but the bill did not receive a floor vote in the Iowa Senate prior to the legislature’s conclusion.

Illinois

Illinois Senate Bill 2184, from state Sen. Rachel Ventura (D-43), is the companion bill to House Bill 1143, sponsored by state Rep. LaShawn Ford (D-8). It would allow a regulated market for professional psilocybin services. As noted in a previous state roundup, individuals would not need a mental illness diagnosis to gain access. However, it failed to secure full Senate approval before the legislature adjourned.

Hawaii

Hawaii Senate Bill 1042 by state Sen. Chris Lee (D-32) would establish a pilot program to study psychedelic therapies, including those using MDMA and psilocybin. The proposal was transmitted from the Hawaii House to the Senate; the bill received a conference committee hearing on April 25 and has not yet been scheduled for another hearing. 

Maine

House Bill 1034 (multiple sponsors) would decriminalize the personal possession of psilocybin. The state website says the measure received a “divided” committee vote from the House Committee on Criminal Justice and Public Safety, with members disagreeing about whether it should pass as is, as amended, or not pass at all. On June 4, it was tabled in the House without a plan to discuss when it would be considered.

Massachusetts

House Bill 4050 (previously known as House Docket 1003), from state Rep. Patrick Joseph Kearney (D-4), would authorize a regulated psilocybin market in which individuals could acquire purchase licenses for at-home consumption and gifting would be allowed between license holders. It was referred to the Committee on Revenue on April 22.

Missouri

House Bill 951, from state Rep. Matthew Overcast (R-155), would authorize a medicalized framework to access psilocybin-assisted therapy for patients suffering from certain specified conditions, including terminal illness, major depressive disorder, or post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD). It did not receive a committee hearing prior to the legislature’s adjournment on May 16.

New Hampshire

House Bill 528 from state Rep. Kevin Verville (R-Rockingham) would reduce penalties for the possession of psilocybin. It has been amended to include severe penalties, including minimum jail time, for individuals who knowingly traffic large amounts of fentanyl. Verville told Marijuana Moment the amendment, which he did not initiate, is a fair compromise if it means the bill can pass. It was laid on the table by the Senate on June 5, pending a committee amendment. There are no reported plans to advance the bill before the legislature adjourns in June.

New Mexico

Senate Bill 219  (multiple sponsors) became the first state legislative measure related to the legalization of psychedelics to receive a governor’s signature and become law. All preceding state legalization measures were enacted by citizen initiative. This bill will allow qualifying patients to be seen by a licensed medical practitioner under a regulated system. Unlike regulations developed in other states, the bill does not specify a minimum number of hours of training that are required to administer psychedelics but instead gives the government broad discretion to determine “necessary initial and ongoing training for producers and clinicians.” The Department of Health is required to implement the program by 2027.

Oregon

Oregon House Bill 2387, from state Rep. Dacia Grayber (D-28), modifies Oregon’s psilocybin laws. One major provision prevents medical license holders from being disciplined by certain medical boards for providing psilocybin services, aligning Oregon with Colorado by allowing both medical and non-medical professional facilitators. Gov. Tina Kotek signed the bill on May 23. The portion of the bill related to clinical facilitators takes effect on January 1, 2026. The bill contains other provisions, such as keeping confidential investigations into abuse by a licensed facilitator center. These provisions took effect immediately on passage.

House Bill 3817 (multiple sponsors) would authorize a medical market offering treatment with ibogaine. Details about how the program would be administered and its timeline are left up to interpretation by the state departments for health and veterans’ affairs. The bill doesn’t specify how the state would acquire ibogaine. Its naturally occurring source, the iboga shrub, does not natively grow in Oregon. It could potentially require an import license from the federal government or the local manufacture of a synthetic version. On April 16, it was referred to the Ways and Means Committee. There is no indication that the bill will progress or be rejected before Oregon adjourns in June.

Senate Bill 907 (multiple sponsors) makes technical changes to disclosure requirements regarding the physical locations of individuals seeking to grow psilocybin. Among the reforms is a requirement that candidate psilocybin manufacturers disclose the address and the owner of the growing facility in their application to the state health authority. The governor signed the bill on May 28. This provision goes into effect January 1, 2026.

