At the beginning of this year, Senator Jesse Salomon along with thirteen co-sponsors, filed Senate Bill 5201. This bill would allow for psilocybin-assisted therapy in Washington State. If passed, it would structure regulations for licensed therapeutic programs using psilocybin, thus allowing licensed individuals to grow, store, and administer mushrooms to patients in a regulated setting. Its companion bill, House Bill 1433, sponsored by Nicole Macri, allows similar provisions. Passage of both these bills would accelerate the timeline for implementing psilocybin therapy in Washington State.
These bills are unique because they demonstrate an approach that moves away from the fear-mongering and hysteria that currently inform the legal landscape around psychedelics. At the same time, they maintain a strict legal framework for what’s acceptable, without loosening punishment for recreational use. Although the sponsorship for these bills leans slightly democratic, they have garnered bipartisan support. Indeed, if they pass, they might be part of the most middle-of-the-road psychedelics legislation in the United States.
State Law and the Anti-Commandeering Doctrine
To understand the legality behind this bill, it’s helpful to understand the anti-commandeering doctrine, which can apply to any topic for which federal law and state law are in conflict. To read more about this doctrine, and the legal basis of state laws around psilocybin, you can read our article about psilocybin legalization (coming soon!).
Right now, psilocybin is decriminalized in a few counties and municipalities throughout Washington State. Any decriminalization efforts, even for clinical uses as outlined in this bill, technically go against federal law. Though psilocybin remains a scheduled substance at the federal level, states are allowed to carve out exceptions. Federal authorities could still technically prosecute these legal violations, but the precedent is that federal resources won’t go toward these types of prosecutions.
What preceded SB 5201, and how does it compare to similar legislation?
Oregon’s path to decriminalization can be summed up with Ballot Measures 109 and 110, both passed in 2020, which created provisions for legal psychedelic therapy sessions in the context of supervised treatment, and the decriminalization of some drugs (including magic mushrooms) respectively. In 2022, Colorado’s decriminalization movement resulted in Proposition 122, which decriminalized personal possession, and opened up similar provisions for psilocybin therapy.
Proponents of Washington’s bill might value that it strays from the blueprint set by Oregon and Colorado, thinking that decriminalization may have been too rash. Colorado’s decriminalization has led to the development of gray-market industries for psychedelic substances as well as unlicensed psychedelic retreat experiences that may pose risks to consumer protection.
Seeing how things have played out in other states, Washington legislators want to intermingle psilocybin with more regulatory agencies and further research to maintain a more structured framework. Washington State’s bill does not decriminalize the recreational use of mushrooms, which means this bill is stricter than other states. Washington wants to be on the forefront of something sort of radical, but also wants to do so in the most controlled way possible.
“The bill is informed by laws that have already been passed in other states…what is working…and what is not working. I know many people would like for us to take a bigger step forward… in legalizing…novel therapeutics like psilocybin. I think this is a thoughtful step in the right direction.” – Rep. Nicole Macri
Why didn’t the recent legislation open up psilocybin therapy in Washington last year?
This year’s bill is not the first of its kind, and it’s important to understand how previous legislation informs what’s in front of the senate today. In 2023, Salomon sponsored SB 5263, also pertaining to psilocybin therapy services. By the time SB 5263 landed on the governor’s desk, he vetoed it due to inconsistencies and logistical issues related to the role of a Psilocybin Advisory Board as the bill designed it. The Psilocybin Advisory Board’s ambiguous role as an intermediary with the Liquor and Cannabis Board and State Health Department showed that the bill needed more direction and concrete plans for all agencies involved. After multiple amendments converting it to a psilocybin research bill, it was eventually passed.
A pilot program through the University of Washington was commissioned accordingly to assess the safety of psilocybin therapy services for vulnerable populations. The study aims to recruit veterans and first responders, who suffer disproportionately from substance use issues and other mental health challenges. The study has passed the Institutional Review Board, and the trials themselves will be ongoing over the next year and a half. Insofar as last year’s bill left the door open for psilocybin services in the future by developing a plan for further research, it seems that by the time the research concludes, Washington might be ready for SB 5201 as the natural next step of the plan.
The Debate About Washington’s Psilocybin Therapy Bill
Proponents of the bill consider it a cautious and evidence-based step in the right direction. Because the risk-to-reward ratio of psilocybin is promising, opening up more clinical uses for psilocybin could help many Washingtonians.
At the same time, this recognition that psychedelics are a powerful mental health tool is coupled with caution about the potential harm that psychedelics could cause to society if left unchecked. This is where an investment in regulatory agencies and protocols comes in. Whether lawmakers are concerned that citizens can’t make the right decisions around psilocybin, or believe that all-out decriminalization isn’t politically feasible, this solution allows for a greater amount of control over psychedelics.
