DEA Tries Again to Ban Two Psychedelics After Giving Up Last Year, Sparking Researchers’ Opposition Once More

The Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) has embarked once again on the endeavor to prohibit two specific psychedelics, a course of action it had previously abandoned in its initial scheduling proposal last year. This renewed initiative has laid the groundwork for an anticipated and contentious clash with researchers and advocates who maintain that these substances harbor therapeutic potential.

In an officially published notification within the Federal Register on Wednesday, the DEA has resurrected its proposition to classify 2,5-dimethoxy-4-iodoamphetamine (DOI) and 2,5-dimethoxy-4-chloroamphetamine (DOC) as Schedule I substances under the Controlled Substances Act (CSA).

The DEA upholds that the scientific and medical rationale underpinning its revived prohibition proposal remains consistent with its previous stance from the preceding year. It asserts that these phenethylamine hallucinogens are highly susceptible to widespread abuse and conspicuously lack any recognized medical utility. The most conspicuous alteration in this latest notification pertains to the procedural facets associated with soliciting a hearing to challenge the authenticity of facts or the legal principles that form the basis of the scheduling action.

Upon retracting its previous notification, the DEA articulated an intention to present a novel proposed rule utilizing a modified procedural approach. The precise justifications necessitating this procedural modification are not explicitly elucidated by the DEA. Nonetheless, it is noteworthy that in the prior year, a coalition of scientists mobilized to petition for a hearing regarding the DEA’s proposed scheduling of DOI and DOC. Additionally, the psychedelic research entity, Panacea Plant Sciences, formally lodged a motion contesting this policy alteration, which had the potential to trigger the involvement of an administrative judge in convening a hearing.

In contrast to its earlier notice, the latest filing stipulates that the determination concerning the requisite of a hearing to address factual and legal aspects within the rulemaking process shall be rendered by the Administrator. This development has given rise to suspicions that the DEA is effectively introducing intricacies into the process, thereby potentially heightening the level of difficulty for external parties seeking to contest the proposed scheduling.

Challenges to DEA’s Psychedelic Regulations and Ongoing Research Efforts

Nonetheless, it is imperative to emphasize that Panacea Plant Sciences has once again raised concerns regarding this matter. In an interview with Marijuana Moment on Friday, the Founder and CEO, David Heldreth, conveyed that the response to their call to action against the perplexing regulatory initiatives of the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) has garnered significant and noteworthy support.

Heldreth expounded on the matter by stating, “The response within the psychedelic community, comprising legal experts, esteemed researchers, dedicated community activists, and concerned individuals, has been truly remarkable in their collective resistance to the DEA’s proclivity for prohibition.” He further underscored the burgeoning collaborative efforts by elucidating, “Panacea Plant Sciences has received inquiries from no fewer than ten distinct groups expressing their keen interest in actively participating in or offering support for the legal endeavor aimed at challenging the DEA’s efforts to criminalize DOI and DOC. It is paramount to acknowledge that these compounds possess intrinsic value for researchers and hold the potential to significantly advance scientific exploration in the domains of human cognition and physiology.”

The engagement of various stakeholders, representing diverse backgrounds and areas of expertise, serves to underscore the gravity of the issue at hand. Moreover, it highlights the widespread determination to safeguard and foster ongoing research and investigation into the profound dimensions associated with these substances. Panacea Plant Sciences’ steadfast commitment to this cause has catalyzed the formation of an expanding coalition of like-minded entities who recognize the paramount importance of preserving the integrity of scientific inquiry and the pivotal role that these compounds occupy therein.

The Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) encountered substantial opposition from research and advocacy communities in the previous year when it withdrew a proposal to proscribe five distinct tryptamine psychedelics through separate regulatory actions. Nevertheless, about the specific compounds 2,5-dimethoxy-4-iodoamphetamine (DOI) and 2,5-dimethoxy-4-chloroamphetamine (DOC), the most recent DEA notice still presents a deficiency in concrete evidence linking these substances to severe adverse health events or demonstrating a pronounced potential for abuse.