Texas

Senate Bill 2308 appropriates the funding for clinical trials into potential pharmaceutical applications of the psychedelic compound ibogaine. The bill authorizes the disbursement of $50 million in grants to recipients capable of conducting FDA-supervised trials. Read Reason Foundation’s testimony in favor of the bill here. Gov. Greg Abbott signed the bill on June 11.

Virginia

Senate Bill 1135, from State Sen. Jennifer Boysko (D-District 33), proposed to authorize a pharmaceutical analog of psilocybin contingent upon approval by the FDA. It was vetoed by Gov. Glenn Youngkin on April 2. The veto letter noted, “This legislation is premature to the appropriate FDA approval and DEA drug scheduling. No other drugs are anachronistically codified by the state before federal approval.”

Summary

As was the case in 2024, most good psychedelics reforms introduced during the 2025 state legislative sessions did not pass.

However, 2025 saw a few notable wins, such as legalizing a regulated market in New Mexico and funding for Ibogaine research in Texas. Perhaps 2026 will be a year with even more impactful legislation.

The post State psychedelics legalization and policy roundup — June 2025 appeared first on Reason Foundation.

We believe that studying ibogaine would be beneficial for mental health and addiction care. If ibogaine demonstrates both safety and efficacy, it could facilitate treatment access to millions of Americans suffering from opioid use disorder (OUD) and other mental health conditions. We believe that Senate Bill 2308 provides a sensible regulatory pathway for the advancement of ibogaine as a potential treatment for OUD, co-occurring substance use disorders (SUD), and other relevant neurological or mental health conditions.

Texas can lead the nation in innovative mental health and addiction care solutions with this bill. Senate Bill 2308 prioritizes patient safety and scientific rigor. There are strict requirements for all applicants wishing to conduct trials. To be eligible for the grant, applicants must be private corporation entities with enough capacity and financial resources to conduct FDA trials, seek FDA approval, and conduct future trials. Applicants must also provide detailed plans on trial design, participant recruitment, safety protocols, post-treatment aftercare, and strategy for FDA-approval.

Senate Bill 2308 does not attempt to legalize ibogaine or ibogaine treatment, nor does it try to bypass existing federal regulations. It would retain current prohibitions on possession, use, manufacture, and sale of psychedelic compounds, as well as provide a framework consistent with the FDA drug-approval process, as ibogaine treatment administration will only apply if FDA approval is granted, requiring licensed physicians to supervise its administration in healthcare facilities.

 Over the past decade, the medical community has increasingly recognized the potential of psychedelic therapies for the treatment of mental health conditions and addiction. However, despite promising research, access to innovative psychedelic therapies is limited by the FDA’s designation of psychedelics as Schedule I substances. Ibogaine appears to have a unique ability to rapidly reduce withdrawal and craving symptoms associated with opioid addiction, often after just a single dose.

The grant program under SB 3208 offers an opportunity to collect comprehensive safety and efficacy data on ibogaine for treating OUD, SUD, and other mental health disorders, while ensuring alignment with existing federal regulations and FDA drug approval standards.

While not necessarily a major point of concern, we’d like to note that Senate Bill 3208 contains slightly different language regarding funding sources than its companion bill, House Bill 3717.  The House Bill allows for funding from both appropriated money and gifts, grants, or donations, while the Senate Bill only allows for funding from gifts, grants, or donations. The House language may provide additional flexibility for the funding of ibogaine studies, potentially allowing for the use of resources such as opioid settlement funds. This broader funding approach could enhance the program’s impact and success.

Overall, SB 3208 would allow Texas to administer grants to conduct potentially life-saving research into ibogaine, which has shown tremendous promise in the therapeutic treatment of OUD, with minimal risk to both public safety and public health. Thank you for your time and consideration.

The post Texas Senate Bill 2308 could advance ibogaine as a treatment for opioid use disorder appeared first on Reason Foundation.

• How Congress can promote access to psychedelic medicine
• New data dashboard and analysis for rescheduling psychedelics
• The state roundup

Legislative approaches that could improve access to psychedelic-based medicine

Reason Foundation responded to a request for comment from the Congressional Psychedelics Advancing Therapies Caucus. We recommended that Congress should reform the need for psychedelic pharmaceutical companies to prove “efficacy“ before trial participants are able to purchase treatment, expand the use of observational data in drug approvals, and explore how novel psychedelic treatments could make government healthcare more cost-efficient. Read about these recommendations and more here.

