The Ninety Days Nobody Wrote Down - PSA's Regulatory Dispatch, Vol. II

Psychedelic State(s) of America’s Regulatory Dispatch, Vol. II:

The Ninety Days Nobody Wrote Down

By Odette Alina Hauke, M.S.

Thursday, October 22nd, 2026

On September 23, 2026, two federal documents were published on the same day.

One was an audit. The Government Accountability Office reported that neither the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) nor the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has written down how its staff are to run the evaluations that put substances into schedules.²⁵ The other was a notice of proposed rulemaking in which DEA proposed to place five tryptamine hallucinogens in Schedule I, on exactly that kind of evaluation.⁶ One of the five, 4-OH-DiPT, is the active moiety of a drug candidate that FDA designated a Breakthrough Therapy seven months earlier.²⁷

Compass Pathways expects to finish the rolling new drug application for its synthetic psilocybin, COMP360, this quarter, and anticipates launch in the first half of 2027.28 What happens between an approval and a prescription is a 2027 question. The answer is in two statutes, and almost nobody has read the second.

What the Statute Actually Says

Congress addressed this in 2015. Public Law 114-89, enacted November 25, 2015, added subsection (j) to 21 U.S.C. 811.4 Where FDA approves a new drug application and the Secretary of Health and Human Services recommends control in Schedule II, III, IV, or V, the Attorney General "shall, not later than 90 days after the date described in paragraph (2), issue an interim final rule."¹ The date in paragraph (2) is the later of two events: the day the Attorney General receives the scientific and medical evaluation and scheduling recommendation from HHS, or the day the Attorney General receives notice from HHS that the application has been approved.¹

That rule takes effect immediately, without the government having to show good cause. It must allow comment and hearing requests, and a final rule follows.¹

Two conditions in that sentence are worth holding onto, because they are the difference between a deadline and an aspiration. The clock runs only for a drug referred to subsection (f), which is the provision that sends FDA's abuse-potential information to the Attorney General when a new drug application is filed for a drug with a "stimulant, depressant, or hallucinogenic effect on the central nervous system."¹ It runs only if HHS recommends Schedule II through V. A recommendation to leave a drug in Schedule I does not start a ninety-day clock. It starts nothing at all.¹

The second statute is the one that decides whether a patient can fill anything. Section 355(x) of title 21 provides that where the Secretary has told a sponsor it intends to recommend controls, "approval of such application shall not take effect until the interim final rule controlling the drug is issued."³ The approval does not arrive and then wait. It does not arrive at all.³

Read the next paragraph of that section and you can see exactly whose interests Congress protected in the gap. For exclusivity purposes, the date of approval becomes the later of the approval or the interim final rule, so the sponsor loses no market time while DEA writes. The patient has no corresponding provision. Congress noticed that the gap costs somebody something, and it compensated the company.³

So the headline that FDA has approved a psychedelic will, when it comes, describe an approval that has not taken effect. The ninety days start then, and the prescription starts somewhere after that.

One Real Precedent, and Two That Are Not

Three recent actions get cited as precedent. Only one is.

Zurzuvae is the real one. FDA approved the new drug application for zuranolone on August 4, 2023, and DEA received notice of the approval the same day. DEA had received the HHS evaluation, which recommended Schedule IV, on July 12, 2023. The later of those two dates was August 4, 2023. DEA published the interim final rule on October 31, 2023, effective on publication, eighty-eight days later, two days inside the statute.⁹ The final rule published August 14, 2024, two hundred eighty-eight days after the interim rule, and took effect September 13, 2024.10 That is the whole 811(j) sequence, run once, for a neurosteroid.

It is worth saying what zuranolone treats, because it is the same thing the psychedelic behind it treats. Zurzuvae was approved for postpartum depression.⁹ Luvesilocin, the drug built on 4-OH-DiPT, received its Breakthrough Therapy designation for postpartum depression.²⁷ The only drug that has ever completed the ninety-day sequence and the psychedelic closest behind it in the queue were developed for the same women.

