Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Psychedelic Medical Treatment topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Committee hears sharply divided testimony on bill to allow supervised ibogaine treatment
Summary
House Bill 4110 would allow attending physicians to provide ibogaine at certified treatment centers beginning Jan. 1, 2027; veterans and advocacy groups testified in support citing recovery stories, while forensic psychiatrists and the Oregon Medical Association urged caution citing limited evidence and cardiac risks.
The House Committee on Behavioral Health on Feb. 10 heard competing testimony over House Bill 4110, which would permit attending physicians to provide ibogaine to qualifying patients and would require consumption at certified treatment centers overseen by the Oregon Health Authority.
Sponsor Rep. Alex Carlotis said the bill is modeled on Oregon’s psilocybin framework and aims to provide supervised, domestically available care for people now traveling abroad for the treatment, including veterans with PTSD. Carlotis told the committee proponents want to avoid a large fiscal cost and suggested using a subject‑matter nonprofit, Americans for Ibogaine, to assist with certification to reduce the burden on the Oregon Health Authority.
Supporters included Dustin McCluskey, a veteran who testified that his treatment in Mexico “profoundly healed” his traumatic brain injury and PTSD and urged lawmakers to include synthetic ibogaine and broader access. Thomas Busey of the Libertarian Party of Oregon cited academic research and argued legal access would reduce risky out‑of‑state or underground care.
Medical organizations opposed the bill. Dr. Stephanie Maya Lopez, a forensic psychiatrist and co‑chair of the Oregon Psychiatric Physicians Association Legislative Committee, said ibogaine is not FDA‑approved and that the evidence to date is limited and often from small studies. The Oregon Medical Association’s Courtney Dresser expressed concern that passing a law authorizing physician‑administered ibogaine without FDA approval could put clinicians at risk of losing DEA or medical licensure and urged the committee to watch Texas’ parallel work and the FDA process.
Committee members asked why the sponsor did not pursue a study bill rather than immediate legalization; Carlotis said a study bill previously carried a significant fiscal note and would slow access for people he said need care now.
The committee closed the public hearing on HB 4110 after hearing pro and con testimony. No committee vote on the measure was recorded that day.
Authorities and context mentioned included the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA), Measure 110 (state behavioral‑health funding referenced by a witness), and the Oregon Health Authority for proposed certification and oversight. The bill’s staff summary listed Jan. 1, 2027 as the earliest implementation date discussed in testimony.