Reason Foundation has produced additional commentaries addressing psychedelics reform proposals in Nevada, Arizona, and Washington.

Exploring new data on the safety of psychedelics

The new leaders of Health and Human Services (HHS) may consider rescheduling certain psychedelics currently listed under Schedule I of the Controlled Substances Act in collaboration with other federal agencies. We have compiled an extensive list of public health data related to psychedelics in a new dashboard and written commentary detailing how this data can help the new administration evaluate the safety of psychedelics.

State roundup

Dozens of state legislative proposals related to psychedelics have been filed across America. Proposals include everything from authorizing facilitated access to psilocybin services within a clinical setting to decriminalization of the personal possession of psychedelics. Our state roundup offers an exhaustive list of bills that have been introduced or have made progress in the last two months.

The post Psychedelics Policy Newsletter: Reforms for Congress, data for rescheduling, and more appeared first on Reason Foundation.

State efforts to legalize psychedelic therapies have made strides during the 2025 legislative sessions. This roundup only includes bills from the 20 states that have made progress since our last bi-monthly update. For bills introduced between January and February, see our previous state roundup.

Lawmakers in many states are now writing bills to authorize a regulated market for facilitated access to psilocybin like what exists in Oregon. We refer to this approach as “facilitated access.” Readers can learn more about this and other approaches to psilocybin regulation in Reason Foundation’s report here.

California

Senate Bill 751 from state Sen. Josh Becker (D-13) would create a pilot program for veterans and first responders to receive treatment with psilocybin. California has seen multiple attempts to legalize or regulate psychedelics, including a 2023 bill vetoed by Gov. Gavin Newsom. This latest attempt gives oversight to the University of California system to train therapists and collect research on the pilot program, which responds to the Governor’s desire for a more “therapeutic” approach.

Connecticut

House Bill 7065 (introduced through the House Judiciary Committee) would legalize the personal possession of up to one-half ounce of psilocybin.

Iowa

House File 609 from state Rep. Jeff Shipley (R-District 87) would protect some botanical psychedelics, including psilocybin and peyote, for religious purposes.

House File 620 by state Rep. John Wills (R-House District 10) authorizes a facilitated access market for psilocybin accessible by people suffering from post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD). Participation is limited to 5,000 total recipients.

Missouri

House Bill 829, from state Rep. Richard West (R-102), would allow individuals diagnosed with a terminal, life-threatening, or severely debilitating condition or illness to access psilocybin-assisted therapy under professional supervision. The bill does not mandate participation in a federally approved clinical trial. Instead, it only requires that patients have discussed alternative treatment options with a healthcare provider before pursuing psilocybin therapy.

Massachusetts

Many legislators introduced bills after the failure of ballot Question 4 last year. Here we provide the list of bills that have made progress in the legislature:

• House Docket 188 is now H1858, from state Rep. Marc Lombardo (R-22nd Middlesex). It would reduce the legal penalties for psilocybin possession by imposing a $100 fine for amounts under one gram, effectively decriminalizing small quantities.

• House Docket 4017 is now H2532, from state Rep. Lindsay Sabadosa (D-1st Hampshire). It proposes the creation of a pilot program that would allow nonprofit therapeutic centers to provide psilocybin therapy for the treatment of unspecified mental and physical health issues.

• House Docket 4196 is now H2203, from state Rep. Marjorie Decker (D-25th Middlesex). It would require the Department of Public Health (DPH) to create and implement an experimental psilocybin therapy program on a trial basis.

• Senate Docket 1624 is now S1113 from state Sen. Cindy Friedman (D-4th Middlesex).  The bill directs the Department of Public Health (DPH) to create a trial program for medically supervised psilocybin therapy. The bill specifically states that ownership of these programs is not allowed for “cannabis industry organizations, psychedelic molecule development companies or pharmaceutical companies.”

• House Docket 4243 is now H1624, from state Rep. Mike Connolly (D-26th Middlesex). It would create a psychedelics task force that would consider equity in psychedelic access.

• House Docket 3368 is now H2506 from state Rep. Steven Owens (D-29th Middlesex). It would decriminalize possession of up to 50 grams of psilocybin mushrooms.

