This is a date-stamped snapshot of the United States picture as of June 2026, not a live tracker. Three states have enacted regulated psilocybin frameworks: Oregon (Measure 109, 2020), [1] primary-legal Oregon Psilocybin Services (Ballot Measure 109; ORS Chapter 475A) Link → Colorado (Proposition 122, 2022, with implementing legislation), [2] primary-legal Proposition 122, Natural Medicine Health Act; implementing Senate Bill 23-290 (2023) Link → and New Mexico (Medical Psilocybin Act, 2025, the first via legislation rather than a ballot). [3] primary-legal Medical Psilocybin Act (Senate Bill 219); NMSA 1978, Chapter 26, Article 2D Link → They differ in whether they decriminalize possession, how access is structured, and their timelines. Several cities have decriminalized or deprioritized possession locally, and reforms have also been narrowed — Oregon’s broader drug decriminalization was partly reversed in 2024. [4] primary-legal Ballot Measure 110 (Drug Addiction Treatment and Recovery Act), as amended by House Bill 4002 (2024) Link → None of this changes federal Schedule I status. [5] primary-legal 21 U.S.C. § 812 — Schedules of controlled substances Link → Treat every line below as accurate only as of its date, and verify the current position before relying on it.
This is not legal advice; consult a qualified attorney licensed in your jurisdiction. This snapshot will age, and it does not tell you what is lawful for you.
A descriptive map, not a destination guide. This article describes how jurisdictions are structured. It does not rank states or cities as places to obtain or use psychedelics, advise on travel or sourcing, or interpret any programme’s rules for an individual.
How to read this snapshot
Three cautions before the detail. First, the date matters more than anything: every statement here is as of June 2026 and is expected to change. Second, the categories matter — a state can decriminalize possession, run a supervised-access programme, or both, and these are not the same (see decriminalization versus legalization). Third, none of the state or local action below changes federal law, under which psilocybin remains Schedule I. [5] primary-legal 21 U.S.C. § 812 — Schedules of controlled substances Link → This page maps structure; it does not measure how to participate.
The three states with regulated frameworks
| State | Instrument (year) | Decriminalizes possession? | Access model | What not to infer |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Oregon | Measure 109 (2020) | Not via 109 itself | Supervised services via licensed service centres | General legality outside the licensed system |
| Colorado | Proposition 122 (2022) + SB23-290 | Yes, for listed natural psychedelics, adults 21+ | Supervised access via regulated healing centres | Federal legality, or lawful unlicensed sale |
| New Mexico | Medical Psilocybin Act (2025) | Framed as a medical programme | Regulated medical access, phased implementation | Immediate universal access or adult-use legalization |
Oregon created the first regulated psilocybin-services programme through Measure 109, administered by the state health authority through licensed service centres. [1] primary-legal Oregon Psilocybin Services (Ballot Measure 109; ORS Chapter 475A) Link → The reform that decriminalized broader personal possession in Oregon was a separate measure, and it was partly reversed by later legislation in 2024 — a reminder that these frameworks are not static. [4] primary-legal Ballot Measure 110 (Drug Addiction Treatment and Recovery Act), as amended by House Bill 4002 (2024) Link →
Colorado approved Proposition 122, which both decriminalized personal possession of several natural psychedelics for adults and directed a regulated supervised-access programme, later built out by Senate Bill 23-290. [2] primary-legal Proposition 122, Natural Medicine Health Act; implementing Senate Bill 23-290 (2023) Link → Colorado therefore coupled two distinct categories that Oregon kept separate.
New Mexico passed the Medical Psilocybin Act in 2025, the third state to enact a framework and the first to do so by legislation rather than a ballot initiative. [3] primary-legal Medical Psilocybin Act (Senate Bill 219); NMSA 1978, Chapter 26, Article 2D Link → It is structured as a medical programme directing the state health department to develop regulated access for qualifying conditions, with implementation phased over subsequent years.
Local measures are a separate, faster-moving layer
Beneath the states, a number of cities have decriminalized or deprioritized enforcement of psilocybin possession. These local measures generally change local enforcement posture rather than state or federal law, and they do not create lawful supply. A city making possession its lowest enforcement priority is a meaningful policy signal, but it is not legalization, and it does not displace the higher layers described in federal versus state law. Because local reforms change frequently, they are the items most likely to be out of date on any static page.