The two actions people reach for instead ran on different authority. DEA's September 28, 2018 action on Epidiolex was a final order under 21 U.S.C. 811(d)(1), which directs control to carry out treaty obligations, and the order says so plainly: the Acting Administrator wrote that he was "not required to consider this HHS recommendation when issuing an order under section 811(d)(1)."¹¹ No ninety-day clock was running. DEA removed that Schedule V listing two years later, after the 2018 Farm Bill put the products outside the Act altogether.¹² The April 28, 2026, final rule moving FDA-approved marijuana products to Schedule III, at 91 FR 22714, rests on the same treaty authority under the Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs, 1961.13

That matters more than a citation footnote. Section 811(d)(1) reaches only obligations under treaties "in effect on October 27, 1970."¹ Cannabis and cannabidiol sit under the 1961 Single Convention, which was in force for the United States in 1970. The treaty covering psychotropic substances was signed at Vienna on February 21, 1971, almost four months too late to qualify, and Congress handled it separately. Section 801a(2) declares that the Convention on Psychotropic Substances "is not self-executing, and the obligations of the United States thereunder may only be performed pursuant to appropriate legislation."⁵ Section 801a(3) then says what that legislation does: control of psychotropic substances "should be accomplished within the framework of the procedures and criteria for classification of substances provided in" the 1970 Act.⁵ That is the ordinary process, not a treaty order. DEA has taken no public position on the question, but on the face of the statute the shortcut behind both product-specific precedents is not available for a psychedelic. What is available is 811(j), on ninety days, or ordinary rulemaking, on no deadline at all.¹

How long is no deadline? HHS sent DEA its evaluation of the five tryptamines on April 2, 2026. DEA proposed the rule on September 23, 2026. That is one hundred seventy-four days, for substances with no approval, no application, and, as the notice itself records, no investigational new drug application either.⁶ Nothing in that interval was late, because nothing in that interval was due.

The Product Gets Scheduled, Not the Molecule

Both treaty orders were written narrowly, and that is what carries forward. The 2018 order covered FDA-approved drugs containing cannabidiol derived from cannabis with no more than 0.1 percent tetrahydrocannabinols. It did not move cannabidiol.¹¹ The 2026 rule covers FDA-approved products containing marijuana and adds an expedited registration route for state medical marijuana licensees. It did not move marijuana.¹³

Read that pattern onto psilocybin and the conclusion is an inference, well supported, rather than a finding: an approval-driven rescheduling would most likely reach the approved product and leave the substance in Schedule I. The two state programs everyone assumes would benefit, Oregon's licensed psilocybin services and Colorado's regulated natural medicine program, would then be untouched, because neither dispenses an FDA-approved product.14,22

The strongest argument against that reading sits in the same chapter, and a sponsor will make it. Section 801a(3) directs that implementing the Convention on Psychotropic Substances must ensure that availability "to manufacturers, distributors, dispensers, and researchers for useful and legitimate medical and scientific purposes will not be unduly restricted," and that nothing in the Convention "will interfere with ethical medical practice in this country as determined by the Secretary of Health and Human Services."⁵ That is a thumb on the scale for the broad rescheduling, not the narrow one. It is also an instruction about implementing a treaty, not a limit on the Attorney General's scheduling discretion, which is why it is an argument and not an answer.

The same narrowness runs through the proposal published in September. DEA proposed to control each of the five tryptamines "including their salts, isomers, and salts of isomers," and nothing else.⁶ No esters. No ethers. It does not mention prodrugs; the word appears nowhere in the document.⁶ Luvesilocin is a prodrug of 4-OH-DiPT, not 4-OH-DiPT.²⁷

Whether a listing of the one reaches the other is unsettled, and the schedules themselves suggest it does not. Congress listed psilocybin and psilocyn as items (15) and (16) of Schedule I, separately, by name.² Psilocybin is a prodrug. Psilocyn is what the body makes of it. When Congress wanted both the prodrug and the active metabolite, it wrote both down. DEA has proposed to write down one.⁶

We Counted Ten States

Everything above is federal, and the federal step is the one that gets covered. The step after it determines whether a prescription written in a given state can be filled there, and the usual treatment of it is a sentence noting that states will also have to act.