• House Docket 3895 is now H1726, from state Rep. Homar Gómez (D-2nd Hampshire). It would decriminalize the possession of psilocybin.

Minnesota

House Bill 2699 (multiple sponsors) would legalize the personal possession of psilocybin through a Psychedelic Medicine Board. The board would establish a possession limit for psilocybin, defined by whatever it considers to constitute a one-year supply.

Missouri

Senate Bill 90 from state Sen. Angela Mosley (D-13) would authorize a facilitated market for psilocybin therapy accessible by patients who suffer from a terminal or debilitating illness. Participants must have a physician’s note verifying the illness.

New Hampshire

House Bill 528 from state Rep. Kevin Verville (R-Rockingham) would reduce criminal penalties for possession of psilocybin. Initial offenses would be considered misdemeanors with fines ranging from $100 to $1,000. Fourth and subsequent offenses for psilocybin possession would be considered felonies. It has passed the New Hampshire House of Representatives.

New Mexico

Senate Bill 219 (multiple sponsors) would authorize a facilitated access market for psilocybin services. Notably, it has passed the legislature and is awaiting the governor’s signature. If signed, New Mexico would become the first state to enact a psychedelics legalization bill through the legislative process rather than through a ballot measure. (State legislatures in Arizona and California have done so, but those measures were subsequently vetoed by each state’s respective governor.)

New Jersey

S2283 from state Senate President Nicolas Scutari (D-22) and House companion A3852 (multiple sponsors) would authorize a facilitated access market for psilocybin. 

New York

S01801, from state Sen. Nathalia Fernandez (D-34), would authorize a facilitated market for psilocybin services in a clinical setting. A house companion, A03775, has attracted multiple sponsors, including Assemblyman Patrick Burke (D-142), who previously authored a pilot bill for psilocybin access. The bill provides funding for up to 10,000 patients to receive treatment and would be terminated if the FDA approves psilocybin therapy.

S05303 from state Sen. Julia Salazar (D-District 18) and A02142 (multiple sponsors) likewise would create a facilitated access market for psilocybin services. However, unlike the previous bills, it would not do so through a “pilot” program and instead allow purchase by consumers with a qualifying health condition, including “any novel or emergent health condition” for which psilocybin is deemed useful.

Nevada

Assembly Bill 378 (multiple sponsors) proposes language recommended by an interim study group convened as a result of legislation from 2023 to create a facilitated access system for multiple psychedelics, including psilocybin, DMT, mescaline, and iboga. Access to these therapies would initially be restricted to military veterans and first responders with a diagnosed mental health condition. The bill has 24 sponsors, which accounts for more than one-third of the legislature.

Reason Foundation has submitted testimony explaining how the program would expand access to psychedelic services.

Senate Joint Resolution 10 (multiple sponsors) is a resolution urging Congress to reform laws related to psychedelics, including rescheduling them.

Oregon

House Bill 2387 (multiple sponsors) would allow medical professionals to administer psilocybin services. Oregon was the first state to legalize psilocybin services, but only facilitators licensed according to the psilocybin-specific regulations are authorized to administer these services. If passed, Oregon would follow Colorado in having a two-tiered facilitated access market for both wellness (for use without a diagnosis) and medical use.

Rhode Island

H5186 from state Rep. Brandon Potter (D-District 16) would legalize the personal possession of certain amounts of psilocybin for personal use to the extent it is consistent with rules promulgated by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA).

Texas

House Bill 4014 from state Rep. John Bucy (D-136) would direct Texas universities to conduct research on therapy with psilocybin, MDMA, or ketamine.

House Bill 3717 from state Rep. Cody Harris (R–8) directs the state to allocate funds to study ibogaine.

Vermont

H0452 from state Rep. Brian Cina (D-District 6-4) was filed as a short concept bill that mentions protecting personal possession of psilocybin and authorizing a market for facilitated access. 

S0106 (multiple sponsors) would continue an existing working group that will report and make recommendations related to psychedelics to state policymakers.

West Virginia

House Bill 2854 from Del. Kayla Young (D-56) would remove psilocybin and other drugs from the state’s Schedule 1 status.

