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.

• According to the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) annual report on suicide prevention, there are an average of 17.6 veteran suicides a day, indicating a significant gap between available mental healthcare and veterans’ needs. Some advocacy groups estimate the true number is closer to 44 Veterans a day when accounting for overdose deaths and other self-destructive behaviors linked to untreated trauma.
• VA has a backlog in mental healthcare services due to over 1.7 million veterans with only about 10,000 psychologists and psychiatrists to treat them.
• Veterans wait an indeterminable amount of time to secure an appointment and receive limited care if they are deemed “functionally stable.” Many current or former VA clinical psychologists report great pressure to cap individual therapy sessions to vets deemed “functionally stable.”
• VA works with veterans over 8-15 initial therapy sessions, then offloads the patient back to primary care as they are deemed “functionally stable.” However, many veterans only reach “functional stability” temporarily during the therapy sequence and decline once services are discontinued.

Current PTSD treatment = lifetime sentence of medication

• While selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs) are considered a common and safe treatment for post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD)—and are routinely prescribed to veterans on a daily, perpetual basis—many experts and PTSD patients report that SSRIs have limited efficacy and effectiveness.
• Many veterans are prescribed multiple psychotropic drugs, receiving prescriptions for medication after medication that do not solve the underlying condition(s).
• This breakdown breeds mistrust and despair, as Veterans begin to wonder not only if they can recover, but if the system meant to help them is even capable of healing them.

One ibogaine treatment can replace a lifetime of medication

• Ibogaine is an extract of Tabernanthe iboga, a Central African shrub, and is a psychoactive compound that has long been used in spiritual practices and shows promising results in mental health treatments.
• Ibogaine’s Schedule I status in the U.S. has forced thousands of American Veterans to seek treatment abroad—most often in Mexico, where ibogaine is unregulated and available through private clinics.
• The profound results of ibogaine are seen in the study done by Stanford Medicine, showing an 88% decrease in PTSD symptoms, 87% in depression symptoms, and 81% in anxiety symptoms one month after an ibogaine treatment in a cohort of 30 special operations veterans with a history of traumatic brain injuries (TBI).
• Additional trial results published in Nature Medicine showed significant improvements in concentration, information processing, memory, and impulse control following ibogaine treatment.

Bottom line

Promising breakthrough treatments like ibogaine can provide military veterans with PTSD and other mental health conditions by eliminating the need to take medication every day and targeting the root conditions driving suicidal ideation, hyper-aggression, depression, or the many other conditions many veterans face.

Read the full Backgrounder:

The post Ibogaine and veterans’ mental health appeared first on Reason Foundation.

Current treatments for post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD)—including cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT) and selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs)—achieve only 30–40% remission rates, with many patients discontinuing treatment early, limited long-term efficacy, and significant side effects, particularly for those with treatment-resistant cases.

Association for Psychological Science (2021): “Approximately two-thirds of veterans with PTSD remain with the disorder following treatment. […] Treatments for veterans with PTSD show limited overall effectiveness in real-world settings.”

Promise of ibogaine

Psychological Healing occurs through the boosts in neurotrophic factors to promote neural regeneration and repair, profoundly revolutionizing the approach to treatment for addiction, traumatic brain injuries (TBI), and neurodegenerative diseases.

Research by Stanford University published in Nature Medicine in 2024 found that ibogaine treatment led to significant improvement in a cohort of 30 veterans. After one month of following treatment, these participants experienced average reductions of 88% of PTSD symptoms, 87% in depression symptoms, and 81% in anxiety symptoms relative to their initial conditions. The results held at 6 months. In a small-scale study, 75% of patients remained abstinent from opioids for an entire year following treatment.

Typical ibogaine treatment protocol

A standard ibogaine treatment protocol consists of a 5 to 10-day inpatient program conducted in a medically supervised environment. Participants undergo comprehensive medical evaluation, safety preparation, and therapeutic support prior to treatment, followed by a recommended 12 months of ongoing, structured integration and support services.

The post Ibogaine offers breakthrough treatment for mental health, addiction, and TBIs appeared first on Reason Foundation.

