Psilocybin mushrooms themselves are not specifically named in the U.S. federal scheduling system, however their two primary active chemicals Psilocybin and Psilocin are both DEA schedule 1. What has confused the issue of the clear illegality of psilocybin mushrooms is the fact that for some reason the states do not specifically list the mushrooms themselves.

Because these Psilocybin and psilocin (misspelled psilocyn in the U.S. code) are specifically named as illegal to possess, fresh or dried psilocybin mushrooms are also illegal to possess (Title 21, Section 1 (c) ). Because spores contain no psilocybin or psilocin, they are legal to sell and possess in all states except California, Georgia and Idaho. But in most states, it is illegal to cultivate or propogate spores into mycelium since mycelium generally contains both psilocybin and psilocin.

In a few States having Psilocybin Mushrooms is a Felony. In most possession is just a misdemeanor Equivalent to having a joint. But in ALL STATES it is a big crime to sell or possess for distribution. Only Florida does not currently have an applicable law against possession of psilocybin mushrooms.

Donald White has put together a great summary of state laws and penalties for Psilocybe Mushrooms. It can be viewed at North Florida Shroom Guide.

Growing hallucinogenic mushrooms not illegal, state appeals court rules

By BARRY MASSEY | The Associated Press
June 16, 2005
Growing hallucinogenic mushrooms isn't prohibited by a New Mexico law against manufacturing an illegal drug.
That's the legal conclusion of the state Court of Appeals, which has overturned the felony drug-trafficking conviction of an Alamogordo man for growing psilocybin mushrooms in his home.
Under state law, drug trafficking includes the manufacturing of illegal drugs.
However, the court said growing mushrooms was not covered by thedrugtrafficking law's definition of "manufacture."

The laws in the UK regarding the sales of fresh "magic" mushrooms has recently been changed to making them illegal to sell or possess.

Police seize magic mushrooms
http://news.scotsman.com/edinburgh.cfm?id=1656872005

http://www.theherald.co.uk/news/43188.html

http://www.nme.com/news/113037.htm

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/4691899.stm

Mushroom Case Law For Your Review

• Fiske vs. Florida, 1978
  Richard D. Fiske successfully had a conviction overturned in the State of Florida. This courts ruled that if Florida wanted to make wild Psilocybin Mushrooms illegal, they would have to specifically name them in the law. So far Florida has not chosen to do this.
  "This is a blueprint for not getting convicted of possession of fresh psilocybe mushrooms in the state of Florida."~Cowboy, North Florida Shroom Guide
• Iowa vs Atley
  Iowa Supreme Court ruled that Florida's Fiske ruling did not apply because the defendent was shown to know that they were producing psilocybin. Their petition to have the Supreme Court Review the Decision was denied.
• People v. Dunlap, IL 1982
  The Illinois Appellate Court essentially reversed the Florida Fiske ruling stating that "the term "material" is commonly used to refer to an item which is the source for something else rather than a finished product. A person of ordinary intelligence would be amply apprised that possession of or dealing in mushrooms containing Psilocyn is illegal." However, the court did differentiate between the two cases since the Fiske case was in regard to wild mushrooms picked from the filed and Dunlap was growing them.
  "An individual who cultivates or otherwise possessed Psilocybe mushrooms without knowing them to contain psilocyn [sic] would not be prosecuted successfully."
• Bemis V Indiana, 1994
  In a case similar to the Dunlap case, the Indiana Court of Appeals upheld a conviction because the defendant had been growing the mushrooms, therefore knew of the mushrooms psilocybin content.
• Kale V Indiana, 1988 (528 ne2d 799)
  Indiana Court of Appeals ruled that because psilocybin mushrooms were not specifically listed in the law, the state had to prove that the defendant knew of the presence of the scheduled psilocybin in the mushrooms.
• State v Justice (1985 - 704 p.2d 1012)
• Kansas Appeals court ruling that psilocybin mushrooms could be considered containers of psilocybin if the defendent was aware of the psilocybin in the mushrooms. They ruled that Florida's Fiske only applied where there was no knowlege of illegal conduct.
• State v Wohlever (1985, 500 NE2d 318)
  Ohio Court of Appeals ruling it was necessary that the substance psilocybin be named in the indictment and the state had only named the species of mushroom, which was not specifically listed as illegal in Ohio state law.
• State V Patterson (Wash.App., 679 P.2d 416)
  Another ruling that Fiske v. FL did not apply as mushrooms themselves could be considered containers for psilocybin.

Legal Status of LSD

In The United States, LSD is a Schedule 1 Controlled Substance.
This is defined federally as a drug which :

• Has a high potential for abuse.
• Has no currently accepted medical use in treatment in the United States.
• A lack of accepted safety for use of the drug under medical supervision.

In the U.K. LSD is Schedule I/Class A in the U.K., making it illegal to sell, buy, or possess without a license.