Robert Rush, Attorney at the Law Office of Robert T. Rush and Director of the Rights and Reason Project – Interview Series

As federal reforms for cannabis and natural psychedelics continue to evolve, the involvement of seasoned legal professionals in advocating for and drafting legislation is more critical than ever.

Robert Rush is one such attorney; with extensive experience navigating investigations by numerous “three-letter” federal agencies, he is now leveraging that expertise to advance reform on multiple fronts.

“Separation of powers and checks and balances are important to protecting their fundamental rights. Allowing the president this degree of power would greatly erode that separation of powers and would directly violate the Controlled Substances Act and the Administrative Procedures Act.”

What particular fields and subjects of law did you mainly study while attending law school at the University of Colorado?

Originally, I selected the University of Colorado Law School for its Environmental Law Program, but I became fascinated with intellectual property and entrepreneurial law and ended up focusing on those areas.

How would you say what you learned during law school has changed during your time as an attorney?

While CU Law provided an excellent foundation for practicing law, the impact of technology has been the biggest change I’ve seen. Legal research has shifted from combing through stacks of tomes in the library to being completely online. The ability to sort through and analyze data in minutes rather than days is a game-changer. I can literally search through a database with hundreds of thousands of pieces of evidence in a litigation matter and find individual documents supporting my case in seconds. Discovery in litigation has gone from boxes of documents piled to the ceiling to advanced analytics employing machine learning to predict the relevance of documents – and it does it very well.

How did your involvement in the Entrepreneurial Law Clinic and the National Lawyers Guild provide you with a better understanding of your legal specialties?

The Entrepreneurial Law Clinic allowed me to work with small-scale entrepreneurs and address the challenges they face when starting a new venture. That exposure to the real-world ups and downs entrepreneurs face has been very beneficial in working with entrepreneurs in the cannabis and psychedelic space. I’ve always been very passionate about activism and fighting for positive change. The National Lawyers Guild exposed me to a group of attorneys who incorporated activism into their practice, and that guided their careers. As a law student, I began looking at police interactions with the homeless, and over the course of my career, this eventually led me to challenge the DEA.

From a legal representation standpoint, what all goes into representing a company that has to respond to DOJ and SEC investigations?

Representing any entity under investigation involves a comprehensive analysis of the relevant laws and regulations, as well as the cases that apply them. You must truly understand your client’s position and the facts of the case at a granular level. This involves openly and honestly, and most importantly, objectively assessing both the positives and negatives of the case. While an attorney always wants to be passionate in their representation and vigorously argue on behalf of their client, it’s incredibly important to ensure that the client has a realistic perspective on the chance of success. Without this, the client is guided by emotion rather than reason in choosing whether to settle or fight. This isn’t to say not to fight the tough battles, but you need to be strategic.

I would imagine you must be incredibly diligent at all times, but what are some lesser-known aspects of having to represent clients during federal investigations?

The lesser-perceived aspects of litigating with the federal government often involve trying to read the lay of the land and look ahead. As Gretzky emphasized, you want to be skating toward where the puck is heading, not where it is. We’ve seen some rather monumental shifts in the law over the past decade, with a Supreme Court majority that is much more comfortable with sweeping change than with slow, incremental change through stare decisis, in which previous rulings and broader doctrines are changed only when strong justification exists. A good attorney must be able to sense which way the wind is going to blow, now more so than ever.

What inspired you to create your own law firm? As someone who studied entrepreneurial law in particular, how did your legal studies become especially useful during the process of creating your firm?

The decision to build my own firm stemmed from personal circumstances, prompting me to reevaluate what I wanted my work to represent. Both of my parents had passed away after extended illnesses, and like many people who have gone through it, the situation caused me to reflect on my life and the issues most important to me. Unfortunately, like most families in the United States, my family had been impacted by the opioid overdose epidemic. I view this as a fundamental policy failure from focusing on criminalization and prohibition for five decades, which only made the situation worse. Statistics were demonstrating that states that had legal medical cannabis programs were witnessing reduced numbers of dependency and overdose. I knew that I wanted to support the cannabis industry professionally.

As policy and law evolved to open up advocacy and representation for clients in the psychedelic space, it was a natural evolution of my practice. Now that has evolved to include work fighting for cognitive liberty, research freedom, and bodily autonomy, and to stop unnecessary drug scheduling with the Rights and Reason Project (www.rightsandreasonproject.com).

What would you say was the impetus for Colorado Proposition 122 getting first filed and then eventually passing in a November 2022 vote? And from your experience, how has the passing of Prop 122 increased access to psychedelics and hallucinogenic and entheogenic plants?