PEPRA has saved billions, but it still needs decades to get California on track

The California Public Employees’ Retirement System, CalPERS, estimates that PEPRA has saved the state more than $5 billion since its inception. Another $25 billion in savings is estimated over the next 10 years, but only if members reject AB1383 and guard the shared PEPRA commitments.

How AB 1383 would undermine the PEPRA reforms:

• It expands the definition of pensionable compensation for all California pensions, granting large—and expensive—benefit bumps for the state’s top-earning government workers.
• It removes critical cost-sharing requirements that have shielded taxpayers from paying for all unexpected pension costs. The bill would allow employers to pay part of employees’ required contributions, which would undermine the shared limit set by PEPRA and disrupt the careful balance of responsibility established by the 2012 reform.
• It makes special exceptions for public safety workers, reducing their retirement age from 57 to 55, and granting them a new level of higher-cost benefits. It also changes rules to allow public safety employers to move all of their existing members into this new, higher-level benefit.

AB 1383 would cost taxpayers more than $9 billion

State taxpayers are already heavily burdened by the costs of public pension enhancements going back to 1999. According to CalPERS, AB 1383 would add an additional $9 billion over the next 20 years. The ultimate cost to taxpayers could extend well beyond that if market results resemble those of the last 20 years, or CalPERS continues its prudent lowering of its expected rate of return on investments.

Bottom line

Assembly Bill 1383 rolls back crucial elements of the landmark PEPRA reform, which would impose billions in extra costs on the state’s already stretched taxpayers. California needs to stay the course with PEPRA and fully fund its pensions before promising richer benefits.

Download the full backgrounder:

The post Assembly Bill 1383 brings back major pension costs for California appeared first on Reason Foundation.

Mandatory age verification undermines privacy and security

• The bill would require platforms to collect sensitive personal data, like government-issued IDs or biometric scans, before users can access apps.
• This creates honeypots for hackers and significantly increases the risk of identity theft and surveillance.
• California’s Age-Appropriate Design Code Act (CAADCA) introduced similar requirements. A federal judge blocked it, finding CAADCA “induces companies to collect additional personal information,” increasing rather than reducing risk.
• Apple, Google, and potentially others would be forced to collect and store biometric templates or ID scans for every user, rolling back years of privacy gains.

It threatens free speech and limits access to information

• App stores aren’t just for entertainment—they’re how people access civic tools, education, and independent journalism. Forcing ID checks to reach that content raises clear First Amendment concerns.
• Courts have repeatedly struck down similar mandates. In Reno v. ACLU and Ashcroft v. ACLU, the Supreme Court made clear that age-gating access to legal speech is unconstitutional.
• The bill attempts to bypass those rulings by targeting app stores instead of social media platforms. But as the Court ruled in Rutan v. Republican Party of Illinois, what the government can’t do directly, it also can’t do indirectly.
• As Packingham v. North Carolina affirmed, “cyberspace” is now the most important forum for speech, and app stores are its front doors. Regulating that access point threatens core free speech rights.

The government can’t replace real parental involvement, but it creates a false sense of safety

• Most online age-verification regimes assume parents want rigid digital barriers—but research shows that many underage users access social media with parental knowledge or help.
• Legal mandates create a false sense of security, shifting responsibility from families to tech firms that cannot realistically enforce behavior within homes.
• Industry-led models like ESRB and MPAA ratings work because they empower—not override—parental discretion, offering guidance without coercion.
• A mandated age gate won’t stop kids from using VPNs, browsers, or sideloaded apps—it will just make parents think the problem is solved.
• That false sense of safety undermines genuine efforts to educate kids, build digital literacy, and strengthen family-level boundaries.

Industry-led tools already help parents protect their kids online

• For example, Apple’s parental control tools include Screen Time, Ask to Buy, content filters, communication limits, and age-based app restrictions.
• Child accounts come with default safety settings and allow parents to block downloads, limit content, and customize age settings.
• Current practices include: No personalized ads for users under 13, no cross-app tracking, and no forced identity collection.
• The Declared Age Range API lets developers serve age-appropriate content without collecting birthdates or IDs—a privacy-enhancing alternative to state-mandated verification.
• App stores already keep platforms safe from scams and malware precisely because they don’t require sensitive personal data. Mandating age verification would undermine that balance and introduce new security risks.

