Operating A Psychedelic Or Cannabis Retreat Abroad? Legal Liability Risks For U.S. Operators

Over the past few years, I have received countless requests to help people reduce liability when operating a foreign retreat. Most of these retreats involve ketamine, psilocybin, ayahuasca, and/or cannabis. Typical locations include Jamaica, Costa Rica, and Mexico. The laws in these countries, discussed below, can allow operators to conduct retreats with limited exposure if certain requirements are met. However, U.S. operators must account for two separate layers of liability: civil and criminal liability in: (1) the host country; and (2) the United States. Most people evaluate one but not both, or fail to consider US liability entirely.

How it starts

Typically, someone requests an introductory call to discuss an idea: they want to lead a retreat abroad, allowing participants to participate in psychedelic or cannabis journeys. They have either attended a retreat themselves, or they know others who have and believe the process is as simple as securing a suitable location. They want confirmation.

During the initial call, I explain that these retreats are only lawful if specific requirements are met. Some operators offer similar services without meeting those obligations. They just take on, or are ignorant, of the risks. I also explain that liability concerns do not stop at the host country's borders. Even where substance use is lawful locally, if a participant suffers an injury, mental or physical, and was not adequately informed of the risks beforehand, the retreat leader may face liability in the United States. This intro call usually leads to the person either engaging us to draft liability waivers and informed consents, or the potential new client decides not to move forward (at least that is what they tell me).

If you are going to lead a retreat in a foreign country that offers participants the opportunity to use intoxicating substances, you must protect yourself as much as possible from liability. You cannot eliminate risk entirely, but you can meaningfully limit exposure. A useful analogy is a parking garage. Most garages post signs stating they are not responsible for stolen items or damage to your car. In reality, they may still be liable under certain circumstances, especially if you paid to park. What the sign accomplishes is deterrence and expectation-setting. It discourages many claims and helps shape how responsibility is evaluated, even though it is not absolute protection.

Types of liability protection

There are two primary categories of liability to protect against: (1) civil and (2) criminal. The most effective tool against liability is a clear, well-drafted informed consent and liability waiver that fully discloses potential risks. Participants must be informed that the activity may not be legal in the host country, may involve health and safety risks, and that they are responsible for understanding both legal and medical risks and accepting them by participating. While this may lead some participants to opt out, that is ultimately beneficial. Individuals who withdraw at this stage are often those who may not fully appreciate the risks, and therefore present a higher potential for liability.

To be clear, these waivers are not a substitute for pre- and post-evaluation protocols of participants, and ensuring a safe and secure retreat location and travel.

Criminal liability in the United States

Criminal liability is comparatively straightforward. I wrote last year that current U.S. judicial precedent from the Eleventh Circuit, draws a clear line. Participating in controlled-substance activity outside the United States does not violate the Controlled Substances Act, so long as the conduct occurs entirely in a foreign jurisdiction. This remains true even if the same conduct would violate the CSA inside the United States, and even if the conduct may be unlawful under the foreign country's own law. The critical inquiry is whether there is intent to bring a controlled substance into the United States.

Accordingly, a key protective measure is making clear to participants that they are prohibited from bringing any controlled substance back into the United States and that doing so violates U.S. law. Written acknowledgements helps demonstrate that the retreat leader is not assisting or encouraging importation. It does not guarantee protection, but it materially improves the factual record and provides participants with accurate information.

Criminal Liability in the Foreign Jurisdiction

This is where local counsel becomes essential. We coordinate with attorneys in foreign jurisdictions to evaluate country-specific requirements. What follows is a brief overview of considerations in Mexico, Costa Rica, and Jamaica. Note: this is not legal advice; an actual legal analysis depends on operational details and objectives.

Mexico

Several substances may be permissible in Mexico when used for medical or religious purposes, but specific requirements apply. For example, ayahuasca ceremonies generally must be conducted by a qualified religious practitioner following recognized procedures. A retreat in which the organizer personally administers the substance typically falls outside those parameters. Many retreats nonetheless operate this way. If an adverse event occurs in that context, liability exposure increases.

Cannabis presents additional complexity. Recreational cannabis remains illegal. Mexico has decriminalized possession of small personal-use quantities, but enforcement varies significantly by state, with some jurisdictions more permissive than others.

Jamaica

Jamaica presents a unique situation. Psilocybin is not scheduled, meaning it is neither expressly legal nor illegal. Cannabis use is widespread, particularly for medical and religious purposes. Recreational use of cannabis remains illegal. But Jamaica it has decriminalized possession. As a result, retreats centered on psilocybin and cannabis are common. In practice, enforcement issues are uncommon when operations are conducted transparently, in well-established locations, and participants are provided with a safe, structured environment.

Costa Rica

Costa Rica has become a popular destination for retreats involving cannabis, psilocybin, and ketamine. All of these substances are illegal under Costa Rican law, with the exception of ketamine which can only be offered under specific medical conditions. The practical issue, however, is enforcement rather than legality. Further, authorities tend to focus on production and commerce rather than personal use. Those operating at established retreat centers without incident often face relatively low enforcement risk, but the underlying conduct remains unlawful under local law.

U.S. civil liability

Proper informed consent allows participants to assume certain risks, but it does not cover instances of gross negligence or risks that were not adequately disclosed. Agreements should include, at minimum:

• An acknowledgement that substance use in the host country may be illegal and that participants are responsible for complying with local law and ensuring they are healthy enough to participate; and
• A representation that participants will not bring any illegal substance into the U.S. and will comply with U.S. customs declaration requirements.

Even with waivers, enforceability of those waivers may be challenged if the underlying activity is deemed illegal by a U.S. court. Although foreign conduct involving controlled substances does not violate the CSA, courts have not yet addressed enforceability of liability waivers in this context. A court could conclude a waiver is unenforceable.

To reduce this risk, retreat organizers may choose not to be involved in the administration, sale, or provision of substances. One potential approach separates retreat fees from any substance-related services. Participants pay only for the retreat itself. Upon arrival, the organizer refunds any portion attributable to substance-related programming, and participants independently decide whether to use those funds for optional experiences offered by separate providers. Or simply don't include a payment for the substance in the retreat fee and leave that payment up to participants upon arrival. The third-party substance provider may independently offer services near the retreat check-in so that participants can contract and pay that provider directly if they choose. This structure reduces the organizer's direct involvement, although it also means a participant may decline to purchase the experience.

If a participant is injured while under the influence of a substance at a retreat, the organizer may face exposure under both local law and U.S. law. A participant could bring a claim in a U.S. court alleging the retreat environment was unsafe, or that the risks were inadequately disclosed. U.S. courts are not shy about taking cases involving injuries abroad.

When protective steps are followed, the retreat organizer is in a substantially stronger position to defend such a claim. When they are ignored, the exposure can be significant and, in some cases, financially catastrophic.

Conclusion

Foreign retreats are often marketed as operating "outside U.S. law," but that is only partially true. Criminal exposure in the United States can be limited so long as substances are not imported, yet civil liability can still follow the organizer home. The practical reality is that risk does not disappear when a plane crosses a border; instead, it changes form. Operators who carefully structure operations, obtain local counsel, separate themselves from substance provision, and provide thorough disclosures and informed consent can meaningfully reduce exposure. Those who do not aren't merely taking business risks, they are assuming personal legal risk that can extend well beyond the retreat itself.

Operating a Psychedelic or Cannabis Retreat Abroad? Legal Liability Risks for U.S. Operators

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.