Purchases are not available yet. You can browse the site and sign in.
California Psilocybin Law: SB 58 Veto & City Rules · Microdosing College
Law
California Psilocybin Law: Why a State Veto Left a City-by-City Patchwork
By Microdosing College Editorial·Last updated June 7, 2026·7 min read
California psilocybin law sits in an uncomfortable gap: the state legislature passed a decriminalisation bill, the governor vetoed it, and several cities responded with symbolic resolutions that leave residents still exposed to state and federal prosecution. Understanding exactly where each layer of law stands is essential before drawing any conclusions about what is actually permitted — and what is not.
This article traces the path from SB 58's passage to its veto, explains what Oakland, Santa Cruz and San Francisco's deprioritisation resolutions actually do (and do not do), and maps the federal floor that no city resolution can lower. For the broader US picture, see our guide to microdosing laws in the United States and the pillar overview at microdosing laws by country.
SB 58: What the Bill Would Have Done — and Why Newsom Said No
Senate Bill 58, authored by Senator Scott Wiener, passed both chambers of the California legislature in September 2023. It would have made personal possession and social sharing of several psychedelic substances — including psilocybin, psilocin, DMT, mescaline and ibogaine — non-criminal for adults aged 21 and over. It explicitly excluded ketamine and MDMA and would not have created any legal commercial market.
Governor Gavin Newsom vetoed the bill on 7 October 2023. His veto message, published by the Governor's Office, acknowledged the "meaningful therapeutic benefits" the research points toward but stated that decriminalisation should be paired with "a comprehensive framework that includes treatment guidelines, community support and education, and guardrails to protect vulnerable communities" (Governor of California, SB 58 Veto Message, October 2023). In short, Newsom was not opposed to reform in principle; he wanted the infrastructure of a regulated system built before removing criminal penalties.
The practical result was immediate: California state law kept psilocybin and psilocin scheduled as controlled substances under the California Uniform Controlled Substances Act, and possession remained a criminal offence.
What City Deprioritisation Resolutions Actually Mean
In the absence of state reform, several California cities had already passed or subsequently passed resolutions directing local law enforcement to treat psychedelic possession as a low or near-zero enforcement priority. Oakland was the earliest and broadest, followed by Santa Cruz and San Francisco.
Oakland passed a resolution in June 2019 — before any state-level bill — directing the police department to make enforcement of laws covering entheogenic plants and fungi among the lowest priorities. The resolution was extended in 2022.
Santa Cruz passed a similar resolution in January 2020, covering psilocybin mushrooms and other plant-based psychedelics.
San Francisco passed a resolution in 2022 directing the city's police and district attorney's office to deprioritise investigation and prosecution of psychedelic plant and fungi use and possession.
These resolutions share two critical limitations that anyone relying on them needs to understand clearly.
First, a deprioritisation resolution is a statement of policy priority to city agencies — it is not a change to the law. State law still classifies psilocybin as a controlled substance. A city resolution cannot override state statute. California prosecutors are county-level officials and county district attorneys are not bound by city resolutions passed by city councils. State law enforcement — the California Highway Patrol, state park rangers — is not bound by them at all.
Second, and more fundamentally, federal law is completely untouched. Psilocybin and psilocin remain Schedule I substances under the federal Controlled Substances Act. The United States is also a signatory to the 1971 Convention on Psychotropic Substances, which places psilocybin and psilocin in Schedule I of the international treaty framework (INCB, Convention on Psychotropic Substances 1971). Federal agents operating within any California city are bound by federal law, not city resolutions.
The Federal Floor: Why 'Decriminalised in My City' Is Not a Safe Legal Position
The phrase "decriminalised" is used loosely in public coverage, and that looseness causes real legal misunderstanding. What Oakland, Santa Cruz and San Francisco have done is instruct their own police and prosecutors to treat these offences as low priority. They have not changed the criminal code.
Under federal law, possession of psilocybin remains a criminal offence regardless of what any state or city does. Federal prosecution for personal possession is rare in practice, but it is legally possible and has occurred in specific contexts — particularly near federal property, on federal charges relating to distribution, or in combination with other federal charges. The risk is not theoretical: it is simply lower probability than state prosecution in deprioritised cities, not zero.
