Ibogaine in Oregon: The Bill That Did Not Pass

This is one of the few questions on this site where the search results actively contradict each other, and where the record settles it in a single line.

On a recent first page of results for this query, two ibogaine providers stated plainly that treatment is not legal in Oregon. A third, publishing on 12 February 2026, announced that Oregon had made history as the first state to legalise medical ibogaine. All three were selling treatment.

The bill was real, and it died

The provider page does something most do not: it names the instrument. It attributes the change to House Bill 4110, and it is right that such a bill existed.

HB 4110 was introduced in Oregon’s 2026 short session with bipartisan sponsorship. It would have allowed an attending physician to provide ibogaine for post-traumatic stress disorder, major depressive disorder, anxiety disorders or substance use disorder, and would have exempted it from the state definition of a controlled substance, operative from 1 January 2027.

It had a public hearing in the House Committee on Behavioral Health and Health Care on 10 February 2026. It never left that committee, and the session adjourned on 6 March.

The Oregon Health Authority publishes an end-of-session report each year. Under the heading Notable Bills Not Passed, between a bill on involuntary commitment transport and one on behavioural health resource networks, it records:

HB 4110, Ibogaine. This bill would have authorized physicians to provide ibogaine to patients to treat various behavioral health concerns, under certain conditions.

The report is public. A bill that had a hearing on the tenth was reported as enacted on the twelfth.

How Oregon actually schedules a drug

Oregon mostly does not make these decisions itself, and understanding that explains what a real change would have looked like.

Oregon’s Schedule I is set by administrative rule, and that rule opens by adopting the federal list. Schedule I consists of the drugs and other substances, by whatever official, common, usual, chemical or brand name designated, listed in 21 CFR 1308.11 as it stood on 1 April 2025, plus a further enumerated list of Oregon’s own.

The version is fixed rather than live. The Board of Pharmacy re-adopts the current federal text by rule each June, so a federal change does not propagate to Oregon until the next filing.

Ibogaine sits on that federal list at paragraph (d)(21), among the hallucinogenic substances, under DEA code 7260.

Root bark is not a loophole

The most common question about this is whether the plant is treated differently from the isolated alkaloid. In Oregon it is not, and the federal text closes the gap twice over.

The first closure is in the preamble to the paragraph. It reaches any material, compound, mixture, or preparation, which contains any quantity of the listed substances. Root bark contains ibogaine, so root bark is captured. Total alkaloid extract is captured. So is anything else containing the molecule, at any concentration.

The second closure is in the entry itself. The ibogaine listing gives, among its other names, Tabernanthe iboga. The plant is written into the substance’s own entry.

It is worth seeing how differently the same list handles a plant it means to schedule as a plant. Peyote, twelve lines further down, reads: meaning all parts of the plant presently classified botanically as Lophophora williamsii Lemaire, whether growing or not, the seeds thereof, any extract from any part of such plant, and every compound, manufacture, salts, derivative, mixture, or preparation of such plant, its seeds or extracts.

Ibogaine is not drafted that way, and it does not need to be. Control follows the molecule, and the molecule is in the bark.

One consequence runs the other way and is a safety matter rather than a legal one. Because control follows the alkaloid, a powder sold as iboga that contains no ibogaine is outside the schedule. That is not a protection. A powder labelled iboga that contained no iboga killed the person who took it.

The two places a carve-out would sit, and it is in neither

Oregon could not quietly decline to schedule ibogaine. It would have to except it expressly, and there are two rules where such an exception lives.

The schedule rule carries its own exceptions subsection. It currently covers two industrial solvents held for legitimate manufacture, and cannabis. The cannabis entry is instructive: it excepts the plant Cannabis family Cannabaceae and its parts, and it does so per ORS 475.005(6)(b), the statute. That is the shape of a real plant carve-out in Oregon, and it shows the order of operations. The statute moves first and the rule follows.

The separate exceptions rule does its work by reference too, adopting the federal excluded-substances list at 21 CFR 1308.22, the exempt chemical preparations list at 21 CFR 1308.24, and the exempted prescription products table under 21 CFR 1308.32.

Ibogaine is on none of them. The federal excluded-substances list does not mention it, and the exempted-prescription route cannot reach it at all, because that provision applies only to nonnarcotic substances already in Schedules II to V.

This also explains why HB 4110 was drafted as it was. It went at the statutory definition of a controlled substance, upstream of both rules, which is where a change of this kind has to start.

Where the confusion comes from

Oregon has a genuine claim to having moved first on psychedelics, and that is almost certainly the root of it.

Oregon established a psilocybin services programme by ballot measure and statute, years ahead of any other state. It is a real, functioning, licensed framework. It is also a self-contained chapter covering one substance, and its grant of authority is confined throughout to psilocybin products and psilocybin services. A state that has licensed psilocybin service centres has not thereby created a route for a different Schedule I drug with a cardiac risk profile.

The comparison with psilocybin covers why the two are treated so differently, and why ibogaine is illegal covers the federal position that Oregon’s rule imports.

A business listing is not a licence

Search this term and Google will also show a business listing categorised as an addiction treatment centre, with an ibogaine name, a street address in Oregon and public reviews.

We do not name providers, and the point does not require it. A listing on a mapping service records that someone registered a business name and an address. It is not a licence, not an inspection, not a registration with a health regulator, and not evidence that anything lawful is happening at that address.

How to evaluate a clinic sets out what would actually be worth checking, and none of it is visible in a map pin.

What this means for someone in Oregon

The state offers nothing lawful, the bill that would have changed that is dead, and the pages telling you otherwise are selling something.

That leaves the question the provider pages are really answering, which is where people go instead. Where to get ibogaine treatment sets out the legal map jurisdiction by jurisdiction, without naming a provider, and what a treatment costs takes the price apart.

Before any of that, the cardiac risk and what screening should cover are the pages that change outcomes. A state line does not alter what this drug does to a heart.

What we could not establish

Whether a third bill is coming. Measures have now been introduced in two consecutive sessions. We are not going to predict a third.

Whether anything is being administered in Oregon. A business listing exists. What happens at that address is not something we can establish, and we make no allegation about it.