It punishes small developers by adding compliance costs they can’t afford

• Developers could be held liable if minors access their apps without proper age checks, exposing them to legal risk and forcing them to contract with costly third-party age-verification vendors.
• For small app developers operating on thin margins, even minor compliance friction (like age-gating pop-ups or verification screens) can be fatal. Adding age-verification and ID checks will lead to significant user drop-off. A Google study found just a one-second delay increases bounce rates by 32%, and three seconds by 53%.

Bottom line: The App Store Accountability Act would make age restrictions online more invasive than in any other area of daily life—requiring ID checks not just for social media, but for everyday apps that families already manage responsibly. Instead of building a surveillance regime around app downloads, lawmakers should support market-driven tools that empower parents and preserve user privacy.

Full backgrounder: The App Store Accountability Act would undermine privacy and parental choice

The post The App Store Accountability Act would undermine privacy and parental choice appeared first on Reason Foundation.

• Ibogaine is a psychoactive compound derived from the root bark of the Central African shrub Tabernanthe iboga, which has long been used in spiritual practices.  

• A growing body of scientific research is demonstrating the promise of ibogaine as an unconventional, but effective, treatment option for a wide range of mental health and neurological conditions, including opioid use disorder (OUD), post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), traumatic brain injury (TBI), depression, anxiety, multiple sclerosis (MS), and more. 

• Despite such wide-ranging potential, ibogaine’s classification as a Schedule I drug makes it difficult to study and presents a major federal roadblock toward expanding rigorous scientific research into innovative treatment approaches that can improve veterans’ lives and transform state spending on addiction and other mental health conditions. 

The promise of ibogaine treatment for mental health, addiction  

• Research by Stanford University published in Nature Medicine in 2024 found that ibogaine treatment immediately led to significant improvements in PTSD, depression, and anxiety in a cohort of 30 special operations veterans suffering from TBI.  

• The results were profound. According to Stanford Medicine, “[o]ne month after treatment participants experienced average reductions of 88% in PTSD symptoms, 87% in depression symptoms and 81% in anxiety symptoms,” relative to their condition prior to treatment.  

• Cognitive testing also revealed improved concentration, information processing, memory, and impulsivity among the veterans participating in the study.  

• A consistent theme emerges from clinical studies assessing ibogaine for opioid use disorder: ibogaine and ibogaine analogues are the only known treatments that consistently and immediately reduce both physical withdrawal symptoms from opioid addiction and psychological dependence without the need for ongoing medication.

• 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 after only one or two doses, potentially reducing relapse rates and associated mortality risk. This is particularly beneficial given the shortcomings of traditional treatments for OUD, such as methadone and buprenorphine.  

Emerging state interest in ibogaine’s treatment potential 

• Colorado voters decriminalized ibogaine in 2022, and the state’s Natural Medicine Advisory Board will consider adding ibogaine to its regulated, facilitated psychedelics access program in 2026. 

• Policymakers in several states—including Texas, Arizona, Ohio, Washington, and West Virginia—introduced legislation in 2025 to allocate state funds (including those drawn from states’ opioid settlement funds) toward clinical research trials that would demonstrate ibogaine’s potential for treating OUD and other mental health conditions.  

Takeaway: Ibogaine has the potential to transform the lives of millions of Americans struggling with addiction and mental health challenges. States can enact sensible legislation that advances research and development while maintaining a strong commitment to public safety and health. 

Read the full backgrounder:

The post Ibogaine offers major promise in treating addiction, mental health appeared first on Reason Foundation.

The only state to outlaw driverless trucks?

• SB 395 would prohibit the operation of an automated vehicle weighing more than 26,000 lbs or one capable of carrying more than eight passengers on public roads unless a human operator is seated within the vehicle.
• This would deter the introduction of safer automated trucks by preventing the realization of their business benefits.
• If enacted, Nevada would become the only state in the country to enshrine in statute a blanket, preemptive ban on driverless trucks and buses.