The mechanism is not undiscovered. It has a name, automatic conformity, and a Justice Department guide to state controlled substances acts describes states adopting statutory provisions that tie their own schedules to federal scheduling changes, and reports that most state acts contain such provisions.³⁰ The uniform act those statutes descend from carries the same idea, and the commissioners who drafted it have proposed an alternative to the clause, because automatic conformity hands a state's scheduling judgment to a federal agency.³¹ That is the nondelegation question Missouri's courts answered in 1982.24

What the guide does not answer is the question a sponsor actually has. A provision that automatically adds control is not a provision that automatically removes it, and for a drug coming out of Schedule I the direction is the whole question. So we read the statutes.

Ten states, chosen for size, for relevance to psychedelic policy, and for being reachable: Oregon, Washington, Missouri, Massachusetts, Ohio, Virginia, Wisconsin, Minnesota, Colorado, and Iowa. In each one we read the scheduling-authority provision itself and asked a single question. If DEA moves psilocybin out of Schedule I tomorrow, what has to happen before the state schedule follows?

Figure 1. Of the ten state controlled-substances acts read for this piece, three follow a federal rescheduling of psilocybin without anyone having to act, and seven require an agency rule or an act of the legislature. Classification is from each state's scheduling-authority provision; the citations are in the accompanying survey, dispatch-vol2-state-survey.csv.

Three conform without anyone deciding to. Oregon never enumerated psilocybin at all: ORS 475.005(6)(a) defines a controlled substance as a drug "classified in Schedules I through V under the federal Controlled Substances Act," as modified under ORS 475.035, and the Board of Pharmacy's power under that section is the power to depart from the federal classification, not the power to give one effect.¹⁴ Washington and Missouri reach the same place by a different route. Washington's commission "shall similarly control the substance under this chapter after the expiration of thirty days from the date of publication in the federal register."¹⁵ Missouri's department "shall similarly control" and submit emergency rules within thirty days, "unless within that thirty-day period, the department of health and senior services objects."¹⁶ Both are mandatory, both have a thirty-day fuse, and both can be stopped by the agency that administers them. Missouri's version has been tested: the Missouri Supreme Court held in 1982 that it is not an unlawful delegation of legislative authority.²⁴

Four require an agency to write a rule. Ohio's board "periodically shall update the schedules by rule" to correspond to federal changes, a duty with no deadline attached to it.¹⁸ Virginia's board "may similarly control the substance" after thirty days, which is permission rather than obligation.¹⁹ Wisconsin's board did write the rule, for zuranolone, and we know what that cost: an affirmative action order effective February 5, 2024, to bridge the gap, then Clearinghouse Rule CR 24-058, effective June 1, 2025, six hundred sixty-seven days after the FDA approval.²⁰ Wisconsin's own filing states the reasoning without decoration: "The methodology was to schedule Zuranolone to conform with the federal Controlled Substances Act." The same filing recorded that Illinois, Iowa, Michigan, and Minnesota had each "not listed Zuranolone as a schedule IV controlled substance," as of August 12, 2024.20

Massachusetts belongs in its own category, and it is the one that should worry a sponsor. Its commissioner "may" delete or reschedule substances, with one exception: where a substance is newly designated federally, or is designated "a controlled substance of greater abuse liability," the commissioner "shall" issue a conforming regulation within thirty days. The mandatory duty runs in one direction. Massachusetts must follow the federal government when it tightens. When it loosens, the commissioner may.¹⁷

Minnesota is the trap. Psilocybin and psilocyn are enumerated in the statute, at 152.02 subdivision 2, items (21) and (22).21 Subdivision 8 lets the Board of Pharmacy add, delete, or reschedule substances by rule, and then takes it back: "The Board of Pharmacy may not delete or reschedule a drug that is in Schedule I, except as provided in subdivision 12." Subdivision 12 permits the board to "similarly and temporarily" control a substance after a federal change, by order, without rulemaking. That order "expires no later than 12 months after the date of issue and may not be renewed."²¹ So Minnesota can follow a federal rescheduling of psilocybin for one year, once, and then the statutory listing reasserts itself unless the legislature has amended it in the meantime. The board's remaining duty is to file an annual report recommending that the legislature do so.²¹

Two states simply require a bill. Iowa's board "shall recommend to the general assembly" any revisions it thinks necessary, annually, within thirty days of the session convening; psilocybin and psilocyn are enumerated at 124.204.23 Colorado is the same, with a twist that is hard to read as anything but a near miss. C.R.S. 18-18-201 reserves the power to "add substances to or delete or reschedule substances" to "the general assembly, by bill."²² Psilocybin sits at 18-18-203(2)(c)(XXI) as a bare entry. Fourteen entries above it, at (VII), MDMA carries an express exception: the listing does not include an FDA-approved MDMA prescription drug product placed on a federal schedule other than Schedule I, and any such product "must be controlled in Colorado in the same manner as required by any federal control designation."²²