Indeed, lawmakers in favor of this bill are forced to answer to decades worth of fearmongering and precedents that suggest psychedelics are dangerous. Amy Brackenbury, of the Washington State Medical Association and the Washington State Public Health Association, testified that since the decriminalization of psilocybin in Colorado, the Poison Control Center was called 133 times between March and December of 2024 for psilocybin-related concerns. Although this statistic was used to call into question the safety of psilocybin, it isn’t an egregious number when you consider that Colorado poison control received a total of 50,525 calls between June 2023 and 2024, and 36,050 poison exposures reported in 2023. The fact that these numbers are even a topic of conversation reveals people’s deep reservations about the safety of psilocybin.
However, opponents of the bill aren’t just concerned about the safety of psilocybin, and criticisms come from several different perspectives.
Concerns From The Medical Community
Some healthcare providers testified that in their professional opinion, the bill was not well thought out, and not scientific. One psychiatrist, speaking on behalf of the Washington State Psychiatric Association, wanted people to understand that it can take a lot longer than the scope of previous studies to fully understand the issues that can arise from any medicine or treatment. Thus, he argued that it could be a lot riskier than we know to open up a novel treatment protocol. The study commissioned by the state of Washington is only two years underway, so people suggest that the three-year study should be completed and evaluated before proceeding.
Other psychiatrists, even those who are on board with the clinical benefits of psilocybin, consider the bill dishonest in its aims. Rebecca Allen, MD, MPH, stated, “this is a recreational bill masking as a medical bill,” arguing that although its language structures it as clinical, it sets up the ability for recreational use because the guidelines are so loose. For example, the concept of a ‘service center’ doesn’t have a clinically established definition, and the bill allows people without medical or psychological credentials to evaluate patients and decide whether they would be a good candidate for psilocybin therapy. It also doesn’t establish protocols such as taking a patient’s vital signs, before or during treatment.
Concerns From Decriminalization Activists
Much of the concern also comes from areas like Seattle, where psychedelics have already been decriminalized. At the top of a recent public hearing, Salomon emphasized that the bill wouldn’t recriminalize psychedelics in decriminalized areas, but concerned citizens cited section 48, which states that this bill supersedes any local or county law regarding psilocybin. When I called Salomon’s office for clarification, his assistant informed me that section 48 concerns areas that don’t want to adopt psilocybin therapy, meaning that counties or municipalities aren’t allowed to ban psilocybin therapy on the local level after this law is passed. Thus, it would not impact already existing policies that decriminalize psilocybin use made at the local level.
Many people in favor of deciminalization are also concerned that it could exacerbate the pre-existing inequities around drug policing, economics, and mental health care. At present, 14% of Washingtonians live in decriminalized zones, which many consider a testament to the feasibility and safety of statewide decriminalization. Those in favor of decriminalization consider the service-center model unnecessarily for-profit and exclusionary, thus limiting the average person’s ability to access this care, forcing people to shell out for unaffordable treatments if they want to access this care legally. Activists pointed to the service-center model from Ballot Measures 109 and 110 in Oregon, which some people think worsened an already deep divide in healthcare access. Most people in favor of decriminalization opposed the bill as it stands, but wanted to see a decriminalization amendment and were ready to support the bill should those changes be written in.
What is the future of psilocybin Therapy in WA?
Broadly Washington’s new psilocybin therapy bill is part of a political wave recognizing that War On Drugs-era policies around psychedelics aren’t evidence-based, and need to be re-evaluated. At the same time, Washington is more guarded than Oregon or Colorado in their approach, and it’s unclear if it’s because the people in office don’t understand that decriminalization is what citizens want, or don’t think it is in people’s best interest. Thus far, no other state has chosen this exact legislative path so it’s unclear if this looks like a road to decriminalization.
Either way, as states slowly recognize the potential benefits of psychedelics and understand the flaws of criminalization, we may start to see more bills like Washington’s in the near future. Despite the potential safety and equity concerns with the bill as it stands today, we can be optimistic about this bill as a step forward, and imagine that it isn’t the end of the conversation.
For genetics companies like ours here at Inoculate The World, Washington’s psilocybin therapy bill presents the opportunity to provide mushroom spores to authorized growers and manufacturers. We are passionate about making these genetics accessible, and hope that as more pathways to psilocybin access develop, our existing reputation in the community positions us as both a provider of high quality genetics, and as an educator in the emerging space. Our expertise in the industry gives us a unique perspective on the trends and challenges that will arise with these legislative changes. Additionally, our curated library of genetics, including dozens of unique strains of Psilocybe cubensis, would give manufacturers and providers a range of options to choose from. We are watching the legislation closely, and we’re excited to be part of such a historic and vital movement.