A Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) administrative judge has denied the federal agency’s request to block a series of witnesses and evidentiary exhibits in a forthcoming hearing on its plans to ban a pair of psychedelic compounds used for research purposes.
OG Article: here
View our Fair Use Policy: here
A DEA administrative judge recently denied the agency’s request to block certain witnesses and evidence in an upcoming hearing on its proposed ban of two psychedelic compounds used in research. While Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) Paul Soeffing agreed to exclude some evidence from the 10-day hearing starting November 12, he rejected DEA’s push to prevent certain witnesses and materials. DEA argued that the witnesses and evidence were “incompetent, irrelevant, immaterial, and/or unduly repetitious,” but the ALJ disagreed, saying it’s too early to dismiss the input of expert witnesses, including those from groups like Students for Sensible Drug Policy (SSDP) and Panacea Plant Sciences (PPS), which have actively opposed DEA’s ban efforts.
This case centers on DEA’s effort to classify two psychedelics, 2,5-dimethoxy-4-iodoamphetamine (DOI) and 2,5-dimethoxy-4-chloroamphetamine (DOC), as Schedule I substances under the Controlled Substances Act. Both compounds are currently unscheduled and have been used in research focused on chronic pain, addiction treatment, and mental health disorders. DEA argued that testimony on the research impacts of Schedule I classification was irrelevant, but ALJ Soeffing disagreed, asserting that evidence on research limitations isn’t “per se irrelevant” to the proceedings.
SSDP Executive Director Kat Murti expressed satisfaction with the ruling, saying, “Science prevails! The DEA is trying to force medical research into the dark ages by criminalizing DOI and DOC… whose status as unscheduled compounds has made them de facto tools for researchers studying serotonin receptors.” She emphasized that the decision supports scientific integrity and could benefit people struggling with depression, anxiety, chronic pain, and those at risk of opioid overdose. Murti noted the significance of the over 900 published studies utilizing DOI and DOC.
PPS CEO David Heldreth also commented, stating they were “glad to see the judge denied the Biden and Harris administration’s DEA attempt to block our testimony,” adding hope that the rest of the hearing proceeds in their favor.
DEA’s initial scheduling of the hearing followed a public comment period, with the hearing set from November 12-22 and a final meeting on November 25. This follows previous attempts by DEA to classify these substances as Schedule I in 2022, which were met with opposition from scientists and researchers and ultimately withdrawn. DEA cited isolated reports of adverse effects, including one death associated with DOC use alongside other unspecified drugs, as partial justification for the reclassification.
Meanwhile, SSDP and other groups requested this hearing, arguing that DEA has not demonstrated that DOI or DOC have high abuse potential or present significant health risks. SSDP’s pre-hearing filing from July pointed out that no documented cases link DOI use to harmful responses or death in humans, nor have the substances shown strong potential for dependence. Research indicates these psychedelics may hold therapeutic value in treating anxiety and depression, especially as unscheduled compounds.
While the case on DOI and DOC scheduling unfolds, DEA also scheduled a December hearing to gather input on the Biden administration’s marijuana rescheduling proposal. This adds a potential delay to cannabis reform, which would reschedule marijuana from Schedule I to Schedule III, awaiting finalization after the 2024 presidential election.
Through this hearing, stakeholders hope to challenge DEA’s justification for its proposed bans and underscore the scientific and therapeutic value of psychedelics like DOI and DOC, which they argue have shown potential without high risk of harm or dependence.
Comments