Additionally, multiple bills across the U.S. would reschedule a synthetic version of psilocybin at the state level if approved by the FDA as a pharmaceutical. This is a preemptive move by pharmaceutical companies, as states independently maintain controlled substances lists and would need to change their own laws to permit a federally approved pharmaceutical. Examples include:

• New Mexico Senate Bill 410: State Sen. Craig Brandt (R-District 40)
• Iowa Senate Study Bill 1177: Put forth by the Senate Health and Human Services Committee
• Kansas House Bill 2218: Put forth by the Committee on Health and Human Services
• Georgia House Bill 382: State Rep. Ron Stephens (R-District 164)
• Virginia Senate Bill 1135: State Sen. Jennifer Boysko (D-District 33)
• Colorado House Bill 1063: Multiple sponsors

The post State psychedelics legalization and policy roundup — April 2025 appeared first on Reason Foundation.

An Alternative Therapy Pilot Program could expand access to innovative treatments for individuals suffering from mental health conditions in Nevada. While this program would be limited to veterans and first responders, this population could be expanded once safety and efficacy standards are met. In particular, research compiled by the Reason Foundation shows that various psychedelic therapies show far greater promise in combatting depression and opioid addiction than existing therapies and that periodic psychedelic therapy may also allay the onset and reduce the severity of common neurodegenerative diseases like Alzheimer’s or Parkinson’s.

Psychedelics show the potential to be more effective than conventional drugs currently being used to treat a range of mental health disorders. In controlled clinical settings, psychedelics have also exhibited fewer safety concerns than many standard pharmaceutical drugs. Research suggests that psychedelics are non-addictive and carry a low risk of abuse. However, despite promising research, access to innovative psychedelic therapies is limited by the FDA’s designation of psychedelics as Schedule I substances.  

The current Schedule I designation hinders scientific research by discouraging research institutions from investigating psychedelic treatments, as well as potential financial supporters from investing money that could implicate them as accomplices to a federal crime. However, the Alternative Therapy Pilot Program could collect comprehensive safety and efficacy data on alternative psychedelic therapies without imposing legal risks on its participants.  

Under Assembly Bill (AB) 378, the Nevada Division of Public and Behavioral Health would be responsible for developing clinical guidelines, licensing requirements, and oversight mechanisms for the pilot program. The bill explicitly states, “To the extent consistent with federal law, the Division shall take all actions which are feasible to ensure that all pilot clinic programs developed and implemented under the Program comply with all applicable federal requirements or guidelines relating to the clinical or experimental use of controlled substances.” 

Psychedelic substances such as psilocybin, DMT, ibogaine, and mescaline could only be administered under medical supervision at licensed facilities. Patients would be required to meet strict eligibility criteria and receive treatment in conjunction with supportive services. The legislation also requires the division to license at least one entity to cultivate or manufacture the psychedelic substances necessary for the program.  

Under AB 378, participants who manufacture, cultivate, administer, or receive psychedelic substances under its program would be protected from civil, criminal, and administrative penalties, provided their actions remain within the program’s scope.  

AB 378 would establish a program that ensures compliance with all relevant federal research and safety guidelines while protecting its participants from legal risks. It would permit psychedelic-assisted therapy under medical supervision, with safeguards that allow Nevada to carefully study outcomes and expand access over time. These changes offer a great deal of promise to citizens who may be struggling with mental health problems. 

The post Nevada Assembly Bill 378 could help patients access psychedelic therapies appeared first on Reason Foundation.

The emerging regulatory framework governing certain controlled substances across various states—including medical and adult use recreational cannabis and psychedelics—is an area of particular interest. We have advised officials on emerging drug policy transformations in states like Michigan, California, and Nevada. We are also a founding member of the Cannabis Freedom Alliance, which seeks to advance federal cannabis legalization in a manner that respects states’ autonomy to self-design their own policies. We also seek to minimize barriers to market entry for potential entrepreneurs to ensure a competitive and dynamic marketplace in which even Americans of modest means can compete.

We believe there are several legislative approaches that could improve access to psychedelic-based medicine

Pass the Breakthrough Therapies Act

Introduced by Sens. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) and Cory Booker (D-N.J.), the Breakthrough Therapies Act would automatically reschedule any substance recognized by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) as a “breakthrough therapy” so medical research can be conducted more easily. Currently, this designation applies to analogues of both MDMA and psilocybin that have both advanced to Phase III clinical trials.