Embraces an approach rejected in California for being anti-business

• SB 395 reflects the legislative approach first proposed in California in 2023 (AB 316), which aims to ban driverless trucks.
• In 2023 and 2024 (AB 2286), California Gov. Gavin Newsom vetoed the proposed ban on driverless trucks as being unnecessary and harmful to the state’s reputation for innovation.
• In 2011, Nevada became the first state to explicitly authorize automated vehicles (AB 511). SB 395 would move Nevada from first to last.

Driverless vehicles are already making roads safer

• Automated driving systems cannot drive while drunk, drugged, drowsy, or distracted, and are programmed to follow road rules. According to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, human error is a critical factor in more than 90% of vehicle crashes.
• According to the latest research by leading reinsurance company Swiss Re and automated vehicle technology developer Waymo, Waymo’s automated driving system is already significantly safer than a typical human driver, with an 88% reduction in property damage claims and a 92% reduction in bodily injury claims.
• According to Reason Foundation’s 28th Annual Highway Report, Nevada’s local road safety declined more than any other state year-over-year, with its rank falling from #7 to #37.

No new authorities are needed to prohibit unsafe driverless vehicles

Nevada law already prohibits operating driverless vehicles that fail to follow road rules or do not perform fail-safe procedures safely. Falsely certifying compliance with any of these provisions is a gross misdemeanor (NV Rev Stat § 482A.220).

Full Backgrounder: Nevada Senate Bill 395 Could Hinder Autonomous Vehicle Progress

The post Nevada Senate Bill 395 could hinder autonomous vehicle progress appeared first on Reason Foundation.

Reason Foundation is a leader in open enrollment policy research, publishing a yearly analysis and rating of each state’s open enrollment laws: Public Schools Without Boundaries 2024.

K–12 open enrollment policies let students transfer to traditional public schools other than those that they are residentially assigned to, so long as the receiving school has vacancies available. Cross-district open enrollment programs allow students to transfer to schools outside their assigned school districts, while within-district programs let students transfer to different schools inside their districts. To date, Missouri is considering three open enrollment legislative proposals: Senate Bill (SB) 215—which also encompasses SB 70—House Bill (HB) 711, and SB 572, each of which varies in comprehensiveness.

Overview

In accordance with Reason’s Public Schools Without Boundaries numerical ranking methodology—which awards points to state policies in proportion to their fulfillment of seven key open enrollment metrics—Missouri’s current policy and legislative proposals are scored as follows.

Full Backgrounder: K-12 Open Enrollment Proposals in Missouri, 2025

The post Missouri’s 2025 K-12 open enrollment proposals appeared first on Reason Foundation.

Song lyrics are improperly being used as evidence against defendants.

• Literal confessions of criminal guilt should not be treated as free speech protected under the First Amendment. However, song lyrics are often not intended to be taken literally, so their admission as evidence should be scrutinized.
• Currently, the admissibility of song lyrics is determined by an unclear and inconsistently applied patchwork of constitutional principles and rules of evidence within a jurisdiction. The current framework is insufficient to guard against undue prejudice.
• Researchers have identified more than 680 cases nationwide where song lyrics have been introduced as evidence since the 1980s. This practice presents a serious affront to the principles of free expression and artistic freedom.

S.B. 661 and H.B. 1389 establish reasonable standards for the admission of artistic expression as evidence in a criminal trial.

• By default, artistic expression would be inadmissible. However, a court could admit evidence of a defendant’s artistic expression if they can prove by clear and convincing evidence that:
  • If the expression is original, the defendant intended a literal meaning. If the expression is derivative (borrowed from someone else), the defendant intended to adopt the statement as their own thought or statement.
  • The expression refers to specific facts of the crime alleged.
  • The expression is relevant to an issue of fact in dispute.
  • The expression has distinct probative value that is not provided by other admissible evidence.
• If artistic expression is admitted as evidence, only the exact part that meets all the above standards could be shown to a jury. Judges would also be required to give the jury clear instructions on how to interpret the evidence and caution them against misusing it.

