The Drug Enforcement Administration is seeking to block certain experts from testifying in an administrative hearing about the agency’s proposal to ban two psychedelic compounds that scientists say hold significant therapeutic potential.
Ahead of the 10-day hearing that a DEA administrative law judge (ALJ) scheduled for next month, the agency pushed back against the inclusion of multiple experts in the proceeding on the basis that the “proposed testimony and exhibits are incompetent, irrelevant, immaterial, and/or unduly repetitious.”
DEA further asserted that while the head of the agency can consider arguments on “barriers or hinderances to research” in the event that the psychedelics—2,5-dimethoxy-4-iodoamphetamine (DOI) and 2,5-dimethoxy-4-chloroamphetamine (DOC)—are placed in Schedule I of the Controlled Substances Act (CSA), allowing scientific experts to testify about the potential research harm without qualifying evidence “would result in a waste of judicial time and resources.”
“The Government argues that research harm evidence is not relevant to the issues and factors discussed above,” DEA said. That’s in spite of the fact that federal officials have repeatedly discussed the barriers to research associated with a drug’s placement in Schedule I.
Following a public comment period, DEA ALJ Paul Soeffing in August set an administrative hearing on the issue from November 12-22, with a final meeting on November 25, according to a recent notice that was shared with Marijuana Moment by the advocacy group Students for Sensible Drug Policy (SSDP).
On Thursday, SSDP filed a motion responding to DEA’s brief, saying that agency is “purporting much of the testimony and exhibits are incompetent, irrelevant, immaterial, and/or unduly repetitious despite the less rigid evidentiary rules that exist for administrative hearings where courts have repeatedly established that the [ALJ] has great deference in deciding what evidence may be permitted.”
“What is the DEA so scared of that these leading scientists must be muzzled?” Robert Rush, a Denver-based attorney who is working with SSDP on the DOI and DOC case, said in a press release.
“By trying to silence the world’s leading experts in neuroscience and pharmacology, the DEA is attempting to prevent the tribunal—and the public—from understanding the true potential of these substances,” he said. “We vigorously oppose the DEA’s efforts to stop scientific research and call on the tribunal to reject the Government’s motion and ensure that all relevant evidence is heard.”
This all comes as DEA separately scheduled a December hearing to gain additional input on the Biden administration’s marijuana rescheduling proposal—a move that will delay that reform from potentially taking effect until after the presidential election.
Meanwhile, SSDP was among stakeholders who requested the psychedelics hearing, in hopes of challenging what they view as a lack of evidence justifying DEA’s proposed ban. Researchers have pointed out that DOI and DOC, as currently unscheduled substances, have been key components in psychedelics research that show potential in the treatment of anxiety and depression, for example.
Researchers have also argued that DEA has failed to meet the statutory burden of demonstrating that either psychedelic compound has high abuse potential. There are no documented cases in medical literature of “distressing responses or death” related to human consumption of DOI, nor has there been any established evidence of a high risk of dependence, SSDP said in a pre-hearing filing in July.
Additionally, the research that has been conducted over the last 35 years on these psychedelics, including studies funded by federal health agencies, has yielded evidence that they may be effective treatment options for chronic, acute and neuropathic pain, addiction to opioids and alcohol and other mental health disorders.
The scheduling of the administrative hearing came about two months after a federal court dismissed a case challenging the constitutionality of DEA’s process for adjudicating scheduling actions as the agency seeks to ban the two psychedelic compounds.
Prior to that ruling, DEA had formally cancelled the planned administrative hearing, which came in response to an agency administrative law judge staying the proceeding in light of the now-dismissed lawsuit.
Panacea Plant Sciences (PPS) led the legal challenge, and its CEO David Heldreth told Marijuana Moment on Tuesday that the psychedelics research company “is still fighting the constitutionality of the administrative law judge and hearing process,” with a pending appeal before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.
DEA first attempted to ban DOI and DOC in 2022, only to withdraw the proposal amid pushback from the scientific community. The agency separately withdrew from a proposal to ban five different tryptamine psychedelics in 2022.
Last December, DEA announced that it would be trying to enact the DOC and DOI ban again. The agency’s notice about the scheduling proposal still lacks evidence that directly connects the compounds to serious adverse health events or demonstrated a high abuse potential.
“To date, there are no reports of distressing responses or death associated with DOI in medical literature,” it said. “The physiological dependence liability of DOI and DOC in animals and humans is not reported in scientific and medical literature.”
DEA said that anecdotal reports posted by people online signaled that the substances have hallucinogenic effects, making it “reasonable to assume that DOI and DOC have substantial capability to be a hazard to the health of the user and to the safety of the community.”
It did point to one report of a death of a person who had used DOC in combination with two other unspecified drugs—as well as two reports of hospitalizations that it said were attributable to the use of DOC with other drugs—but scientists say that hardly constitutes reason enough to place them in the most strictly controlled schedule.
In the background of this development, the Justice Department’s public comment on its proposal to move marijuana from Schedule I to Schedule III under the CSA officially closed last month. The newly scheduled administrative hearing on that issue comes after multiple interested parties—including former DEA leaders and state attorneys general—made the request.
Those requests were seen by many reformers as a way not only to push back on the Biden administration’s rescheduling plan but also to potentially delay the formal implementation of the action amid an effort by opponents to shoot it down.
Read the briefs from DEA and SSDP in the psychedelics case below:
Image courtesy of Students for Sensible Drug Policy.
Marijuana Moment is made possible with support from readers. If you rely on our cannabis advocacy journalism to stay informed, please consider a monthly Patreon pledge.