Possession also interacts with other legal domains that city resolutions cannot touch: federal employment drug testing (relevant for anyone in a federally regulated industry), federal housing programmes, immigration status, professional licensing, and security clearances. Someone who possesses psilocybin in Oakland can still face federal employment consequences even if they are never arrested. See our guide to microdosing and employment drug testing for more on this dimension.
What Comes Next for California State Law
SB 58's author, Senator Wiener, introduced a successor bill in the 2025 legislative session. Separate legislation has also explored a regulated therapeutic access model rather than simple decriminalisation — partly in response to Newsom's stated preference for a framework approach. As of mid-2026, no successor bill has yet been signed into law.
The California experience illustrates a pattern visible elsewhere in the United States: city-level decriminalisation tends to outpace state reform, and both tend to outpace federal reform. This creates a genuinely confusing patchwork where the rules differ depending on who is doing the policing. It also means that the legal position of any individual in California can shift depending on whether they encounter city police, county sheriff's deputies, state troopers, or federal agents — all potentially on the same street.
For anyone weighing personal decisions in this environment, a useful frame is to distinguish between reduced enforcement risk (what city resolutions create) and legal protection (which requires changing the law). The former may reduce the practical likelihood of prosecution; the latter is what would actually remove criminal exposure. They are not the same thing.
If you are considering psilocybin use for personal wellness purposes and want to understand your individual situation more clearly, our self-screener is a sensible starting point — it is not a legal tool, but it addresses health considerations that belong alongside any legal assessment.
Summary: Three Layers, Three Different Answers
The California situation can be summarised by asking the same question at three levels of law:
City level: Oakland, Santa Cruz and San Francisco have deprioritised enforcement of psilocybin possession. Local police are unlikely to arrest for personal amounts. This is a policy posture, not a legal change.
State level: California psilocybin law classifies psilocybin as a controlled substance. Personal possession is a criminal offence. SB 58 would have changed this; Newsom's veto means it did not. No successor has yet been signed.
Federal level: Psilocybin is Schedule I under the Controlled Substances Act and under the 1971 Convention on Psychotropic Substances. Federal law applies uniformly across all California cities regardless of any local resolution.
All three layers exist simultaneously. A resident of Oakland is subject to all three. The city layer reduces one risk; it does not reduce the other two.
Frequently asked
Is psilocybin legal in California?+
No. Psilocybin is a controlled substance under California state law. Governor Newsom vetoed SB 58 in October 2023, which would have decriminalised personal possession. Some cities have deprioritised enforcement, but this does not change state or federal law.
Why did Governor Newsom veto SB 58?+
In his October 2023 veto message, Newsom said decriminalisation should be accompanied by treatment guidelines, community support infrastructure and safeguards for vulnerable people. He did not oppose reform in principle but wanted a regulatory framework built first.
Does Oakland's deprioritisation resolution make psilocybin legal there?+
No. Oakland's resolution instructs city police to make enforcement of psychedelic possession laws a low priority. It does not change California state law or federal law. Possession remains a criminal offence under both, and the resolution does not bind county prosecutors, state law enforcement or federal agents.
Can federal authorities arrest me for psilocybin in a California city that has deprioritised it?+
Yes. Federal law classifies psilocybin as Schedule I and applies regardless of city or state policy. Federal prosecution for personal possession is rare in practice but legally possible. City resolutions have no effect on federal enforcement authority.
What is the difference between decriminalisation and the city deprioritisation resolutions in California?+
Decriminalisation removes criminal penalties from statute — a legal change. A deprioritisation resolution is a policy instruction to local agencies to treat certain offences as low priority. It does not change any law. SB 58 would have achieved decriminalisation at the state level; the city resolutions did not.
This guide is general educational information about microdosing, not medical advice and not a recommendation to use any substance. It can't account for your personal health. If you take medication or live with a mental-health condition, speak with a qualified professional before making any decision.