Bottom line: The state should be required to meet fair standards before using song lyrics or other forms of artistic expression as evidence to deprive a criminal defendant of their life, liberty, or property.

Full Backgrounder: Missouri’s S.B. 661 and H.B. 1389 Would Protect Free Expression and Artistic Freedom

The post Missouri bills would protect free expression and artistic freedom appeared first on Reason Foundation.

Colorimetric tests are near-ubiquitous in drug enforcement, despite known flaws

• A recent report by the Quattrone Center at the University of Pennsylvania Law School found that approximately 773,000 of the more than 1.5 million drug arrests conducted in the United States each year involve the use of color-based presumptive tests.
• Colorimetric drug tests are notoriously unreliable because they often give false positive results for legal substances. The reliability of tests can be affected by environmental factors, by improper storage and handling, and by improper administration of the tests.
• Research has identified error rates as high as 38% in some contexts.
• Even the manufacturers of presumptive field test kits warn that confirmatory lab testing is necessary.

Colorimetric tests are a leading cause of wrongful arrests and convictions in the United States

• Thousands of Americans are arrested and convicted (overwhelmingly through coercive plea bargaining) for drug possession in cases where presumptive tests were not confirmed by subsequent laboratory testing.
• In a national survey, 89% of prosecutors reported that they accept guilty pleas without laboratory testing to confirm the results of a positive colorimetric field test result.
• An estimated 30,000 people are falsely implicated by colorimetric field drug tests each year. That would make these tests the largest known cause of wrongful arrests and convictions in the United States.

Bottom line: States should examine how useful these tests really are and how to ensure that false positives don’t lead to the arrest or conviction of innocent individuals.

Full Backgrounder: Colorimetric field drug tests are unreliable, lead to wrongful arrests and convictions

The post Colorimetric field drug tests are unreliable, lead to wrongful arrests and convictions appeared first on Reason Foundation.

#1 – Dual rulemaking authorities are counterproductive

Dual rulemaking authorities split between the Department of Transportation (Section 5), and the Department of Justice (Section 6) risk undue delays in the testing and deployment of autonomous vehicles in Montana. California’s bifurcated and complex regulatory approach led to years of unnecessary delay for fully driverless operations.

#2 – Dangerous road conditions lack definitions and standards

Section 5 does not provide a clear explanation of the meaning of “demonstrated to be capable of operating safely during dangerous road conditions.” This vagueness leads to the question of how to demonstrate to the Department of Transportation, given the lack of consensus on technical standards.

#3 – Safe first responder interactions are unaddressed

While Section 6 authorizes rulemaking by the Department of Justice, which includes the Highway Patrol, it is silent on specifics. One omitted element relates to first responder interactions with disabled autonomous vehicles in roadways, a policy states are increasingly adopting. Consensus standardization of both interaction protocols and personnel training is crucial to ensure responder interactions are safe.

#4 – Misalignment with consensus technical standards

The definitions of “automated driving system” in Section 3 deviate substantially from the global consensus technical standard for driving automation definitions widely adopted by the U.S. federal government and most states. Only driving automation at Levels 3-5 constitutes “automated driving systems,” while Senate Bill 67 incorrectly includes all forms of sustained driving automation at Levels 1-5.

#5 – Lack of risk-based regulatory scrutiny

Section 4 groups Level 3 automated driving systems—which pose unique and heightened risks—with Level 1 driving automation systems, such as adaptive cruise control, that have been used in consumer vehicles for more than 25 years, reflecting the lack of a risk-based approach.

Bottom line: Senate Bill 67 (as passed by the Senate) does not align with best practices and contains several problematic provisions that should be addressed by amendment to ensure automated driving systems are safely and efficiently deployed on Montana’s public highways.

Full Backgrounder: Senate Bill 67 Amendments Needed to Improve Montana’s Autonomous Vehicles Regulatory Framework

The post Montana’s proposed regulatory framework for autonomous vehicles needs reform appeared first on Reason Foundation.