The original bill proposed to reclassify such substances from Schedule I to Schedule II so that drug sponsors face fewer barriers in procuring a DEA license to conduct medical research. However, we believe the act should go further by automatically moving psychedelic substances to Schedule III to better facilitate research and data collection. Currently, supervised clinical administration of these substances is available in both Colorado and Oregon through state-licensed facilities. Licensees in Oregon have already administered more than 12,000 clinical doses of psilocybin–more than the total of all federally supervised clinical trials to date. A Schedule III designation would simultaneously allow these centers to collect important research data on the drugs’ effectiveness that could be useful for FDA evaluations of these treatments and remove federal income tax penalties and barriers to financial services for the licensees that offer these clinical services. This approach would also better respect state authority and rebalance the federal system.

The current Schedule I designation has a chilling effect on scientific research and discourages some of the best research institutions, including hospitals and universities, from investigating these treatments. Potential financial supporters are also dissuaded from investing dollars that cannot be used efficiently or, at worst, could implicate them as accomplices to a federal crime.

Expand the use of observational data

Through the 21st Century Cures Act, Congress mandated that the FDA use observational (“real world”) evidence in drug approval decisions. However, the Act did not provide enough specificity to be relevant to psychedelic clinical trials. Many pharmaceutical compounds going through clinical trials are substantially similar to psychedelics that are legal in other parts of the world or have a long history of both safety and efficacy.

MDMA, for instance, was unregulated until 1985 and is currently available for prescription in Australia. Psilocybin is legal to possess in Colorado and is available through authorized providers in Oregon. Multiple companies are currently taking similar versions of MDMA and Psilocybin through clinical trials.

Ibogaine is another psychedelic compound that has shown promise in the treatment of opioid use disorder. Under current regulations, any drug company developing an ibogaine-based compound would need to spend many millions of dollars replicating early trials that have already been documented at foreign clinics.

Other psychedelic compounds have been used for thousands of years by indigenous communities and continue to be used frequently around the world. Congress could require that the FDA develop clear guidelines to specify how observational data alone could be compiled and data mined to meet FDA requirements for demonstrating safety and efficacy.

Reform the efficacy requirement

In 1962, Congress reformed the Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act to require that drug sponsors prove not only that their drugs are safe for human consumption but also their level of efficacy. This ballooned the cost of drug development by many years and hundreds of millions of dollars. The average cost of drug development has been estimated to now exceed $1.7 billion, and development takes more than a decade to complete. A Reason Foundation review of research demonstrates that far more Americans die from potentially treatable diseases due to this expanded timeline than are saved by the FDA’s original mission to ensure safety alone.

Congress could follow Japan’s example and allow the provisional commercialization of drugs once sponsors have demonstrated to regulators they are safe for human consumption (by, for instance, passing Phase I or Phase II trials).

Legislatively reclassify psychedelics

Many psychedelic compounds were initially placed on the list of Schedule I substances without a comprehensive public evaluation. Congress has full discretion to alter the classification of any substance within the Controlled Substances Act that it feels holds medical and scientific value. Reclassifying psychedelic compounds to Schedule III would still give the FDA supervision over these compounds.

As an alternative to reclassifying specific substances through legislation, Congress could also require the FDA and DEA to review their criteria for placing compounds within Schedule I of the Controlled Substances Act. The agencies should apply objective and universal criteria for comparable drugs on Schedules III or below.

Currently, agencies have broad discretionary power within the DEA’s eight-part test to determine the scheduling of a drug, and there is no uniform standard by which drugs are measured. The U.S. Department of Health and Humans Services recently recommended that cannabis be removed from Schedule I out of recognition that it holds medical benefits. Psilocybin is similar to cannabis’ safety profile on many public health indicators and demonstrates a low potential for addiction or as a cause of violent crime.

It is likely that many important psychedelic substances would automatically be reclassified if they were scored on similar metrics to comparable drugs that currently fall within a lower schedule.