That is automatic conformity, self-executing, already enacted, already in the same subsection. Colorado wrote the fix. It wrote it for a different drug.²²

Three of ten, then, and even two of those three can be halted by an agency objection. The honest version of the count is that one state in ten follows a federal rescheduling of psilocybin with nobody in the loop at all. Compass lists state rescheduling among its own launch prerequisites, which suggests the company has read these statutes more carefully than the commentary has.²⁸

What the Audit Found, and What It Did Not

The report is narrower than its reception. GAO reviewed DEA scheduling actions from 2020 through 2025: two hundred eight actions in all, ninety-five substances for which an HHS evaluation and recommendation was required, and eighty-four with a final rule as of December 31, 2025. DEA's final decision matched the HHS recommendation in all eighty-four. The remaining eleven sat under extended temporary scheduling orders. What GAO identified were gaps in written policy. DEA has no policies setting out roles, responsibilities, and procedures for scheduling, and FDA has none specifying how its staff are to conduct evaluations or develop scheduling recommendations.²⁵

GAO did not find the process unlawful, and it reached no conclusion about any substance.²⁵ Its reception has been another matter. On September 29, 2026, DEA Chief Administrative Law Judge Derek C. Julius stayed the marijuana rescheduling proceeding while he considers a motion to admit the report into the record. In an order dated October 14, 2026, he reserved ruling on that motion, directed the government to answer a motion to reopen the hearing by October 21, 2026, and kept the matter stayed.²⁶ An audit of missing written policy has stopped a scheduling proceeding for roughly a month.

Set that beside the ninety days. Eighty-four out of eighty-four is not a record of failure, and nothing here suggests DEA will miss a deadline it has not yet been given. It is a record of a process that has never been written down, run repeatedly on substances that resembled each other, and about to be run on one that does not resemble any of them: an approved medicine, with a label and a supply chain, whose active substance is in Schedule I and whose state listings are scattered across statutes and agency rules that do not move together. A perfect alignment record, with no written procedure explaining how it was reached, holds up right until something arrives that the last eighty-four did not resemble.

What Would Prove This Wrong

This analysis is falsifiable, and it is worth saying how.

If HHS recommends Schedule I for an approved psilocybin product, there is no ninety-day clock, because 811(j) is conditioned on a recommendation of Schedule II through V, and the argument here collapses into a different and worse problem. If DEA writes a rescheduling order broadly enough to move psilocybin itself rather than the approved product, the product-specific trap does not close and Oregon and Colorado's programs are affected after all. If DEA takes the position that 811(d)(1) reaches the 1971 Convention, the treaty shortcut is available and the precedents transfer. If the forty states we did not read conform by reference the way Oregon does, then the state step is a rounding error rather than a wall, and this piece has overweighted ten statutes.

Each of those is checkable, and none turns on anything secret. The fourth is the weakest link, and it has a published counterweight: a Justice Department guide reports that most state acts carry automatic-conformity provisions,³⁰ which sits badly with a ten-state sample in which only three conform by default. The answer to that objection is Massachusetts, where the automatic duty exists and runs in one direction only. However, it is an answer, not a dismissal, and forty unread states could break it.

Friday

The comment period on the five tryptamines closes Friday, October 23, at 11:59 p.m. Eastern. Requests for a hearing are due the same day. As of October 20, 2026, the docket held one hundred thirty-seven comments.⁷ DEA proposed these same five substances in January 2022. Five hundred eighty-two comments went in that time, and, in the agency's own words in the withdrawal notice, "four requests for a hearing."⁸ DEA scheduled the hearing for August 22, 2022, then withdrew the proposed rule and the hearing notice together and went back to HHS for a new evaluation, which arrived on April 2, 2026, recommending Schedule I again.⁶ The withdrawal notice does not say the hearing requests caused any of that, and nobody should claim they did. It does establish what four of them were enough to do: put a hearing on the calendar.⁸

Jack Gorsline's September 30, 2026 briefing²⁹ identified the collision at the center of this: DEA proposing Schedule I for a compound that is the active moiety of a breakthrough-designated drug, nine days after FDA held a public hearing on the potential future therapeutic use of psychedelic drugs.³² The ninety-day clock is what happens when that collision is resolved in the drug's favor.

