In November 2022, Colorado voters approved Proposition 122 — the Natural Medicine Health Act — by a margin of about six points. The measure decriminalized four naturally occurring psychedelic substances for adults 21 and over and authorized the state to license a network of "healing centers" where supervised use would be legal. Three and a half years later, the first centers are open, the first facilitators are licensed, and almost nobody outside the legal-cannabis or psychedelic-therapy worlds has read the statute.
That's a problem, because tucked inside Article 170 of Title 12 of the Colorado Revised Statutes is one of the most consequential — and most misunderstood — religious-organization provisions in any drug law in the United States. This post is for people who live in Colorado, study at CU Denver, attend a faith community, or just want to understand what's actually legal in the state they live in. It is not legal advice and it is not medical advice. It is civic literacy.
Section 1: What Proposition 122 Actually Did
Proposition 122 — formally implemented in May 2023 by Senate Bill 23-290 and codified at C.R.S. § 12-170-101 et seq. — does three distinct things.
First, it decriminalizes four substances at the state level for adults 21 and over. The covered substances are psilocybin (the active compound in "magic mushrooms"), psilocyn, dimethyltryptamine (DMT, the active compound in ayahuasca), ibogaine (a West African psychoactive), and mescaline — explicitly not including mescaline derived from peyote. (More on why peyote is excluded in Section 2.) For adults 21+, personal use, growing, sharing without payment, and possessing these substances is no longer a state crime.
Second, it sets a small set of personal-use guardrails. Personal cultivation must occur in an enclosed, locked space no larger than 12 by 12 feet (localities can adjust this). Public consumption and underage possession remain a petty offense with a $100 fine. Selling for profit outside the licensed system remains illegal. The statute deliberately does not set a hard possession ceiling for personal use, which makes Colorado's framework looser on paper than Oregon's parallel Measure 109.
Third, it creates a licensed "healing center" framework. Two state agencies share the work. The Department of Regulatory Agencies (DORA), through its Office of Natural Medicine Licensure, regulates facilitators — the trained practitioners who guide sessions. The Department of Revenue (DOR), through its Natural Medicine Division, licenses the businesses — healing centers, cultivators, manufacturers, and testing labs. Final operating rules took effect October 1, 2024, applications opened December 31, 2024, and the first healing-center license was issued to The Center Origin in Denver on March 31, 2025. As of February 2026, Colorado has approved roughly 34 state-licensed healing centers with more than a dozen applications pending.
Until June 1, 2026, licensed healing centers can only administer psilocybin and psilocyn. After that date, the Natural Medicine Advisory Board is empowered to add DMT, ibogaine, and mescaline (non-peyote) to the regulated program. That decision is in front of the Board right now.
Section 2: The Religious-Organization Angle
This is the part of the law almost nobody talks about, and it's the part with the deepest implications for how Colorado actually changes.
Section 12-170-108 of the Colorado Revised Statutes — the section that requires licensure to practice as a facilitator — contains an explicit carveout:
"Nothing in this section prohibits an individual from performing a bona fide religious, culturally traditional, or spiritual ceremony, if the individual informs an individual engaging in the ceremony that the individual is not a licensed facilitator and that the ceremony is not associated with commercial, business, or for-profit activity."
Read carefully, this is a remarkable provision. Three things are happening at once:
- A "bona fide religious, culturally traditional, or spiritual ceremony" is recognized as legally distinct from the regulated healing-center pathway. Religious ceremony is not a subcategory of healing center — it's a parallel track.
- The state is not asking religious organizations to certify themselves to anyone. There is no application, no background check, no facility inspection. The two requirements are: (a) tell participants you're not a licensed facilitator; (b) don't run it as a for-profit enterprise.
- The Natural Medicine Advisory Board — the body advising DORA on rules — is required by statute to include members with expertise in "religious uses of natural medicines." Religious use isn't an afterthought; it's structurally represented in rulemaking.
Stack this against the rest of the statute and a picture emerges. DORA has authority under SB23-290 to issue additional license classes beyond those named in the original law. Religious and spiritual communities could either: (a) operate under the existing § 12-170-108 carveout for non-commercial ceremonies; (b) seek a future license class designed for religious/spiritual cooperatives; or (c) seek federal Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) protection for activities the state-level carveout doesn't reach.
That's a lot of optionality. And it sits inside a state where the Native American Church has had a separate, federally protected peyote exemption since 1994 — exempted from Colorado's Controlled Substances Act since 1992 — which is why peyote-derived mescaline is excluded from Prop 122. Indigenous communities specifically asked to be left out of the broader decriminalization wave because rising demand was already threatening wild peyote populations. The exclusion is a feature, not an oversight — and it's a model for how thoughtful drug law can coexist with religious-freedom protections that pre-date it.
