Same substance. Same country. Radically different consequences depending on which side of a city’s borders a person stands.
This reality shapes the daily lives of entheogenic practitioners across the United States. A ceremony that proceeds without interference in one location could result in federal prosecution in another, or exist in a legal gray zone in a third. Understanding why these variations exist requires looking at the fundamental architecture of American governance, the constitutional principles that enable state resistance to federal authority, and the grassroots movements reshaping local enforcement priorities from the ground up.
The Federal Foundation and Its Limits
The Controlled Substances Act of 1970 established the framework that still governs federal drug policy. Under this legislation, most entheogens remain classified as Schedule I substances, officially deemed to have high potential for abuse and no currently accepted medical use. Psilocybin, mescaline, DMT, and ibogaine all fall into this category. The federal penalties for manufacturing, distributing, or possessing these substances can be severe.
Yet, federal law, despite its supremacy on paper, operates within constitutional constraints that profoundly affect enforcement on the ground.
The Tenth Amendment provides to states all powers not explicitly delegated to the federal government. More significantly, the "anti-commandeering doctrine" established through cases like New York v. United States (1992), Printz v. United States (1997), and most recently Murphy v. NCAA (2018), prevents Congress from compelling state governments to enforce federal regulatory programs. The federal government can pass whatever laws it chooses regarding controlled substances. What it cannot do, however, is force state police officers, state prosecutors, or state courts to enforce those laws.
This constitutional architecture creates what legal scholars describe as a "gray zone of legality." When states decide not to criminalize conduct that violates federal law, a gap opens between what remains technically illegal and what actually gets enforced.
In summary: The federal government maintains full authority to prosecute entheogen-related activities anywhere in the country, but constitutional limits on commandeering mean it cannot conscript state resources to do so.
State-Level Divergence and the Oregon Model
Oregon changed the national landscape when voters passed Measure 109 in November 2020, creating the first state-regulated program for psilocybin services in the country. The Oregon Psilocybin Services Act authorizes the presence of licensed service centers, where individuals twenty-one and older can consume psilocybin under the supervision of trained facilitators, without requiring any medical diagnosis or prescription. The Oregon Health Authority oversees licensing and regulation of manufacturers, testing laboratories, facilitators, and service centers.
The same election saw Oregon voters approve Measure 110, which decriminalized possession of small amounts of most controlled substances, including psilocybin. Oregon thus became the first state to both legalize supervised psilocybin use and decriminalize personal possession.
Colorado followed in 2022 with Proposition 122, the Natural Medicine Health Act. The Colorado approach differs from Oregon in several important ways. Beyond psilocybin, the Colorado law eventually extends to include DMT, ibogaine, and mescaline (excluding peyote). Colorado also decriminalized personal possession, cultivation, and sharing of these substances among adults, whereas Oregon only permits consumption within licensed service centers. Colorado allows facilitators to provide services in home settings and other locations beyond licensed facilities. The Colorado Department of Regulatory Agencies and the Department of Revenue share oversight responsibilities.
New Mexico enacted legislation in 2025 to create a medical psilocybin program, expected to begin by the end of 2027 and focused on specific therapeutic conditions including PTSD, treatment-resistant depression, and end-of-life care.
Each state program creates different rules about who can participate, where services can occur, what substances qualify, and how oversight functions. A practitioner familiar with Oregon's requirements would find Colorado's framework meaningfully different, and vice versa.
In summary: State legalization creates regulated pathways that exist in direct tension with federal prohibition, functioning only because federal agencies have not prioritized enforcement against compliant operations.
Municipal Movements and the Decriminalize Nature Strategy
Below the state level, a different form of reform has spread through city councils and county boards across the country. Denver became the first city to decriminalize psilocybin in May 2019 through a citizen ballot initiative. Oakland followed weeks later, expanding the scope to include all "entheogenic plants and fungi" through a unanimous city council vote.
The model that emerged from Oakland, refined and propagated by the Decriminalize Nature movement, typically works through city council resolutions rather than changes to criminal codes. These resolutions declare that investigation and arrest of adults for activities involving entheogenic plants and fungi shall be among the lowest law enforcement priorities. The resolutions also typically direct that no city funds or resources be used to assist in enforcing laws against these substances.