Four things are not established, and should not be written as though they were. Whether DEA will issue an interim final rule within ninety days for a psychedelic is unknown; it has done so once, for one neurosteroid, eighty-eight days after the clock started. What schedule HHS will recommend for COMP360 is unknown; Compass's base case is Schedule III, a company expectation and not a government position. Whether a Schedule I listing of 4-OH-DiPT would reach a prodrug of it is unsettled, and the September notice does not address the question. And the count above is ten states, not fifty, in a sample chosen partly for which websites would answer.

What to File, and By When

That count, ten states of fifty, is the number to ask for. The forty we did not reach are not classified, not privileged, and not hard: each answer is one provision of one chapter of one state code, and the whole thing is a week of somebody's time. On the present schedule, a patient in Minnesota could be handed a prescription that no pharmacy in the state can fill, in a state whose board is permitted to fix that for twelve months and is then forbidden to fix it at all. Somebody should know how many states that is before it happens, and right now nobody does.

Author disclosure. Odette Alina Hauke, M.S., is an epidemiologist and independent regulatory scientist advising sponsors developing oncology, rare disease, and psychedelic therapeutics, including LSD, MDMA, DMT, and ibogaine. She previously served as Associate Director of Regulatory Affairs at AtaiBeckley and has provided regulatory consulting support to its ibogaine, R-MDMA, and DMT programs. She brings more than 13 years of experience navigating regulatory requirements before the FDA, DEA, EMA, MHRA, and Health Canada, and has authored hundreds of investigational new drug (IND) applications in oncology and rare disease. She has no current or former advisory, consulting, or financial relationship with Compass Pathways or Reunion Neuroscience, the two sponsors discussed in this article.