Section 3: The Federal vs State Tension
Here is the part that gets glossed over and shouldn't:
Psilocybin, DMT, ibogaine, and mescaline are still Schedule I controlled substances under federal law. Schedule I is the most restrictive category — substances officially classified as having no accepted medical use and a high potential for abuse. The federal government has not rescheduled any of these substances. Colorado's law decriminalizes them at the state level only.
That means three things that are easy to forget:
One: federal land is federal jurisdiction. Rocky Mountain National Park, federal forests, military bases, and federal buildings are not covered by Prop 122. State decriminalization stops at the federal property line.
Two: federal employment, federal contractors, and federally regulated industries follow federal rules. A pilot, a CDL driver, a federal employee, a person working at a federally funded program — Colorado's decriminalization does not protect them. Colorado has no statewide drug-testing law that addresses psychedelics, so private employers can set their own policies. As of 2026, most haven't updated those policies for natural medicine.
Three: the religious-use protection at the federal level runs through the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993 (RFRA), not through Prop 122. This is where the constitutional history matters. In Employment Division v. Smith (1990), the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that two Native American Church members fired for ceremonial peyote use were not protected by the First Amendment's Free Exercise Clause — generally applicable laws don't have to bend to religious practice. Congress responded in 1993 by passing RFRA, which restored the requirement that the federal government show a "compelling interest" before substantially burdening sincere religious exercise.
In Gonzales v. O Centro Espírita Beneficente União do Vegetal (2006), the Supreme Court — unanimously, in an opinion by Chief Justice Roberts — ruled that the União do Vegetal church could legally import and use ayahuasca (which contains DMT) as a sacrament under RFRA. The federal government had failed to prove a compelling interest in stopping them. A 2009 federal district court extended similar protection to a Santo Daime branch in Oregon. More recently, the Church of the Eagle and the Condor (2022 settlement) and the Church of Gaia (2024) received DEA RFRA exemptions for ayahuasca use.
These wins should be read carefully. Per the U.S. Government Accountability Office, the DEA received 24 RFRA petitions between 2016 and 2024 — and granted none of them through the standard process. The wins came through litigation or settlement. RFRA protection exists, but the DEA's posture is restrictive. Religious-use protection under federal law is real, costly to obtain, and not a guarantee.
The Colorado state-law carveout in § 12-170-108 protects you from state prosecution. It does not — and cannot — protect you from federal prosecution. That gap is the most important thing to understand if you're considering involvement with a religious or spiritual organization that uses these substances.
Section 4: What This Means If You're at CU Denver
A few practical things, framed for civic literacy and not as advice:
Psilocybin possession and use by adults 21+ in private is no longer a Colorado crime. It remains a federal crime. CU Denver receives federal funding and is bound by the federal Drug-Free Schools and Communities Act, which means the campus is subject to federal drug rules regardless of what state law says. Campus policy is not state law.
Public consumption is still a $100 petty-offense fine anywhere in the state, regardless of age.
If a "natural medicine church" or spiritual cooperative invites you to a ceremony, the questions to ask are concrete: Is the ceremony non-commercial (no payment for the substance itself)? Is the organizer being clear that they are not a licensed facilitator? Does the organization have any DEA RFRA documentation, or is its protection state-only? "State-only" is not necessarily wrong — it's just different from "federally protected." Both exist in Colorado.
Drug testing. Colorado has no state drug-testing law. Private employers can test for psilocybin and other psychedelics if they choose. A failed pre-employment screen for a Schedule I substance is still a failed screen, even if your use was state-legal.
Banking and insurance. This is mostly invisible to consumers but important if you ever try to operate a religious or healing-center entity. Federally chartered banks are reluctant to bank Schedule I-related businesses — the same chronic problem that's plagued legal cannabis since 2014. State-chartered credit unions and a small number of specialized banks have stepped in, but it's friction, not a solved problem.
If law enforcement encounters you. State and local police in Colorado generally won't arrest adults 21+ for personal possession; they no longer have probable cause for a state crime. Federal officers — DEA, FBI, U.S. Forest Service rangers, military police on federal land — can. Religious-use claims under RFRA are asserted as a defense, typically post-arrest, and require documentation of sincere religious exercise.
None of this is meant to discourage involvement or encourage it. It's meant to say: the legal landscape is layered, and any single statement like "psilocybin is legal in Colorado" is incomplete. It's legal-ish at the state level, illegal at the federal level, and there's a religious-organization track running alongside both.
Section 5: What's Next for Colorado
The next eighteen months are when this framework either matures or gets reshaped. A short watchlist:
June 1, 2026: The Natural Medicine Advisory Board can begin authorizing the use of DMT, ibogaine, and mescaline (non-peyote) at licensed healing centers. The decision will be public, with rulemaking comment opportunities.
Healing-center buildout. Roughly 34 centers are licensed; the operational count is lower. Colorado will likely cross 50 licensed centers in 2026. Where they cluster (and where local jurisdictions zone them out) will shape who actually has access.