The official notice contends, “As of the present moment, there is an absence of documented instances of distressing responses or fatalities directly attributed to DOI within the corpus of medical literature.” Furthermore, it emphasizes that there exists no scientific or medical documentation reporting physiological dependence liability associated with DOI and DOC in both animal and human subjects. Despite these assertions, the DEA maintains that anecdotal reports from individuals who have shared their personal experiences online suggest that these substances elicit hallucinogenic effects. According to the DEA’s perspective, this lends credence to the notion that DOI and DOC possess a substantial potential to pose health hazards to users and threats to community safety.

Nonetheless, the DEA’s position is met with opposition from critics who argue that the agency’s stance lacks sufficient empirical support. They point out that the DEA’s case relies on only one reported incident of a fatality involving the use of DOC in conjunction with unspecified other substances, alongside two reported cases of hospitalizations attributed to the concurrent use of DOC with other substances. Many within the scientific community contend that such limited data do not warrant classifying these compounds within the most stringent schedule of controlled substances.

Furthermore, on the same day, the DEA issued a separate official Federal Register notice, wherein it explicitly designated three additional psychedelics, specifically identified as BUTINACA, α-PiHP, and 3–MMC, as Schedule I substances by the Controlled Substances Act (CSA). It is pertinent to note that these substances are already categorically considered Schedule I due to their classification as “positional isomers” of previously banned compounds. The supplementary action undertaken by the DEA primarily serves to formally enumerate them within the CSA.

Simultaneously, the DEA is actively pursuing measures to significantly augment domestic production of delta-9 THC and various other cannabinoids for research purposes in the forthcoming year. Moreover, the agency aims to maintain heightened levels of production related to psychedelics, acknowledging the burgeoning scientific interest in these compounds.

Meanwhile, in a distinct legal development, a federal appellate panel has rendered a denial of a motion put forth by legal representatives of a medical practitioner in Washington State. This practitioner had sought to initiate a rescheduling process for psilocybin under the Controlled Substances Act (CSA). In an order issued this week, a panel comprising three judges from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit rebuffed the doctor’s request for a rehearing of a prior court decision, which had deferred the matter to the purview of the DEA.

DEA Warnings to Georgia Pharmacies Amid Medical Cannabis Authorization

The Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) has recently issued a series of distinct warnings to pharmacies in the state of Georgia, underscoring the legal implications associated with the dispensing of Tetrahydrocannabinol (THC). This cautionary action is primarily rooted in the fact that THC continues to be classified as a Schedule I substance under the Controlled Substances Act (CSA). Notably, this regulatory development surfaced after Georgia achieved the distinction of becoming the inaugural state within the United States to authorize pharmacies for the distribution of medical cannabis. In response to this progressive shift, a substantial number of approximately 120 facilities have actively sought authorization to engage in the dispensation of cannabis oil, further accentuating the significance of this regulatory context.

Simultaneously, the conjunction of these regulatory measures has engendered a degree of unease and concern within advocacy circles. This apprehension is primarily attributed to the fact that these developments coincide with the anticipation of forthcoming outcomes stemming from the DEA’s ongoing evaluation of the scheduling status of cannabis. The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) has, notably, advanced a recommendation to reclassify cannabis to Schedule III. This recommendation represents a pivotal juncture in the broader discourse surrounding cannabis legalization and regulation.

It is crucial to acknowledge that while the proposed prohibition of specific psychedelics may not possess direct implications for the ongoing evaluation of cannabis scheduling, the arguments put forth by the DEA bear a striking resemblance to its longstanding rationale for maintaining cannabis classification as a prohibited substance. Central to these arguments are assertions surrounding the perceived absence of medical utility and the potential for a high degree of abuse associated with these substances. This parallel underscores the broader and enduring challenges associated with the regulatory framework surrounding controlled substances, both in the context of psychedelics and medical cannabis.