DEA's Case For Scheduling Psychedelics Challenged In Landmark Hearing

In a rarely seen legal battle unfolding in a DEA courtroom in Arlington, Virginia, the future of two key psychedelic research compounds, DOI and DOC, hangs in the balance. The DEA's move to classify the substances as Schedule I drugs has sparked fierce resistance from researchers, neuroscientists and drug policy reform advocates, who argue that such a decision could cripple promising scientific studies.

In late 2023, the DEA renewed its push to classify DOI and DOC as Schedule I substances, following a previous attempt that was paused in the spring of 2022. While the agency had withdrawn its original proposal, it signaled intentions to approach the issue with greater strength. Now, the dispute has escalated to an in-person hearing, the first of its kind since the 1980s when MDMA was added to Schedule I, with many viewing it as a rematch. 

As Psychedelic Alpha reported, the case has attracted little public attention despite the consequences it may have on research. The petitioners, Students for Sensible Drug Policy (SSDP) and neuroscientist Raul Ramos are represented by attorneys Brett Phelps and Robert Rush, who aim to highlight the implications for psychedelic research and public health.

Research At Risk

Opponents of the DEA's proposed scheduling argue that it would severely limit vital research. DOI, in particular, plays a key role in serotonin-related studies, with scientists relying on it for breakthroughs in medicine. While it faces fewer restrictions as a research chemical, it would be classified as a controlled substance under the federal analogue act if used for human consumption.

David Nichols, a leading figure in serotonin and psychedelic research, testified that classifying DOI as Schedule I “would be a disaster for public health.” He and his son Charles Nichols have made major discoveries, including DOI’s anti-inflammatory properties, which could have broad medical applications beyond psychiatry.

Charles Nichols became interested in DOI after Hurricane Katrina destroyed his lab's supply of chemicals. His father recommended DOI as a substitute, leading to important findings about its anti-inflammatory effects. These discoveries underscore the value of DOI for research, and scheduling it could put an end to promising studies. While psychedelics research has focused on mental health, DOI's broader potential could be lost if it is scheduled.

Broader Drug Policy Concerns

While the hearing focuses on the research impact of scheduling DOI and DOC, it also raises broader questions about drug criminalization and the DEA's authority. Alaina Jaster, a neuroscientist at Wayne State University, testified for SSDP and Raul Ramos. A vocal critic of drug criminalization, Jaster shared how her family's struggles with addiction shaped her belief that “no drug should be criminalized.” Her testimony highlighted the human cost of the War on Drugs and how such policies often worsen public health issues.

The Government’s Weak Case Against DOI And DOC

The DEA's case for scheduling DOI and DOC appears flimsy. Their key witness, pharmacologist Theresa Carbonaro, struggled under cross-examination. When asked about law enforcement encounters with DOI or DOC in the past five years, Carbonaro admitted there were none, despite the DEA’s claim that the drugs were being abused. Her vague explanation—that a lack of evidence doesn’t rule out abuse—raised doubts about the case’s credibility.

The DEA’s report also relied heavily on internet forum posts from sites like Reddit and Erowid, which Carbonaro suggested pointed to emerging abuse trends. However, she couldn't verify the authenticity of these posts or show they were credible evidence of abuse. When asked if any use of DOI or DOC could be considered abuse, Carbonaro answered affirmatively, citing the FDA’s definition, which limits “abuse” to non-medical use of approved substances.

What's Next?

As the hearing enters its second week, SSDP and Ramos’ legal team remain optimistic. Co-counsel Phelps expressed confidence in their evidence and expert witnesses. The hearing is set to conclude by week's end, but the final decision on scheduling DOI and DOC will take several more weeks. Administrative Law Judge Paul Soeffing will review the testimony before submitting his recommendation to the DEA's Chief ALJ, John Mulrooney II, for a final ruling.

Cover image made with AI