Allows an attending physician to provide ibogaine to a patient for the patient's consumption to treat certain disorders.
Summary
HB 4110 would create a narrow Oregon law allowing an attending physician to provide ibogaine to an adult patient for the patient’s own consumption when the physician believes ibogaine may help treat a diagnosed post-traumatic stress disorder, major depressive disorder, anxiety disorder, or substance use disorder. The bill defines key terms such as “attending physician,” “physician,” and “ibogaine,” and limits use to patients age 18 or older who can make and communicate health care decisions. It also requires that ibogaine be consumed in a controlled setting with a health care provider experienced in managing cardiac complications available on site.
The measure also amends Oregon’s controlled substances law to exclude ibogaine from the definition of “controlled substance” when it is obtained, provided, and consumed under the bill’s conditions. In addition, it authorizes the Oregon Health Authority and the Oregon Medical Board to adopt implementing rules and bars the Medical Board from disciplining a physician who complies with the new section. The bill expressly states that it does not require anyone to violate federal law or shield anyone from federal enforcement, and it would take effect 91 days after adjournment, with the operative provisions beginning January 1, 2027.
Impact
HB 4110 would modify ORS 475.005, Oregon’s controlled substances definitions, by creating a specific exemption for ibogaine used under the bill’s medical framework. That change would affect physicians, adult patients with certain mental health or substance use diagnoses, and state regulators such as the Oregon Health Authority and Oregon Medical Board. It would also create a limited legal pathway for physician-supervised access to ibogaine while preserving federal-law disclaimers and leaving broader controlled-substance restrictions intact outside the bill’s conditions.
Sentiment
Based on the bill text and available context, the measure appears to be framed as a therapeutic access bill rather than a punitive or regulatory restriction, with sponsors from both parties suggesting some bipartisan interest. Because there are no committee transcripts or recorded votes in the provided material, there is no direct evidence of formal support or opposition in debate. The overall tone of the proposal is permissive and medically oriented, emphasizing supervised treatment, patient eligibility, and safety controls.
Contention
The main points of contention likely involve ibogaine’s legal status, safety profile, and the limits of state authority. The bill tries to address safety by requiring a controlled setting and on-site cardiac expertise, but opponents could question whether those safeguards are sufficient given ibogaine’s known medical risks. Another likely issue is federal preemption: the bill explicitly says it does not require violation of federal law or prevent federal enforcement, which suggests concern about conflict with federal controlled-substance rules. The scope of eligible conditions and the physician’s discretion to determine whether a patient may benefit could also be debated.