• Since the 2018 Farm Bill federally legalized hemp and its derivatives, the hemp cannabinoid market has grown into a $3 billion interstate industry, including both non-intoxicating therapeutic products like cannabidiol (CBD) and intoxicating hemp products that mimic the psychoactive effects of marijuana. Courts have interpreted federal statute to mean that even chemically modified and intoxicating hemp extracts are federally legal hemp products. 
• Consumer demand for these products has surged, in part due to federal marijuana prohibition and restrictive state cannabis laws that limit consumer access. While less than 30% of legal cannabis businesses were profitable in 2024, hemp cannabinoids have proved a lifeline for farmers and other businesses, generating $241 million in farm income in 2023 alone.  

The risk of overregulation or prohibition 

• Despite its economic and consumer benefits, the hemp market faces growing threats from heavy-handed state regulation and outright bans. In the absence of federal product standards, many states have adopted reactionary policies that mimic the burdensome rules stifling the cannabis industry or outlaw intoxicating hemp cannabinoids. 
• Prohibition and excessive restrictions on products consumers want have well-documented consequences, including fueling illicit markets that operate without oversight, compromising public health with unregulated and mislabeled products, increasing youth access due to lax age-verification, burdening law enforcement with low-priority enforcement efforts, undermining legitimate businesses, and depriving states of tax revenue. 

A smarter approach to regulation  

• Intoxicating hemp products pose no greater risk to society than other intoxicating goods, like alcohol or marijuana. With thoughtful regulation, they can be produced safely and sold responsibly, ensuring consumer protection while fostering economic growth. To achieve this, Reason Foundation’s Model Legislation for Optimal State Regulation of Hemp Cannabinoids recommends that states adopt hemp cannabinoid regulations that:  
  • Establish clear, science-based product safety and manufacturing standards; 
  • Regulate, don’t ban, naturally occurring and synthesized hemp cannabinoids; 
  • Ensure age restrictions and responsible retailing;  
  • Mandate reasonable testing and labeling requirements; and 
  • Avoid excessive fees and taxes that undermine legal market viability. 

Full Backgrounder: Optimal framework for the state regulation of hemp cannabinoids

The post Optimal framework for the state regulation of hemp cannabinoids  appeared first on Reason Foundation.

Senate Bill 219, the Medical Psilocybin Act, would create a regulated system to allow patients with qualifying conditions (PTSD, substance use disorders, and end-of-life care) to access and use psilocybin under the guidance of a licensed healthcare provider. New Mexico would join Colorado and Oregon in authorizing facilitated use programs for innovative therapeutic care.

• The program will be managed by the Department of Health (DOH) and a nine-person Medical Psilocybin Advisory Board. Among other duties, the board will oversee the collection and analysis of program results and will include representatives from a tribe, nation, or pueblo and a veteran of the US armed services, among others.DOH will oversee the program, establish training for clinicians and producers, and license producers to grow mushrooms and process psilocybin. DOH will be responsible for determining program aspects such as dosage, administration, production, and storage. DOH will also have authority to expand upon qualifying conditions for treatment.Under SB 219, psilocybin therapy will require at a minimum a preparation session, an administration session and a follow-up integration session, all in DOH-approved settings. 

• SB 219 would retain current prohibitions on the commercial manufacture and sale of other psychedelic compounds, and prohibits synthetic psilocybin, as well as driving intoxicated.

Full backgrounder: New Mexico Senate Bill 219 would regulate medical psilocybin access

The post New Mexico Senate Bill 219 would regulate medical psilocybin access appeared first on Reason Foundation.