Colorado’s Proposition 122, the Natural Medicine Health Act, is the most comprehensive state-level drug policy reform in effect in the United States. Most people in the United States are unaware of just how expansive the reform in Colorado is, and that adults over the age of 21 can possess, cultivate, and share without compensation a number of psychedelic natural medicines, including psilocybin mushrooms. The interesting structure of Colorado’s program is that it embraces both an adult right to utilize the legalized psychedelics for individualized healing, personal and spiritual growth, and even recreation, while also establishing a regulated facilitator and healing center program. Colorado’s regulated program also includes cultivation, manufacturing, transportation, and laboratory testing licenses. They’ve done a really great job of balancing individual liberty with a structured model that provides access to the incredible healing potential of these substances in a regulated, safe environment, favored by some.

Proposition 122 evolved from the success of Denver’s 2019 decriminalization of psilocybin program. In 2021, the review panel, which included law enforcement, medical professionals, the district attorney’s office, and activists, published a report after three years of decriminalization. The report revealed virtually no problems. Based upon the success of Denver’s program, Proposition 122 was presented to the voters to let them decide if access to psychedelics could be a positive for the state. And like the positive results that we saw in Denver, we now see occurring throughout the state. Data so far shows that there is no significant increase in intoxicated driving, emergency room visits, or diversion to other states.

It’s encouraging to see that when you give adults actual adult rights regarding psychoactive substances and allow them to make their own choices, they behave rationally and responsibly overall. Individuals can cultivate entheogens, share them with their friends, and use them collectively, and do so responsibly, without an overbearing structure regulating them. Now I’m assisting clients on the regulated side of the spectrum, helping them apply for licenses to open healing centers. It is an extremely exciting time in Colorado, and I am hoping we will serve as a model for the nation.

From your clients’ experience, how does Colorado currently regulate psychedelics in a way that is compliant with Prop 122?

The Department of Regulatory Agencies and the Department of Taxation, which regulates Colorado’s cannabis program, implemented it pursuant to statute SB 23-290. The statute created several license classes – facilitators, service centers, cultivation facilities, product manufacturers, and testing facilities. In the regulated system, all administration of psilocybin must occur through a service center and a licensed facilitator. There is no provision for retail sales to the public in the system, which marks its considerable divergence from cannabis programs. Colorado has been very intentional about building a therapeutic access model rather than a consumer access model.

Colorado allows adults outside of this regulated system to cultivate and share without compensation. Therefore, people can access these plant medicines without creating a commercialized system. There was fear that these important tools for health, spirituality, and individual growth would be commodified and controlled by the pharmaceutical industry. Colorado’s system seems intentionally designed to avoid this while still allowing people to access plant medicines in a therapeutic, regulated setting.

As the Chair of the New York City Bar Association Sub-Committee on Psychedelic Law, what subjects are usually discussed during those meetings? Are there any upcoming city-wide ordinances or legislation votes similar to the bill in Oakland?

Discussions during our meetings focus on potential statewide legal reform and on individual city-level decriminalization measures across the country. New York State has had several interesting bills over the past several years, exploring different regulatory paradigms ranging from decriminalization to highly regulated pilot programs to even one considering psilocybin-use licenses for individuals, where they would take training to ensure they understood both the potential benefits and risks of psilocybin mushrooms and could use them in a responsible way.

I am not aware of any current bills in New York City looking to decriminalize either psilocybin mushrooms or other psychedelics, but the city does generally seem to be at the forefront of policy and culture, so I would never rule anything out.

Now that he’s mayor of the largest city in the country and ran on progressive policies during his campaign, do you think Zohran Mamdani would pass a similar measure?

I would be very hopeful that Mayor Mamdani would pass such a measure, but I am aware of the political realities of such a progressive mayor and the need to build consensus amongst a wide variety of stakeholders. I do think we sometimes see particularly progressive candidates pull back further than they would like in an attempt to appease more conservative constituencies. I’m personally hopeful that the mayor will maintain his moral compass and embrace human rights and human dignity and refuse to continue oppressive prohibitionist policies that have caused harm for decades, particularly to communities of color. I know there’s certainly a much greater chance of such a measure passing under Mayor Mamdani than under the previous mayor and former police officer Eric Adams.

As someone with vast experience in entrepreneurial law, how do you envision a market for psychedelics eventually forming beyond just a small statewide market? Would it resemble the current cannabis industry or be regulated differently?

This is a very challenging question when looking into my crystal ball to make a prediction. Some believe we will see a highly medicalized pharmaceutical model with administrative clinics and patented drugs, including the development of novel psychedelics-based compounds that have been modified to remove the psychedelic psychoactive effect from them and still maintain efficacy. Others hope to see a community-based, largely underground network of practitioners and providers. Still others see a spiritual or religiously based collective-use model.

I think whatever evolves will eventually be a hybrid of all the above approaches, and we’ll be very different from the cannabis model, especially in marketing and distribution. Classic psychedelics are used in a very different way than cannabis is used. Classic psychedelics tend to be self-limiting for the most part regarding frequency of use. While cannabis tends to be used more frequently, classic psychedelics like psilocybin mushrooms tend to be used much less frequently and in a different manner.