Sources

1. 21 U.S.C. 811, including subsections (d), (f), and (j). U.S. Code, 2024 edition. https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCODE-2024-title21/html/USCODE-2024-title21-chap13-subchapI-partB-sec811.htm ↩
2. 21 U.S.C. 812, Schedule I(c), items (15) and (16). https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCODE-2024-title21/html/USCODE-2024-title21-chap13-subchapI-partB-sec812.htm ↩
3. 21 U.S.C. 355(x), date of approval in the case of recommended controls under the CSA. https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCODE-2024-title21/html/USCODE-2024-title21-chap9-subchapV-partA-sec355.htm ↩
4. Public Law 114-89, November 25, 2015, 129 Stat. 700, which added 21 U.S.C. 811(j).
5. 21 U.S.C. 801a, congressional findings and declarations on psychotropic substances, paragraphs (2) and (3). https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCODE-2024-title21/html/USCODE-2024-title21-chap13-subchapI-partA-sec801a.htm ↩
6. Schedules of Controlled Substances: Placement of 4-Hydroxy-N,N-Diisopropyltryptamine (4-OH-DiPT), 5-MeO-AMT, 5-MeO-MiPT, 5-MeO-DET, and DiPT Into Schedule I, notice of proposed rulemaking, 91 FR 60338 (September 23, 2026), Docket No. DEA1715. https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2026/09/23/2026-19400/ ↩
7. Dockets DEA-2026-1585 and DEA-2022-0001, comment counts and the HHS and DEA eight-factor analyses. https://www.regulations.gov/docket/DEA-2026-1585 ↩
8. Placement of five tryptamines in Schedule I, notice of proposed rulemaking, 87 FR 2376 (January 14, 2022); notice of hearing, 87 FR 40167 (July 6, 2022); withdrawal of proposed rule and notice of hearing, 87 FR 45076 (July 27, 2022). ↩
9. Schedules of Controlled Substances: Placement of Zuranolone in Schedule IV, interim final rule, 88 FR 74347 (October 31, 2023). https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2023/10/31/2023-23982/ ↩
10. Schedules of Controlled Substances: Placement of Zuranolone in Schedule IV, final rule, 89 FR 65991 (August 14, 2024). https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2024/08/14/2024-18087/
11. Schedules of Controlled Substances: Placement in Schedule V of Certain FDA-Approved Drugs Containing Cannabidiol, final order, 83 FR 48950 (September 28, 2018). https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2018/09/28/2018-21121/ ↩
12. Implementation of the Agriculture Improvement Act of 2018, interim final rule, 85 FR 51639 (August 21, 2020), removing the approved cannabidiol drugs listing from 21 CFR 1308.15. https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2020/08/21/2020-17356/ ↩
13. Schedules of Controlled Substances: Rescheduling of Food and Drug Administration Approved Products Containing Marijuana From Schedule I to Schedule III, final rule, 91 FR 22714 (April 28, 2026), AG Order No. 6754-2026. https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2026/04/28/2026-08176/ ↩
14. Oregon Revised Statutes 475.005(6) and 475.035. https://www.oregonlegislature.gov/bills_laws/ors/ors475.html ↩
15. Revised Code of Washington 69.50.201. https://app.leg.wa.gov/RCW/default.aspx?cite=69.50.201 ↩
16. Missouri Revised Statutes 195.015. https://revisor.mo.gov/main/OneSection.aspx?section=195.015 ↩
17. Massachusetts General Laws chapter 94C, section 2. https://malegislature.gov/Laws/GeneralLaws/PartI/TitleXV/Chapter94C/Section2 ↩
18. Ohio Revised Code 3719.41. https://codes.ohio.gov/ohio-revised-code/section-3719.41 ↩
19. Code of Virginia 54.1-3443. https://law.lis.virginia.gov/vacode/title54.1/chapter34/section54.1-3443/ ↩
20. Wisconsin Clearinghouse Rule CR 24-058, scheduling zuranolone, Controlled Substances Board, effective June 1, 2025, including the comparison with rules in adjacent states published August 12, 2024. https://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/code/chr/all/cr_24_058 ↩
21. Minnesota Statutes 152.02, subdivisions 2, 8, and 12. https://www.revisor.mn.gov/statutes/cite/152.02 ↩
22. Colorado Revised Statutes 18-18-201, 18-18-203, and 18-18-302. Colorado Revised Statutes 2024, Title 18. https://leg.colorado.gov/sites/default/files/images/olls/crs2024-title-18.pdf ↩
23. Iowa Code chapter 124, sections 124.201 and 124.204. https://www.legis.iowa.gov/docs/code/124.pdf
24. State v. Thompson, 627 S.W.2d 298 (Mo. 1982), upholding Missouri's federal-conformity provision against a nondelegation challenge, as annotated to Mo. Rev. Stat. 195.015. ↩
25. U.S. Government Accountability Office, Drug Scheduling: While DEA Decisions Have Aligned with Recent HHS Recommendations, Both Need Comprehensive Policies, GAO-26-108623, September 23, 2026. https://www.gao.gov/products/gao-26-108623 ↩
26. In the Matter of Schedules of Controlled Substances: Proposed Rescheduling of Marijuana, DEA Docket No. 1362, Hearing Docket No. 26-96, order staying case, September 29, 2026, and order granting leave to file a reply and ordering response to motion to reopen hearing, October 14, 2026. ↩
27. Reunion Neuroscience, U.S. FDA Grants Reunion Neuroscience's Luvesilocin (RE104) Breakthrough Therapy Designation Status, February 23, 2026. ↩
28. Compass Pathways, rolling NDA submission and launch guidance for COMP360, 2026 investor communications. ↩
29. Jack Gorsline, Weekly Psychedelic Policy Briefing, September 30, 2026. ↩
30. A Guide to State Controlled Substances Acts, National Criminal Justice Reference Service no. 184295, U.S. Department of Justice. Read via search index; www.ojp.gov returns HTTP 403 to automated retrieval, so the document was not retrieved and its publication date is unconfirmed. https://www.ojp.gov/pdffiles1/Digitization/184295NCJRS.pdf ↩
31. Uniform Controlled Substances Act, National Conference of Commissioners on Uniform State Laws, 1970, revised 1990 and 1994. ↩
32. Considerations for Potential Future Therapeutic Use of Psychedelic Drugs; Public Hearing; Request for Comments, 91 FR 43095 (July 14, 2026). https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2026/07/14/2026-14155/ ↩