1. Advantages of users-pay systems

• Fairness: Those who pay the user fees receive the benefit
• Proportionality: Those who use more highway services pay more, those who use less pay less
• Self-limiting: Limits on how the tax can be used as well as its size
• Predictability: Produces a revenue stream independent of government budgets
• Investment signal: The users-pay mechanism provides a way to answer the question of how much infrastructure to build

2. Other users-pay funding sources

• Increased registration fee: Already on the higher end at $221 per year 
• Tolling: Promising on new capacity, bridges and tunnels but not realistic on surface streets and local roads
• Other options such as tire fees for light-duty vehicles can be expensive to implement and don’t generate sufficient revenue 

3. Non-users pay sources have their own weaknesses 
   • Overall weakness: Cannot be bonded against because revenue is not guaranteed
   • Overall weakness: Planning for projects becomes challenging with uncertain revenues 
   • Statewide sales tax: Must compete with other budget priorities and would create a very regressive tax climate
   • Statewide property tax levy: Would infringe on funding mechanism for local governments and worsen overall housing costs 
   • General fund revenue: Must compete with other priorities; revenue varies significantly from year to year
   • Have Delaware pay for it: Would not survive court challenges  

Full Backgrounder: Transportation revenue options in Maryland

The post Transportation revenue options in Maryland appeared first on Reason Foundation.

Since then, Florida has made some progress but is still on a long path to achieve this goal. A new proposal, House Bill 945, aims to reinstate the costly COLA feature, which could once again expose the state and taxpayers to unpredictable expenses.

COLA Could Cost Florida Taxpayers Over $47 Billion Over 30 Years

• The cost of the proposed cost-of-living on the state budget can be estimated, but Florida’s actual costs would depend on the pension system’s market returns and demographic outcomes (retirements, life expectancy, etc).
• Policymakers should look beyond best-case scenarios when evaluating a COLA. Any economic recessions or market downturns in the coming decades could lock Florida’s taxpayers into paying for this proposal for longer than planned and at much higher costs.
• Pension Integrity Project modeling of the Florida Retirement System shows the additional cost of bringing back cost-of-living adjustments, as proposed in House Bill 945, could rise above $47 billion over 30 years.
• It is crucial for policymakers to examine this proposal’s potential costs and risks before hindering the state’s pension funding progress.

Florida Needs to Let Previous Pension Reforms Work

• Florida lawmakers, public employees, and taxpayers have all made sacrifices to try to ensure the long-term viability of FRS. Some of these public pension reforms, which have passed recently, take time, however, and must be maintained to reach the eventual full-funding goal.
• The Florida Retirement System is still nearly $46 billion in debt. It is decades away from being able to fulfill the pension promises made to teachers, police, firefighters, and other public workers. Now is not the time to add more promises with unpredictable and potentially costly price tags.

Major Costs, Risks Associated with Restoring FRS COLA

The post The Florida Retirement System’s proposed cost-of-living adjustment comes with major costs and risks appeared first on Reason Foundation.

HB 78’s estimated costs are dependent on a flawed discount rate. The claim that HB 78’s proposed changes would not require any additional state funding relies on the pensions’ current investment return assumption being met. Alaska’s pension plans would need to achieve overly-optimistic 7.25% annual returns on investments for decades to avoid additional costs. 

• Overly-optimistic investment return assumptions were a major contributor to the $7.6 billion debt that is still owed on Alaska’s legacy pension plans, the Alaska Public Employees’ Retirement System, PERS, and Teachers’ Retirement System, TRS. 

• Since 2001, Alaska’s pension plans have earned just 5.8% annual returns on average. 

• Nationally, the average assumed rate of return used by public pension systems is around 6.9%, so Alaska’s current return rate assumption is rosier than most other states. 

• The discount rate is used when pricing the amount needed from employees to purchase their “past service.” The plan continuing to earn under 7.25% or dropping that assumed rate would add hundreds of millions of dollars in new unfunded liabilities.  

HB 78 could cost Alaska an additional $11.4 billion over the status quo. Actuarial analysis of Alaska PERS and TRS that anticipates market stress over the next 30 years similar to market stresses from 2001-2024 shows HB 78 likely exposes the state to significant additional costs. 

Bottom Line

HB 78 could cost Alaska more than $11 billion in the coming decades. Since most public employees leave their positions before being fully eligible for their pension benefits, this could be very costly legislation that only benefits a relatively small group of workers.

Full Backgrounder: House Bill 78 exposes Alaska to significant additional costs

The post House Bill 78 exposes Alaska to significant additional costs appeared first on Reason Foundation.