People generally aren’t going to come home from work every day and eat a couple of grams of mushrooms – at least not from what I have observed. There is microdosing, but I do not think we will see consumers microdosing in the same way as consumers use cannabis. They are very different substances used in very different ways and often for different purposes. Any entrepreneur looking to enter the psychedelic space needs to be aware of this.

As a very established lawyer in such a mostly uncharted field of law, what have been some of the most interesting or thought-provoking conferences and conventions that you’ve spoken at and/or attended?

My favorites have been the Multidisciplinary Association for Psychedelic Science (MAPS) conferences in Denver in 2023 and 2025. Anyone interested in psychedelics in policy, I would strongly encourage them to attend the MAPS conference in Denver in 2027. It is always an inspiring, motivational, and learning experience to be surrounded by several thousand of the most knowledgeable and passionate people in the psychedelic space. When you bring together so many incredibly dedicated people, a certain synergy emerges. In New York City, the Horizons Conference has been a staple of psychedelic science and policy for many years. I’ve had the honor to present at Harvard Law School’s Petrie Flom Center and U. Penn’s Philadelphia conference. The Petrie Flom Center hosts many great events with many leading academics and researchers. Regardless of which conference one attends, I would recommend focusing on connecting with people as much as on the content.

After President Trump’s executive order, do you predict a similar rescheduling for natural psychedelics such as the substances decriminalized in Prop 122? If so, how would that occur?

Trump’s executive order, which many people put so much hope in as rescheduling cannabis as a Schedule III drug, unfortunately, from a legal standpoint, doesn’t do a whole heck of a lot. The order instructs the attorney general to work on rescheduling cannabis “expeditiously”. Many people don’t realize that the cannabis rescheduling process that began under the Biden administration is still underway, as last I checked, and just stayed pending the outcome of litigation. To interested parties, as part of prehearing proceedings, filed a joint motion to remove the DEA from the rescheduling process. The motion claims, among other things, that the former DEA Administrator had improper secret communications with prohibitionist groups and had no intention of rescheduling cannabis. The Chief Administrative Law Judge John Mulrooney, presiding over the hearing, denied the motion but issued a stay pending the outcome of the interested parties’ appeal of his decision. This is procedurally where the process is stuck at – awaiting a ruling from the District Court on that appeal, and no one knows when the Court will rule.

But the broader point here is that the president cannot, through executive order, schedule or reschedule a drug. The Controlled Substances Act provides the methods for changing the schedule of a drug. A drug can be rescheduled through legislative action of Congress or via the formal rulemaking process, which is currently underway. The process of formal rulemaking requires publication in the Federal Register, an opportunity for an administrative hearing, the presentation of evidence and witnesses, and a ruling by the administrative law judge. Only after that can the DEA enter to reschedule in the Federal Register and change the legal status of cannabis. Although some stakeholders may be disappointed by these formalities required by law, it is also critical to note that the president, if they had this authority through executive order, could criminalize any substance that they wanted to or change the status of any substance to Schedule I that they wanted to with the simple swipe of a pen. Separation of powers and checks and balances are important to protecting their fundamental rights. Allowing the president this degree of power would greatly erode that separation of powers and would directly violate the Controlled Substances Act and the Administrative Procedures Act.

As much as I want to see psilocybin removed from Schedule I, an Executive Order is not the correct legal pathway to achieve this. The DEA is an administrative agency that has had an excessive amount of power to criminalize substances at will for decades. I do not have a great deal of faith, having been counsel at the first hearing regarding scheduling of a psychedelic compound since MDMA in 1985. The DEA does not see the value in psychedelics, and they cling to outdated perceptions from decades ago, based on political motivations and not sound science. Even as LSD has been granted breakthrough therapy status by the FDA to expedite development, the DEA’s lead counsel stated in his closing argument, “We all know the horrors of LSD.” The sad truth is that there is very little benefit to the DEA in rescheduling and descheduling a drug.

The DEA justifies its $4 billion budget by the number of drugs it has to police and the degree of a public health threat perceived. Rational policies that lead to positive health outcomes, such as harm reduction services or reducing criminal penalties, do not benefit their bottom line. The most straightforward way to legalize psilocybin is to redesign the CSA to require Congress assume its appropriate legislative role and to schedule all drugs, rather than improperly giving that authority to an unaccountable administrative agency like the DEA. Congress could easily reschedule psilocybin, but it lacks the will to engage in real reform that will benefit so many who have unmet mental health needs. Regardless, I will be fighting the DEA when it comes to drug scheduling every opportunity possible through my practice and the Rights and Reason Project.

Thank you for joining us, Robert! For more information on Rush Law, please visit its website. For more information on Rights and Reason Project, you can find its site here.