Pursue greater cost-effectiveness of existing public health spending

Much of the funding for clinical trials into psychedelic substances currently originates from philanthropic sources. This funding is sporadic and limited. However, psychedelic therapies might more cost-effectively treat many conditions for which Congress currently allocates billions of dollars toward treatment. Psychedelic therapies have shown promise in the treatment of post-traumatic stress disorder, major depressive disorder, treatment-resistant depression, traumatic brain injury, substance abuse, and even neurodegenerative conditions like Alzheimer’s and Parkinson’s Disease. There are multiple state bills or projects considering scientific funding of Ibogaine to help with regional opioid addiction. Public-private partnerships between the state, philanthropy, and manufacturing companies might help reduce the overall cost of opioid-related treatments through Ibogaine-assisted therapy. 

Some of these conditions may be successfully treated through psychedelic therapy after only a single administration, whereas current treatments may require a lifetime of ongoing treatment.

Congress should consider a task force to model the pharmacoeconomics of psychedelic therapy to determine whether these treatments could reduce costs within federal healthcare spending.

Policymakers should note that psychedelic treatment involves more than just substances—it also requires a novel type of therapy. Therefore, a pharmacoeconomic analysis of psychedelic therapy must incorporate the cost of professional care.

Psychedelics-assisted therapy represents a promising treatment for many mental health issues.

The post Legislative approaches that could improve access to psychedelic-based medicine appeared first on Reason Foundation.

While Kennedy’s recovery journey may have worked for him, his plan overlooks other evidence-based approaches, like medication-assisted treatments (MAT), which have already helped millions of Americans struggling with addiction, and emerging therapies like ibogaine. 

The lived experience of people who use drugs can sometimes offer great insight for policy change, but not when that guidance is based solely on one person’s experience. Kennedy’s plan to address the opioid crisis is deeply personal, shaped by his 14-year struggle with heroin and other drugs. Rooted in the teachings of Swiss psychotherapist Carl Jung, 12-step programs, and faith-based therapy, his philosophy frames addiction primarily as a moral and spiritual crisis. While this perspective was once commonplace among anti-drug advocates, it has largely been replaced by a medical understanding of substance use disorders–one that recognizes addiction as a complex health condition requiring evidence-based treatment. 

During the hearing, Kennedy proposed the expansion of faith-based, labor-intensive rehabilitation centers, which he refers to as “healing farms.” His inspiration comes from San Patrignano-style recovery centers—known for their emphasis on long-term, abstinence-based treatment through vocational training and communal support, which have faced scrutiny for their use of coercion and retributive discipline. The emphasis on isolation, strict adherence to communal rules, and limited autonomy over personal decision-making raise ethical concerns about coercion and the long-term well-being of participants. Reports have also pointed to the exclusion of individuals with co-occurring psychiatric disorders, limiting access for those who may require integrated mental health support.

Research consistently shows that forced treatment is usually ineffective. Studies indicate that individuals subjected to involuntary treatment, such as civil commitment for treatment, relapse at alarming rates–often on the day they are released. These poor long-term outcomes stem from heightened institutional distrust, a lack of post-treatment support, and inadequate access to quality care. 

Many people struggling with addiction have a history of trauma, and coercive approaches can exacerbate that trauma, making individuals less likely to seek help and ultimately reducing long-term recovery rates. The facilities that house these programs often fail to provide comprehensive, trauma-informed care, as they lack appropriately trained staff and resources necessary to offer a full range of treatments, including medication, therapy, and wound care. 

While some individuals may benefit from short-term involuntary treatment in crisis situations, many do not, and many experience greater harm as a result of involuntary treatment. Creating a legally sound, ethical framework that protects individual rights while addressing the complexities of addiction remains a major challenge—one that Kennedy’s approach fails to resolve.

Medication-assisted treatment (MAT) is the only form of treatment currently approved by the Food and Drug Administration for treating opioid use disorder and should not be disregarded in favor of an abstinence-only approach. Medications like buprenorphine, methadone, and naltrexone have been extensively studied and shown to significantly reduce opioid cravings, prevent withdrawal symptoms, and decrease overdose risk. The main shortcoming with MAT, specifically methadone, is that patients are required to make daily visits to a clinic to receive medications for up to two years to achieve successful recovery from addiction. This demanding regimen contributes to high rates of treatment withdrawal and relapse.