Religious-use license class. DORA has authority to create new license classes. As of April 2026 there is no formally proposed religious/spiritual-cooperative license, but the statutory hook is there if the Advisory Board recommends one.
2026 legislative session. The Colorado General Assembly is in session. Bills affecting the natural-medicine framework — on facilitator scope, healing-center insurance, local control, and labor protections — are tracked at leg.colorado.gov. Public testimony is open to any Colorado resident.
DORA rulemaking record. Every rule comes with a comment period. The state's Secretary of State office publishes proposed rules at sos.state.co.us/CCR. Anyone can submit written comment; in-person testimony is scheduled per docket.
Federal action. The DEA's posture on RFRA petitions is the single biggest external variable. A change in federal scheduling — or a sustained increase in DEA RFRA grants — would reshape the religious-use landscape overnight. Neither is forecast for 2026, but both are possible.
Closing: The Civic-Engagement Ask
If you took anything away from this post, it should be: this law exists, it has a religious-organization channel inside it, the federal-state tension is real, and the rulemaking that determines the practical shape of all of it is happening right now in public proceedings most people have never heard of.
Three concrete civic actions if you want to engage:
- File a Colorado Open Records Act (CORA) request. The Department of Natural Medicine and DORA's Natural Medicine division both maintain records you can request: licensing decisions, advisory-board minutes, complaint histories. CORA requests go to the records custodian listed on each agency's website. They are inexpensive and responsive.
- Submit public comment on a DORA rulemaking docket. When the Advisory Board considers DMT/ibogaine/mescaline expansion in 2026, comment will be open. Religious-organization perspectives have been thinly represented to date.
- Attend a public hearing. The Colorado General Assembly's House Health and Human Services Committee and the Senate Health and Human Services Committee both hear natural-medicine bills. Hearings are livestreamed at leg.colorado.gov and open for in-person testimony.
This is one of the rare moments where the rules are being written and there's room for ordinary citizens — including students, faith-community members, and people who have no skin in the regulated industry — to shape the result.
This post is the first in an ongoing civic-literacy series on religion, law, and public life in Colorado. It is not legal advice. It is not medical advice. It does not advocate for or against the use of any substance. If you are considering personal involvement with natural medicine in any form, consult a licensed Colorado attorney and a licensed medical professional.
Sources
Statute and rulemaking:
- Colorado Revised Statutes § 12-170-101 et seq. (Natural Medicine Health Act of 2022). Article 170 of Title 12.
- Colorado Revised Statutes § 12-170-108 (license required; bona fide religious ceremony exception).
- Colorado Revised Statutes § 18-18-434 (offenses relating to natural medicine).
- Senate Bill 23-290, "Natural Medicine Regulation and Legalization" (signed May 23, 2023, effective July 1, 2023). Available at leg.colorado.gov/bills/sb23-290.
- 4 CCR 755-1 (DORA Office of Natural Medicine Licensure rules, effective October 1, 2024).
- Department of Revenue Natural Medicine Division rules (effective October 1, 2024).
Election results:
- Colorado Secretary of State, "2022 General Election: Amendment and Proposition Results." sos.state.co.us/pubs/elections/Results/Abstract/2022/general/amendProp.html. Final margin: 53.6% Yes / 46.4% No.
- Colorado Public Radio, "Proposition 122, decriminalizing psilocybin mushrooms, headed to victory" (Nov. 9, 2022).
Federal case law:
- Employment Division v. Smith, 494 U.S. 872 (1990).
- Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993, 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000bb–2000bb-4.
- Gonzales v. O Centro Espírita Beneficente União do Vegetal, 546 U.S. 418 (2006).
- Church of the Holy Light of the Queen v. Mukasey, 615 F. Supp. 2d 1210 (D. Or. 2009) (Santo Daime).
- American Indian Religious Freedom Act Amendments of 1994, 42 U.S.C. § 1996a (peyote exemption).
DEA RFRA practice:
- U.S. Government Accountability Office, reports on DEA RFRA petitions 2016–2024.
- Church of the Eagle and the Condor v. DEA settlement (2022).
- Church of Gaia DEA exemption (reported 2024).
Implementation tracking:
- Department of Natural Medicine, dnm.colorado.gov (licensing dashboard, advisory bulletins).
- Vicente LLP, "Ultimate Guide to SB23-290" (industry legal commentary).
- Manzuri Law, "A Legal Guide to Natural Medicine Regulation in Colorado."
- Rocky Mountain PBS, "Colorado issued its first psilocybin healing center license" (2025).
- Colorado Public Radio, "Tour of three Colorado psychedelic healing centers" (Feb. 4, 2026).
Campaign sponsors:
- Natural Medicine Colorado campaign (Kevin Matthews and Veronica Lightning Horse Perez, co-proponents).
- New Approach PAC (primary funder, contributions exceeding $2.5 million per Colorado Secretary of State campaign-finance filings).
Word count: ~2,000.