The Drug Enforcement Administration’s years-long campaign to ban two lesser-known psychedelic substances—2,5-Dimethoxy-4-iodoamphetamine (DOI) and 2,5-Dimethoxy-4-chloroamphetamine (DOC)—has faced consistent opposition from drug policy reform advocates, led by Students for Sensible Drug Policy (SSDP). Now, in a historic development, the DEA has scheduled a first-of-its kind, 10-day public hearing period on the fate of DOI and DOC.
A formal announcement from the DEA is expected soon. But SSDP representatives told Filter that according to court papers, the agency has scheduled the unprecedentedly lengthy public hearing to take place on 10 non-consecutive days, from November 12-22 and on November 25, at the DEA hearing facility in Arlington, Virginia.
An SSDP statement emphasized that “this hearing marks a crucial step in the transparent evaluation of these chemicals and their potential reclassification.”
The two substances in question—DOI and DOC—are hallucinogens that act on the central nervous system and belong to the phenethylamine class, which also includes MDMA and methamphetamine. Both substances are highly selective agonists for specific serotonin 2 receptors in the brain—and as a result are particularly valuable for scientific research, as around 80 percent of current antidepressants function as serotonin antagonists.
The hearing “offers a unique opportunity to shine a light on the incredible discoveries scientists have been making using DOI and DOC, and will totally debunk the DEA’s farcical claims.”
“DOI and DOC could lead to significant breakthroughs in treating some of today’s most challenging health issues,” SSDP Executive Director Kat Murti told Filter.
“Criminalizing the de facto tools for studying serotonin receptors will force medical science back into the Dark Ages, throwing away decades of research, including critical insights into anxiety, depression, pain management, and even overdose reversal,” Murti added. The public hearing “offers a unique opportunity to shine a light on the incredible discoveries scientists have been making using DOI and DOC, and will totally debunk the DEA’s farcical claims that these compounds have no accepted medical use and a high potential for abuse.”
According to Dr. Alaina Jaster, “DOI as a research tool is extremely important because it goes beyond psychedelic science.”
Dr. Jaster, now a postdoctoral research fellow at Wayne State University’s THINK Lab and host of the Psychedelic Brain Science podcast, told Filter that, “during my time at Virginia Commonwealth University, we were able to foster several collaborations [involving DOI] with other labs looking at opioid withdrawal and pain.”
Besides the potential for criminalization, criticisms of the DEA’s ban campaign have included that placing DOI and DOC in the highly restricted Schedule I category under the Controlled Substances Act would add financial burdens to researchers seeking licensure. That’s of significant personal concern to Jaster, as most of her research, “would not have been able to happen if it weren’t for DOI being unscheduled, as a few of these labs did not have Schedule I licensure.”
The feds claim their efforts to target DOI and DOC are based on alleged potential for “abuse.” However, an April 2022 joint report from the DEA and the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) acknowledged that the evidence supporting this claim is limited.
“The DEA’s proposed rulemaking … defies scientific study and will make it more difficult for researchers to work on the serotonin 2 receptor,” Elijah Ullman, a PhD Candidate in molecular and systems pharmacology at Emory University, who also chairs SSDP’s Science Policy Committee, told Filter.
In its proposal to classify these substances as Schedule I, the DEA conceded that reports of DOI and DOC “abuse” come mainly from law enforcement and anecdotal accounts. And without chemical analysis or biological testing, it’s unclear if drugs sold as DOI or DOC are actually those substances.
One of the DEA’s purported concerns is “significant diversion” of DOI and DOC from legal sources. Yet the agency has admitted that despite their availability from many chemical synthesis companies in the United States, there is no evidence of diversion from these suppliers.
Given the undeniable impact of public testimony on the FDA’s recent decision to reject Lykos’ therapeutics novel drug application for MDMA-assisted treatment, the DEA’s decision to open up the issue for serious public commentary might significantly alter the outcome.
“I look forward to the DEA being called to explain themselves … It is time they answered to the American public.”
The chance to build momentum against prohibition isn’t lost on SSDP leadership.
“With the upcoming hearing, we have the once-in-a-generation opportunity to stand up for the scientific community and reasonably communicate data,” Ulmann said. “I am excited to be a scientific steward in protecting researchers’ abilities to understand human health.”
SSDP Director of Strategy and Development Gina Giorgio thinks the DEA’s move in favor of more transparency could indicate that prohibition-minded federal regulators are finding it harder to hide from the science.
“As bureaucratic institutions start to see the scientific value in these compounds, we are reminded that the future of mental health care is in our hands,” Giorgio told Filter. “Young leaders and researchers are the catalysts for change, pushing forward the boundaries of legislation and research to create a more compassionate, evidence-based approach to drug policy.”
As for the hearing in the fall, Robert Rush, Esq.—a Denver-based attorney who represents UC-Berkeley neuroscientist Dr. Raul Ramos and is working in tandem with SSDP leadership on this case—highlighted the potential status-quo disruption that the elongated timeframe for public comment could bring.
“The DEA, for too long, has had a rubber stamp in their decision-making processes,” Rush said in SSDP’s statement. “I look forward to the DEA being called to explain themselves in blocking critical research that so many Americans struggling with serious issues may benefit from. It is time they answered to the American public.”
Image via Drug Enforcement Administration