Newly emerging treatments like ibogaine have shown potential as a possible replacement for MAT to help individuals overcome opioid use disorder because early evidence suggests high success rates after just a single administration. In one small-scale study, 75% of participating opioid addicts remained opioid abstinent for an entire year after a single ibogaine treatment. While still in the early stages of research due to legal restrictions and safety concerns, preliminary evidence suggests that ibogaine could be a breakthrough tool in addiction treatment, offering those struggling with opioid dependence a neurobiological reset. 

Rather than reverting to outdated, ideologically driven, and ineffective approaches, policymakers should prioritize expanding access to evidence-based treatments and investing in innovative treatments like ibogaine that could revolutionize addiction care. As secretary of Health and Human Services, Kennedy could make progress by pushing to allow patients to take some quantity of traditional MAT medications home with them to improve adherence to the regimen and expedite the development of ibogaine as an alternative treatment option.

The post RFK Jr.’s opioid crisis plan appeared first on Reason Foundation.

Reason Foundation is committed to ensuring that health policies encourage innovation in addiction treatment, expand access to promising therapies and provide patients with alternative treatment options. Ibogaine represents a potential breakthrough in addressing the U.S. opioid crisis.

As noted in Senate Bill 5204, ibogaine has shown promising potential as a treatment for opioid use disorder (OUD) but remains largely understudied due to its Schedule I classification. Reason Foundation has comprehensibly reviewed the available scientific evidence regarding ibogaine’s effectiveness relative to existing treatment options and compiled this evidence into a guide for policymakers. Our work provides support for claims in the legislative findings section in S.B. 5204 that “ibogaine appears to have the unique ability to rapidly reduce withdrawal and craving symptoms associated with opioid addiction, often after just a single dose.”  We find that this is particularly beneficial given the shortcomings of traditional treatments for OUD. Medication-assisted treatments (MATs), which typically involve either methadone or buprenorphine coupled with naloxone, for OUD are associated with high relapse rates following cessation and high mortality rates. In short, these treatments have small success rates.

MATs require daily clinical visits and a commitment to long-term treatment, which may not be feasible or effective for patients recovering from addiction. Existing MATs are not highly effective in reducing withdrawal and craving symptoms following the cessation of opioid use, leading to high relapse rates. Studies indicate that most patients relapse within one month of initiating buprenorphine maintenance therapy (BMT), with young adults and primary prescription opioid users experiencing high relapse rates.  Similarly, a comparison of buprenorphine/naloxone vs. methadone results revealed that 50.9% and 41.1% of patients, respectively, had reverted to heroin or opiate use throughout the 15-month follow-up period.

Long-term retention of MAT patients remains a challenge. Patients must maintain treatment for around two years to be successful, but most methadone patients maintain treatment for less than one year and buprenorphine treatments average less than three months. Retention rates beyond six months are typically below 50%, and continuous abstinence for a year is generally no greater than 51% in large state-level programs.

Patients who stop or are disenrolled from MATs face a significantly higher risk of fatal overdose. Some long-term studies have reported alarmingly high death rates, reaching up to 50%. A large-scale review of 122,885 patients found that mortality rates were much higher for those receiving outpatient treatment compared to inpatient care. Specifically, the all-cause mortality rate was 36.1 deaths per 1,000 person-years for patients in outpatient methadone treatment, compared to 11.3 per 1,000 in inpatient programs. For buprenorphine, outpatient treatment had a mortality rate of 9.5 per 1,000 person-years, while inpatient treatment had a lower rate of 4.3 per 1,000.

Overdose-specific mortality followed the same pattern: 12.7 per 1,000 for outpatient methadone patients versus 2.6 per 1,000 for inpatient, and 4.6 per 1,000 for outpatient buprenorphine compared to 1.4 per 1,000 in inpatient care.

A major advantage of ibogaine treatment is that it demonstrates high success rates after only a single administration, unlike traditional MATs that require ongoing, long-term use. In a small-scale study, 75% of patients remained abstinent from opioids for an entire year following treatment. Ibogaine-assisted therapy has the potential to provide lasting anti-addictive effects with fewer doses, potentially reducing relapse rates and associated mortality rates. The U.S. opioid crisis is growing increasingly worse, and expanding research into ibogaine could provide an innovative treatment approach that addresses the shortcomings of MATs.

The post Washington has a chance to examine ibogaine-assisted therapy benefits appeared first on Reason Foundation.