The key distinction at this layer is between the law on the books and enforcement priority. A non-prosecution policy or a deprioritization ordinance can lower the practical chance of a charge without altering the underlying offence. So local decriminalization is best read as enforcement-policy information, not as proof that possession, sale, transport, or commercial activity has become lawful.
Microdosing is not a separate legal category
It is worth stating plainly: these frameworks regulate the substances, not a dosing practice. None of the state programmes is a “microdosing” programme — they govern psilocybin generally, mostly through supervised settings. The distinction between a substance’s legal status and any particular pattern of use is one this site holds throughout, and it means that the existence of a programme says nothing about whether sub-perceptual repeated dosing is either lawful in everyday life or supported by the research evidence.
- Three states, three designs
- Oregon, Colorado, and New Mexico have enacted frameworks that differ in structure and timeline. [3] primary-legal Medical Psilocybin Act (Senate Bill 219); NMSA 1978, Chapter 26, Article 2D Link →
- Local ≠ state ≠ federal
- Local decriminalization changes local enforcement, not state or federal law, and creates no legal supply.
Frequently asked questions
Which states have regulated psilocybin programmes as of June 2026?
As of June 2026, three states have enacted regulated psilocybin-access frameworks: Oregon, through Measure 109 in 2020; [1] primary-legal Oregon Psilocybin Services (Ballot Measure 109; ORS Chapter 475A) Link → Colorado, through Proposition 122 in 2022 and its implementing legislation; [2] primary-legal Proposition 122, Natural Medicine Health Act; implementing Senate Bill 23-290 (2023) Link → and New Mexico, through the Medical Psilocybin Act passed in 2025. [3] primary-legal Medical Psilocybin Act (Senate Bill 219); NMSA 1978, Chapter 26, Article 2D Link → The three differ substantially in design — for example, whether they decriminalize personal possession, whether they are framed as medical, and how access is structured. Implementation timelines also differ, and this is a snapshot that will age; verify the current position with each state’s official programme before relying on it.
What is the difference between Oregon's and Colorado's approaches?
Oregon’s Measure 109 created a supervised psilocybin-services programme administered through licensed service centres, without itself decriminalizing personal possession outside the programme. [1] primary-legal Oregon Psilocybin Services (Ballot Measure 109; ORS Chapter 475A) Link → Colorado’s Proposition 122 did two things: it decriminalized personal possession of several natural psychedelics for adults and directed a separate regulated healing-centre programme. [2] primary-legal Proposition 122, Natural Medicine Health Act; implementing Senate Bill 23-290 (2023) Link → So Colorado coupled decriminalization with access, while Oregon’s headline reform was the supervised programme. Both operate under state law and neither overrides federal prohibition.
What did New Mexico do, and how is it different?
New Mexico enacted the Medical Psilocybin Act in 2025, becoming the third state to create a regulated psilocybin pathway and the first to do so through legislation rather than a ballot initiative. [3] primary-legal Medical Psilocybin Act (Senate Bill 219); NMSA 1978, Chapter 26, Article 2D Link → It is framed as a medical programme directing the state health department to build regulated access for qualifying conditions, with implementation phased over the following years. As with the other states, details and timing are subject to rulemaking and change, so the current status should be checked against the state programme directly.
Do local decriminalization measures make possession legal?
No. A number of cities have decriminalized or deprioritized enforcement of psilocybin possession, but local measures generally change local enforcement, not state or federal law, and they do not create a legal way to buy or sell. [5] primary-legal 21 U.S.C. § 812 — Schedules of controlled substances Link → A city can make possession its lowest law-enforcement priority while the conduct remains an offence under state and federal law. Local reforms are among the most variable and fast-changing items in this area.
How current is this snapshot?
It reflects the position as of June 2026 and is certain to age. State programmes are implemented through ongoing rulemaking, new states consider legislation each session, and local measures change frequently. [4] primary-legal Ballot Measure 110 (Drug Addiction Treatment and Recovery Act), as amended by House Bill 4002 (2024) Link → This article is a structural map rather than a live tracker; for any decision it should be treated as a starting point only, with the current status verified against primary state and local government sources, and any personal question taken to a qualified attorney.