On July 23, Students for Sensible Drug Policy (SSDP) representatives filed a prehearing statement to the Drug Enforcement Administration’s Office of Administrative Law Judges. It’s part of an effort to block the agency’s latest bid to classify two psychedelic substances as Schedule I drugs, the most highly restricted category. The DEA revived its previously failed scheduling attempt on December 23, 2023—to which SSDP quickly responded, filing a hearing request on January 4.
The substances in question—2,5-Dimethoxy-4-iodoamphetamine (DOI) and 2,5-Dimethoxy-4-chloroamphetamine (DOC)—are currently not classified under the Controlled Substances Act. They are widely used in medical research. DOI in particular, according to SSDP, has been cited in more than 900 research articles over the last two decades.
A Schedule I classification could also lead to the criminalization of anyone personally using these substances, though there is little convincing evidence of such use occurring.
“DOI and DOC are important research chemicals with basically no evidence of abuse,” said SSDP attorney Brett Phelps in a July 23 press release. “We are excited to fight on behalf of SSDP scientists so that they can continue the critical work they are doing with these substances.”
It isn’t the first time SSDP has faced off against the DEA over the fate of DOI and DOC. The agency filed a similar Schedule I classification request back in April 2022, but ended up withdrawing it four months later, after SSDP came out opposing the move. DEA officials then announced that they were “planning to publish a new proposed rule with an amended procedure.”
“An anti-scientific tirade of ignoring facts.”
DOI and DOC are centrally-acting hallucinogens known as phenethylamines—a class of compounds that also includes MDMA and methamphetamine. They’re also both highly selective agonists for key serotonin 2 receptors in the brain, which, given roughly 80 percent of antidepressants on the market are serotonin antagonists, makes them extremely useful compounds for scientific research.
SSDP Science Policy Committee Chair Elijah Ullman said in the press release that restricting access to DOI and DOC “will make it more difficult for researchers to work on the serotonin 2 receptor.” Ullman, a current PhD candidate in molecular and systems pharmacology at Emory University, went on to describe the DEA’s Schedule I classification campaign as “an anti-scientific tirade of ignoring facts.”
The SSDP statement also highlighted the financial burdens a Schedule I classification imposes on researchers. “Obtaining a Schedule I license involves a daunting array of red tape and substantial costs, which can be prohibitive for many research institutions, particularly smaller labs and academic departments.”
The DEA’s campaign against DOI and DOC is centered around the substances’ supposed potential for “abuse.” But the evidence provided by the agency’s joint report with the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) from April 2022 is, by its own admission, limited in scope.
In their Schedule I proposal filing, DEA officials noted that “the history and current pattern of abuse of DOI and DOC are described in law enforcement reports and anecdotal reports by drug abusers.”
The proposal even concedes that “it is impossible to know if the street drugs sold to an individual as DOI or DOC are actually the substances they are marketed as in the absence of chemical analysis or evaluation of biological fluids following ingestion.”
Another of the DEA’s claimed concerns over potential “abuse” of DOI and DOC is that “there is significant diversion of the drug or substance from legitimate drug channels.” But just a few sentences later, the agency acknowledges that despite the commercial availability of these substances from many chemical synthesis companies operating in the United States, that “there is no evidence of diversion from these companies.”
“The government admits DOI is not being diverted, yet insists on placing this substance in such a restricted class that it will disrupt virtually all current research.”
Even more confounding, the DEA’s proposal claims that “[the] DEA and HHS know of no clinical studies or petitioners claiming an accepted medical use in the United States.”
But DOI in particular has been utilized for research articles in “leading journals such as Cell, Nature, and Science,” SSDP’s prehearing statement responds, and the number of publications “has only grown in the last two years.”
In one study published in Molecular Psychiatry earlier in 2024, for example, researchers concluded that “DOI’s facilitation of both cognitive adaptation and novel thinking strategies may contribute to the clinical benefits of psychedelic-assisted therapy, particularly in cases of perseverative behaviors and a resistance to change seen in depression, anxiety, or addiction.”
SSDP’s opposition to the DEA’s renewed campaign against DOI and DOC is part of a coalescent effort alongside UC-Berkeley neuroscientist Dr. Raul Ramos, who is represented by Denver-based attorney Robert Rush.
“The DEA’s attempt to classify DOI, a compound of great significance to both psychedelic and fundamental serotonin research, as a Schedule I substance exemplifies an administrative agency overstepping its bounds,” said Rush, who filed an additional petition to challenge the DEA’s scheduling proposal.
“The government admits DOI is not being diverted for use outside of scientific research yet insists on placing this substance in such a restricted class that it will disrupt virtually all current research,” he continued. “In light of recent Supreme Court decisions, we look forward to aggressively fighting to stop this injustice.”
“In addition to fighting them in court, we’re trying to get public attention on this.”
The next step in the struggle over the DEA’s scheduling plan is a pretrial conference on July 29. SSDP hopes a public hearing will soon follow—although a planned June 10 public hearing was canceled, in the wake of Panacea Plant Sciences filing a formal complaint and injunction request against the DEA in a federal court back in May.
SSDP Executive Director Kat Murti told Filter that she “anticipate[s] a hearing sometime in the next 60 days or so.”
Until then, Murti said SSDP will continue to be “focused on educating the American public about the incredible potential of both DOI and DOC, not only for researchers, but also to address serious public health problems like anxiety, depression, pain management, and even the overdose crisis.”
Given the undeniable impact of public input on psychedelic-related government issues of late, SSDP Director of Strategy and Development Gina Giorgio told Filter that the winter holiday timing of the DEA’s renewed Schedule I effort seemingly indicated that “the DEA is banking on no one knowing what they’re doing.”
Giorgio, who is also the founder of the North Carolina Psychedelic Policy Coalition, added that increased public interest in, and acceptance of, psychedelics could have a nullifying effect on the DEA’s attempts. “So, in addition to fighting them in court, we’re trying to get public attention on this.”
Murti emphasized that the coalition’s opposition to the DEA’s proposal “is not just about keeping two chemical compounds available for research; it’s about preserving the integrity of scientific inquiry, advancing medical treatment, and ultimately, impacting lives positively.”
“The DEA’s current path is a disservice to science, health, and the principles of justice and compassion,” she concluded. “Let’s stand together to advocate for sensible drug policy and ensure that potential treatments can reach those in need without undue government interference.”
Photograph (adapted) by Focal Foto via Flickr/Creative Commons 2.0