Since 2019, similar measures have passed in Santa Cruz, Ann Arbor, Washington D.C., Cambridge, Somerville, Seattle, Detroit, Portland (Maine), Olympia, Tacoma, Berkeley, Minneapolis, and numerous other jurisdictions. Each locality crafts its own language, sometimes including or excluding specific substances, sometimes focused on personal use only, and/or sometimes extending to shared ceremonial contexts.
What these municipal measures do not accomplish is legalization. The substances remain illegal under both federal and (in most cases) state law. Local prosecutors may still pursue charges. County sheriffs, state police, and federal agents all retain full authority to enforce existing prohibitions. What changes is the commitment of local resources. When local police departments are directed to treat entheogen investigations as their lowest priority and are prohibited from spending city funds on enforcement, the practical landscape shifts considerably.
In summary: Decriminalization at the municipal level creates zones where local enforcement essentially ceases, although state and federal prosecution remains legally possible.
The Enforcement Gap in Practice
The gap between laws on the books and laws in action has precedent, and cannabis provided the template. By 2013, enough states had legalized medical or recreational cannabis that the Department of Justice issued the Cole Memorandum, directing federal prosecutors not to prioritize enforcement against state-compliant operations. Though Attorney General Jeff Sessions rescinded this guidance in 2018, federal prosecution of state-legal cannabis operations remained rare. The practical reality was that the DEA lacked the resources to replace state and local enforcement, and U.S. Attorneys in legalization states continued exercising prosecutorial discretion consistent with the rescinded Cole Memo priorities.
No equivalent federal guidance exists for entheogens. The Justice Department has issued no memorandum addressing state psilocybin programs. Each U.S. Attorney's office theoretically retains full discretion to prosecute violations of the Controlled Substances Act regardless of state or local law. Someone operating a licensed psilocybin service center in Oregon in full compliance with state regulations remains vulnerable to federal prosecution as a matter of law.
Yet federal prosecutions of state-compliant entheogenic operations have not materialized. Federal law enforcement resources remain finite. Prosecution priorities continue emphasizing trafficking organizations, violent crime, and activities that threaten federal enforcement priorities. Individual participants in state-regulated programs or municipal decriminalization zones occupy a space of de facto tolerance, even without de jure protection.
In summary: The absence of federal enforcement action against state-compliant operations creates functional space for legal programs to operate, though this tolerance could shift with changing political priorities or prosecutorial personnel.
Practical Implications for Practitioners
The jurisdictional patchwork creates a landscape that demands careful navigation, since several realities shape the practical environment.
State lines matter enormously. A substance legal to possess and consume under supervision in Oregon becomes a federal crime to transport across the California border, regardless of California municipal decriminalization. Interstate movement remains squarely within federal jurisdiction under Commerce Clause authority. Even between two states with legal programs, transporting scheduled substances across state lines violates federal law.
Local resolutions provide limited protection. A decriminalization resolution in Oakland does not prevent Alameda County prosecutors from filing charges, California state police from making arrests, or DEA agents from conducting enforcement operations. The protection extends only to local police priorities and local resource allocation. Practitioners sometimes overestimate the legal cover these resolutions provide.
Employment, housing, and professional licensing operate under separate rules. Federal contractors, employees subject to drug testing, healthcare professionals with DEA registrations, and individuals in many other regulated contexts face potential consequences regardless of state or local law. The legal permissibility of an activity under state law does not insulate participants from collateral consequences that flow from continued federal prohibition.
Documentation requirements vary significantly. Oregon requires extensive preparation and integration sessions at licensed service centers, whereas Colorado permits more flexible arrangements. Some municipal decriminalization measures specifically contemplate "beneficial community-based use" or ceremonial contexts. Practitioners must understand the specific requirements and limitations of their jurisdiction.
In summary: Navigating the current landscape requires understanding not just which jurisdictions have reformed their laws, but the precise scope and limitations of those reforms.
Questions for Reflection
Consider how these jurisdictional variations affect access and equity:
- Do state-regulated programs with licensing fees and facility requirements create barriers that municipal decriminalization avoids?
- Or, do regulated programs provide safety structures that decriminalization lacks?
Think about the role of federal discretion in this landscape:
- What happens if a future administration prioritizes enforcement against state-legal entheogenic operations?
- What protections actually exist, and which protections merely involve the absence of enforcement action?
Reflect on the relationship between different reform strategies:
- Do municipal decriminalization efforts support or complicate state-level legalization campaigns?
- How do religious exemption pathways interact with therapeutic or personal-use frameworks?