Senate committee advances bill to authorize state-supervised ibogaine clinical trials
Loading...
Summary
The Oklahoma Senate Health and Human Services Committee advanced House Bill 38 34 to authorize the Department of Health to contract for stage 1 clinical trials of ibogaine, a federally controlled Schedule I compound, after witness testimony about veteran use and lengthy questions about safety, funding and liability; the committee voted 10–2.
The Oklahoma Senate Health and Human Services Committee voted 10–2 to advance House Bill 38 34, which would authorize the Department of Health to begin stage 1 clinical trials of ibogaine under controlled, medical supervision rather than legalize the drug for general use.
The bill's sponsor, Senator Fricks, told the committee the measure authorizes research only and is intended to support rigorous clinical trials to assess whether ibogaine can reduce cravings and post-traumatic stress for some people with substance use disorders. "This is not legalizing it in Oklahoma, just starting this clinical trial process," Fricks said.
Nate Morgan, appearing on behalf of Americans for Ibogaine, described his experience receiving medically supervised ibogaine in Tijuana in 2024 and said he has sustained sobriety and reduced PTSD symptoms for two years. "I took ibogaine under medicalized supervision ... and subsequently have maintained sobriety for 2 years and had a dramatic reduction in post traumatic stress symptoms," Morgan said.
Committee members pressed authors and witnesses on safety and implementation. Senators asked how many treatment sessions would be required, what medical screening is needed, and what the state's liability would be if a trial participant suffered a serious adverse event. Morgan said clinics used by the nonprofits he works with conduct pre-treatment screening (for example, cardiac QT-interval testing) and exclude people with bipolar disorder or schizophrenia.
Fricks and other proponents described a two-part design in the bill: (1) authorization for the Department of Health to contract for or host clinical trials, and (2) establishment of a revolving fund to support research. Committee members noted the revolving fund currently contains no appropriated dollars; Fricks said potential funding sources could include opioid abatement settlement dollars, tribal partnerships, and private matching funds, but that no appropriation exists in the bill as written.
Proponents cited activity in other states as a precedent for research authorization. Morgan and proponents said Texas initially provided roughly $50 million and later increased funding to about $100 million, and that about a dozen states have active legislation or interest; proponents also said some tribal governments had endorsed the approach.
Opponents and skeptical committee members raised questions about long-term costs, the secrecy and coordination of private partners, and the limits of state authority for a federally scheduled compound. Fricks repeatedly emphasized safeguards and the bill's limited scope to authorize clinical trials rather than open clinical use.
The committee recorded 10 ayes and 2 nays and declared House Bill 38 34 advanced. The next procedural step is floor consideration consistent with the normal legislative calendar.
Why it matters: supporters say the measure could accelerate clinical research into a potential new tool for addiction and PTSD treatment; critics caution that clinical trials of a Schedule I compound raise complex safety, funding and liability questions that the committee probed but did not fully resolve at this hearing.